Phillip Johnson interview (Communiqué, Spring 1999)
jaro...@my-dejanews.com
Spring 1999, Issue No. 6
Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
by Jeff Lawrence
http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
---
David Buckna
"Darwinian theory is the creation myth of our culture. It's the officially
sponsored, government financed creation myth that the public is supposed to
believe in, and that creates the evolutionary scientists as the
priesthood...So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural
authority, and of course has to protect its mystery that gives it that
authority--that's why they're so vicious towards critics."
-- Phillip Johnson, on the PBS documentary _In the Beginning: The Creationist
Controversy_ [airdate: May 1995]
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
maff91
>Communiqué: A Quarterly Journal
>Spring 1999, Issue No. 6
>
>Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
>by Jeff Lawrence
>http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
What does lawyer Johnson know about science?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/johnson.html
z@z
> by Jeff Lawrence
> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
the whole interview:
Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers.
And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
and so on.
The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
"Ask the important questions and examine the answers to
those questions to see whether they are true or not, instead
of getting off on these confusing sidetracks that has prevented
the truth from coming out."
"And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue. So, I want to ask questions
like:
Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
assigned to it?
Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before?
Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
designer?
The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing, which is practically nothing. That's
why the whole field is so crazy."
"It's just amazing to me when I got into this field that the scientists
couldn't see that or couldn't see the importance of it. I found it
hard to believe that otherwise intelligent scientists really believed
that the micro-evolutionary examples of mutations that could make
a bacteria resistant to antibiotics or something really are the same
thing as the creative process that created bacteria and human
beings in the first place, but they do seem to believe it."
"It was an enormous shock to me getting into this to see, in fact,
how bad the reasoning really is, how illogical the whole scientific
field of evolution is and how resistant the scientists are to having
any logic brought into it."
"Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
based on materialism."
"So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
and then live with the consequences of that."
"One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
of causation.
We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
of physical causes.
Or, perhaps it's psychological causes in early childhood as in
Freudianism, perhaps it's training as in behaviorism, perhaps it's
chemical reactions as in modern neuroscientific theories of the
brain, but these are all responsible for human action. And
whenever you go in this way, you end up in madness very quickly.
You actually cannot explain human behavior on the basis of
cause and effect relations like that."
"The physicalists, you know, scientific materialists tell us you can't
have thought determining action because we don't know of any
way in which a spiritual or immaterial thing can influence the
physical world. Only physical things can influence the physical
world.
Well, this to me just shows that your philosophy is totally inadequate,
because there is nothing we are more directly conscious of than
first thinking of something and then acting to bring it about. That's
simply true as a matter of our basic direct experience. Any theory
that doesn't account for it is a defective theory."
"If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
or whatever."
"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
"Galileo got in trouble with the professoriate of his day because
he was a cocky, arrogant theorizer who treated everybody else
with contempt. He was brilliant, of course, and he was right about
important things, but people who've studied the history of the
Galileo episodes don't find it too surprising that he eventually got
into trouble."
"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
"But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
the dominant scientific materialism."
"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
and the scientists came from all over and every message was
"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
Wolfgang
(An old (mono-, pan, a-)theist, atheist only in the spirit of
Ludwig Feuerbach)
Del
> > Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
> > by Jeff Lawrence
> > http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>
> Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> the whole interview:
>
> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
z@z
>
> Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
deceptive.
Wolfgang
Joe Zawadowski
> >> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
> >
> > Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
> > Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> > dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> > one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>
> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> deceptive.
>
> Wolfgang
How's this last paragraph for an example?
"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
and the scientists came from all over and every message was
"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
Please substantiate that "every message" given by the "scientists" (who of
course remain nameless) in 1959 indicated the views attributed to them
above. I think you will find that your hero Johnson is beating a strawman
to death.
Joseph Zawadowski, a.a.#249
--
"Freedom begins between the ears."
"I'd rather kill a man then a snake. Not because I Iove snakes or hate men. It is a question, rather, of proportion."
Edward Abbey, author of "The Monkey Wrench Gang"
Del
> >> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
> >
> > Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
> > Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
> > dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
> > one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>
> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> deceptive.
>
"Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
information that weren't there before?"
Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
changes. But for natural selection to work there must
be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
selection in the following:
"Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
to a false depiction of the scientific view.
I also find this interesting:
"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
Compare
"In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
-- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
-----
This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
Johnson's claims on their face such as:
"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers."
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue."
It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
motives derive from something other than a desire to
"explore the difference between good science and bad
science." Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
Mark Borok
> > Communiqué Interview: Phillip E. Johnson
> > by Jeff Lawrence
> > http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>
> Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> the whole interview:
>
> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
Okay.
>
>
> And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
> that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
> to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
> whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
> and so on.
Who is this "we"? Every Creationist I've heard on the subject so far has
brought up the bible, age of the earth, etc. There seem to be some who are
actually doing research, but these aren't the ones who are "talking" as
Johnson is.
>
> The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
> whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
> as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
> just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
> put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
This is totally grabled. There is no connection between the first and
second sentences.
>
> "And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
> think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
> determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
> always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
> gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
Those are the terms in which Creationists choose to argue (see above.) Why
blame the press?
>
> Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
> assigned to it?
It has a modifying power, but maybe that's just my nitpicking.
>
> Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> before?
>
> Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
> designer?
Since natural selection is being used by researchers to design new drugs
and software programs, then yes.
>
> "Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
> legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
> learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
> that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
> particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
> in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
> what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
> based on materialism."
He keeps harping on how materialism in science is a bad thing, but I've
never heard of any justification of how non-materialistic (spiritual?)
thinking can improve the scientific method. What advantages are there in
positing the existence of a creator deity when you're doing science? It's
useless.
>
> "So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
> and then live with the consequences of that."
>
> "One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
> unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
> human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
> of causation.
>
> We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
> into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
> crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
> of physical causes.
Okay, then, what's an objective way to determine if someone is insane? Or
should insane criminals be punished in the same way as sane ones?
>
> "The physicalists, you know, scientific materialists tell us you can't
> have thought determining action because we don't know of any
> way in which a spiritual or immaterial thing can influence the
> physical world. Only physical things can influence the physical
> world.
>
> Well, this to me just shows that your philosophy is totally inadequate,
> because there is nothing we are more directly conscious of than
> first thinking of something and then acting to bring it about. That's
> simply true as a matter of our basic direct experience. Any theory
> that doesn't account for it is a defective theory."
Who has said this and when? It's a self contradictory statement. A
scientific MATERIALIST by definition believes that everything can be
explained without invoking the spiritual or immaterial. Therefore, thought
must be part of the material world.
>
> "If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
> chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
> have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
> This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
> reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
> or whatever."
WHAT???? First of all, our hyper-developed brains give us a clear
evolutionary advantage. Even if scientific theories didn't have value in
themselves, they could be accounted for as a by-product of our high
intelligence. Of course, those theories lead to technological innovations,
which increase our survivability as a species. The last sentence shows a
very selective understanding of how natural selection works.
>
>
> "But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
> be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
> may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
> I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
> the dominant scientific materialism."
Interesting that he defends multiculturalism. In any case, it has no
bearing on scientific methods.
--Mark
> Wolfgang
> (An old (mono-, pan, a-)theist, atheist only in the spirit of
> Ludwig Feuerbach)
>
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
--
Mark Borok
"Restless Graphics"
Animation and multimedia design
http://www.mindspring.com/~mborok
Remove "spamless" from email address to respond
z@z
>>>> Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
>>>
>>> Thanks. It was painfully typical of creationist dishonesty.
>>> Didn't you notice? If you promise to admit he was being
>>> dishonest, and not to go off on a tangent, I'll point out
>>> one or two of his consciously deceptive statements.
>>
>> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
>> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
>> deceptive.
>
> "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> information that weren't there before?"
>
> Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
> vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
> he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
> selection in the following:
>
> "Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
> natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
> can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
> who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
> and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
> causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
> control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
>
> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
I do not understand well your criticism. It cannot be denied
that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
Where does this information come from according to you? At
least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
of this information by (random mutation and) selection. Do you
think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
statements" everywhere. (Furthermore the criticized
sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
> I also find this interesting:
>
> "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>
> Compare
>
> "In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
> incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
> natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
> unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
> Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
> that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
> and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
> explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
> to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
> does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
> -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
What's wrong with these two excerpts? Both seem completely sound
to me, although I myself would not write something very similar to the
second. And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
> This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
> Johnson's claims on their face such as:
>
> "We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
> to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
> mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
> of human software designers and engineers."
>
>"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
> science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
> because that just confuses the issue."
>
> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> motives derive from something other than a desire to
> "explore the difference between good science and bad
> science."
I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
of Johnson's previous quotes.
I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
no alternative theory was conceivable because of the
limitation of our human mind. Nevertheless I have a strong
desire to "explore the difference between good science and
bad science."
> Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
> Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
It would rather express it in this way: "Either his basic
convictions are right or reductionist Darwinism."
In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
therefore you should retract it.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Bigdakine
>From: "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li>
>Date: 4/3/99 1:23 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <7e6817$mi1$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>
>
>Hello Del!
>
<snippage>
>>
>> "Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
>> natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
>> can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
>> who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
>> and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
>> causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
>> control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
>>
>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
>
>I do not understand well your criticism. It cannot be denied
>that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
>beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
>Where does this information come from according to you? At
>least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
>of this information by (random mutation and) selection. Do you
>think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are known. And there
are several kinds of mutations that increase the length of the genome.
Basically the question of adding information (in the Shannon sense anyway)
requires that there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually make the
claim that "information" cannot be created by the evolutionary process.
By the way, how do you define information? How does Johnson define it?
>
>But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
>Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
>With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
>statements" everywhere. (Furthermore the criticized
>sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
Its not petty. It is stupid to talk about evolution without mentioning both
mutation and selection. Its like describing Christianity without mentioning
Jesus.
>
>
>> I also find this interesting:
>>
>> "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>> misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>> Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>> They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>> promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>> been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>>
>> Compare
>>
>> "In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
>> incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
>> natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
>> unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
>> Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
>> that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
>> and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
>> explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
>> to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
>> does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
>> -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
>
>What's wrong with these two excerpts? Both seem completely sound
>to me,
Really? That Gallileo was placed under house arrest and force to recant before
the inquisition is a made up story?
although I myself would not write something very similar to the
>second. And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
WHo said they were contradictory? Both statements are foolish.
>
>> This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
>> Johnson's claims on their face such as:
>>
>> "We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
>> to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
>> mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
>> of human software designers and engineers."
>>
>>"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
>> science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
>> because that just confuses the issue."
>>
>> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
>> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
>> motives derive from something other than a desire to
>> "explore the difference between good science and bad
>> science."
>
>I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
>of Johnson's previous quotes.
WHy?
>
>I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
>explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
>no alternative theory was conceivable because of the
>limitation of our human mind. Nevertheless I have a strong
>desire to "explore the difference between good science and
>bad science."
How would you know the difference?
>
>> Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
>> Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
>
>It would rather express it in this way: "Either his basic
>convictions are right or reductionist Darwinism."
Whatever...
>
>In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
>painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
>therefore you should retract it.
It was and Johnson should retract his books...
Stuart
>Cheers
>Wolfgang
>
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to realy foul things up
requires a creationist"
Del
Yes, I think you do.
It cannot be denied
> that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
> beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
> Where does this information come from according to you? At
> least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> of this information by (random mutation and) selection.
You demonstrate here that you understand what I am
saying with your parenthetical addition (above) to what
Johnson said.
> Do you think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
Let's leave out your parenthetical:
"At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
of this information by selection."
Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
scientist working in an evolution-related field who
explains the emergence of this information "by
selection."
Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
"explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before."
Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
>
> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
supported by anything he says in the interview. In
fact, what he says belies your interpretation:
"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
because that just confuses the issue. So, I want to ask questions
like:
Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
assigned to it?
Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
before?
Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
designer?
The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing, which is practically nothing. That's
why the whole field is so crazy."
----- End Quote -----
Note: "what natural selection can and can't do..."
"what natural selection is supposed to be able to
do..."
Clearly a straw man.
"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
1996]
"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
there is genetic variation in the population to begin
with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
there were no dark moths, the population could not have
evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
genetic variation.
> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
> statements" everywhere.
Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
conclusion as you are here.
> (Furthermore the criticized
> sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
"And you immediately see that there is this huge gap between
what natural selection is supposed to be able to do and what it
has actually been seen doing..."
> > I also find this interesting:
> >
> > "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> > misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> > Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> > They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> > promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> > been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
> >
> > Compare
> >
> > "In short, the reason that Darwinism and theism are fundamentally
> > incompatible is not that God could not have used evolution by
> > natural selection to do his creating. Darwinian evolution might seem
> > unbiblical to some, or too cruel and wasteful a method for a benevolent
> > Creator to choose, but it is always possible that God might do something
> > that confounds our expectations. No, the contradiction between Darwinism
> > and theism goes much deeper. To know that Darwinism is true (as a general
> > explanation for the history of life), one has to know that no alternative
> > to natural evolution is possible. To know *that* is to assume that God
> > does not exist, or at least that God does not or cannot create."
> > -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.14
>
> What's wrong with these two excerpts?
Both seem completely sound
> to me,
I'm sure they do. Others may have less problem seeing
the dichotomy, however.
> although I myself would not write something very similar to the
> second.
> And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
How so?
> > This revealing statement is useful, too, in evaluating
> > Johnson's claims on their face such as:
> >
> > "We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
> > to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
> > mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
> > of human software designers and engineers."
> >
> >"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
> > science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
> > because that just confuses the issue."
> >
> > It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> > incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> > motives derive from something other than a desire to
> > "explore the difference between good science and bad
> > science."
>
> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
> of Johnson's previous quotes.
You say that as if you thought I expected a different
reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
free objection.
I'm not.
>
> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
> no alternative theory was conceivable
Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
theory, cite it).
> because of the
> limitation of our human mind.
But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
Nevertheless I have a strong
> desire to "explore the difference between good science and
> bad science."
That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
know something about science. Tell me: what is the
simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
>
> > Johnson sees it as an either or situation:
> > Either his god belief is right or evolution is.
>
> It would rather express it in this way: "Either his basic
> convictions are right or reductionist Darwinism."
"reductionist Darwinism" is a theistic anti-
evolutionist phrase, not a scientific one. My analysis
is correct: He rejects modern evolution, and he does so
for theistic reasons. He prefers to play this down, and
indeed, it bears not at all on his _arguments_. However
when he offers no argument, i.e.: no reason or evidence
in support of his claims, just the claims themselves as
he did in his interview, then he is asking us to take
his word for these things. When he does, then his
personal biases become germane.
And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
scientific view means he must give up the most profound
thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
> therefore you should retract it.
On the contrary, I have shown just that. All you've
offered in rebuttal is name-calling and blatant
assertion. Therefore I think you should admit he was
being dishonest as you promised.
z@z
>>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
>>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
>>
z>I do not understand well your criticism. It cannot be denied
z>that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
z>beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
z>Where does this information come from according to you? At
z>least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
z>of this information by (random mutation and) selection. Do you
z>think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
>
> Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are
> known. And there are several kinds of mutations that increase
> the length of the genome. Basically the question of adding
> information (in the Shannon sense anyway) requires that
> there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
> Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually
> make the claim that "information" cannot be created by the
> evolutionary process. By the way, how do you define
> information? How does Johnson define it?
You do not understand the real problem. If you had tried to
understand the writings of Johnson, you would not argue in
such a way. That information has been created somehow
is a fact, but it is also a (logical) fact, that this information
cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.
z> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
z> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
z> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
z> statements" everywhere. (Furthermore the criticized
z> sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
>
> Its not petty. It is stupid to talk about evolution without
> mentioning both mutation and selection. Its like describing
> Christianity without mentioning Jesus.
It is stupid to mention Jesus every time one mentions
Christianity, don't you think so? That would make sense
in a discussion with uninformed people, but certainly
not in a religion discussion group.
And there is another aspect: the creative power must be
attributed rather to selection than to mutation. Random
mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
(the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
the information needed for a human body.
>>> I also find this interesting:
>>>
>>> "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>>> misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>>> Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>>> They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>>> promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>>> been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>>>
>>> Compare
>>>
. . .
>>
z> What's wrong with these two excerpts? Both seem completely
z> sound to me,
>
> Really? That Gallileo was placed under house arrest and force
> to recant before the inquisition is a made up story?
When Galilei started his famous conflict with some dogmatic and
influent clergymen, the heliocentric view was already spreading.
The heliocentric theory had been proposed many times before
Galilei. (The books of Copernicus, a member of the Catholic church,
were forbidden by the church only as a consequence of Galilei's
behaviour.)
And Galilei fought the genuinely new astronomy of Kepler
(replacement of the epicycles by modern physical laws) in a similar
way the religious orthodoxy fought the heliocentric view.
z> although I myself would not write something very similar to the
z> second. And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
>
> Who said they were contradictory? Both statements are foolish.
Wasn't it intended to give such an impression to superficial
readers? What's the meaning of 'Compare' (see above)?
z> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
z> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
z> therefore you should retract it.
>
> It was and Johnson should retract his books...
If all books with the same or a lower quality than Johnson's
had to be retracted, then certainly less than 1 in 1000 books
would survive such a selection.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Thomas Scharle
[...snip...]
|> You do not understand the real problem. If you had tried to
|> understand the writings of Johnson, you would not argue in
|> such a way. That information has been created somehow
|> is a fact, but it is also a (logical) fact, that this information
|> cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.
Yes, this assertion has been made.
(I will leave it to you to support the assertion that this is
a logical fact.)
However, even if this assertion were true, it would not have any
relevance to anything. It would just mean, at best, that this
information does not have an explanation. It's just a more
sophisticated-appearing "God of the Gaps" argument.
Let's look at from the other side ... are you proposing that
"God Did It" is an explanation?
In which case, you should be able to explain to us just how
that accounts for the features of this information.
How "God Did It" tells us something special about the information.
Is there anything that you can tell us about the information that
marks the method of God's action ... can you tell us that a particular
bit of information was 1 rather than 0 because God made it that way?
That if there were no God, then the bit would be 0. Or that because
there is some attribute of God which means that He would make it a 1?
It isn't enough to say that "random mutation and natural selection
cannot explain X".
There are plenty of things in this world that random mutation and
natural selection doesn't explain. There is no explanation for a
number of airplane crashes ... yet it would be absurd for the (USA)
National Transportation and Safety Board to consider Divine
Intervention as a possible cause.
--
Tom Scharle scha...@nd.edu "standard disclaimer"
Wesley R. Elsberry
[...]
SAW> Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are
SAW> known. And there are several kinds of mutations that increase
SAW> the length of the genome. Basically the question of adding
SAW> information (in the Shannon sense anyway) requires that
SAW> there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
SAW> Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually
SAW> make the claim that "information" cannot be created by the
SAW> evolutionary process. By the way, how do you define
SAW> information? How does Johnson define it?
W>You do not understand the real problem.
Really? And that is evidenced in what manner?
W>If you had tried to understand the writings of Johnson, you
W>would not argue in such a way.
Really? And the line of argument that leads to that
conclusion is what?
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
be referenced where? Be specific.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
If cucumbers & watermelons had antigravity, sunsets would be more interesting.
WRowe0521
>Basically the question of adding
The latter two questions, of course, are not addressed anywhere by Johnson, and
Wolfgang apparently cannot answer them either, since he responds with mere
assertion:
>You do not understand the real problem. If you had tried to
>understand the writings of Johnson, you would not argue in
>such a way. That information has been created somehow
>is a fact, but it is also a (logical) fact, that this information
>cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.
The obvious counter-example to this is bacterial antibiotic resistance.
It is not enough to say, as Spetner does, that antibiotic resistance involves
loss of information, the consequence of which is reduced virulence. While this
is true of the initial mutation that confers resistance ("In the absence of
streptomycin the mutants are less viable than the wild type" as Spetner says),
it is established beyond question that, in many cases (e.g. streptomycin
resistance in Salmonella), subsequent mutations restore virulence, giving a
variant that can survive and prosper in environments lethal to original
bacterium, and compete on equal terms with it in an antibiotic-free medium. If
this is not what Wolfgang and Johnson would call "a gain in information" then
what is?
(Don’t get me wrong, I think Wolfgang and Johnson’s use of "information" is
nonsense. The genome (in the case of metazoans) is a plan for the construction
and maintenance of an organism, not a passive repository of information; it
more closely resembles a computer program than a database. If one genome can
contain "more" information than another, then information is a numeric
quantity, so the "amount" of it should be calculable. But of course it is not
except in the Shannon sense, and in that sense the refutation of Johnson’s
conservation hypothesis is trivial, as Weinstein showed).
Bill Rowe
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
<1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>SAW> Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are
>SAW> known. And there are several kinds of mutations that increase
>SAW> the length of the genome. Basically the question of adding
>SAW> information (in the Shannon sense anyway) requires that
>SAW> there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
>SAW> Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually
>SAW> make the claim that "information" cannot be created by the
>SAW> evolutionary process. By the way, how do you define
>SAW> information? How does Johnson define it?
>
>W>You do not understand the real problem.
>
>Really? And that is evidenced in what manner?
>
>W>If you had tried to understand the writings of Johnson, you
>W>would not argue in such a way.
>
>Really? And the line of argument that leads to that
>conclusion is what?
>
>W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
>W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>W>explained by random mutation and selection.
>
>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>be referenced where? Be specific.
>>
with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a common sense definition
of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
to fashion; or to organize. Information contained in DNA is why we
Homo sapiens are constructed with a form distinct from that of an
alligator and an alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read this on a
newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such a common sense
defination of the word.
>
Eric Von Schrondger
WRowe0521
>a common sense definition
>of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
>say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
>to fashion; or to organize.
But accepting this definition, is it possible to say that one genome has "more
information" than another? If so, given two genome sequences, how would you
determine which contains the larger "amount of information"?
If this is not possible even in principle, then the notion of genomic
"information" cannot be used in an argument against evolution theory.
Bill Rowe
Glenn R. Morton
> No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am not familiar
> with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a common sense definition
> of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
> say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
> to fashion; or to organize.
Yes this is an open forum. What you say is precisely what is wrong with
discussions of information in the creation/evolution debate.
Information is not 'instructions'; information is a precisely defined
mathematical definition. And if you go to what you erroneously call
'common sense' you will get all bollixed up in your discussions.
Information like entropy has a mathematical definition which lawyers
like Johnson and participants like you ignore. Lets say that the
probability of a letter occuring in a text is p[i] Information, H.
(why H rather than I is another discussion) is then defined by
H= - K SUM[over i] p[i] ln(p[i])
where K is a positive constant. Since ln(p[i]) is a negative the
negative in front of K gives a positive number for information.
Now in a text like
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.....AAAAAAAAAAA
Which is composed of nothing but A's the probability of an A occuring in
the text is 1. Since the logarithm of 1 is 0, the information contained
in AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA...AAAAAAAAAAA is zero!
Mutate one of the sites and you now have
AAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAA.....AAAAAAAAAAAA
H = -K ( .9999999999 ln (.9999999999) + .0000000001 ln(.0000000001))
Which is greater than zero. you have, by this simple mutation CREATED
information. And if you absolutely randomize the characters in a text,
you will have the greatest level of information. Since by randomization
you increase the mathematical measure of information, the creation of
information by mutation and selection is perfectly consistent with the
2nd law and with evolution.
Now you might try to say that information needs to have meaning. Claude
Shannon, the inventor of information theory wrote in 1948 in the 2nd
paragraph of his paper that meaning has nothing to do with information.
MEaning is a pre-agreed upon convention between 2 or more people about
what a given sequence means. But it has nothing to do with
information. I can illustrate this by substitution codes. I will
retype the first sentence of this paragraph with a shift of my fingers
on the keyboard. Sequences like this are what spies use to transmit
information--- the sequences have the same information content.
h92n79pnj8ty5n547n59nwq6n5yq5n8hr94jq589hnh33ewn59nyqf3nj3qh8htl
The above sequence looks random. It contains the same info as the first
sentence of the last paragraph and the same meaning. But if you try to
determine which sequences have meaning you can't do that. Tell me whish
of the following chinese strings has meaning?
dao tang shan qu de hua ru gua ni wo name bu xi huan ni
ru gua ni dao tang shan qu de hua name wo bu xi huan ni
ni de hua name dao ru gua tang wo bu xi huan ni shan qu
ni dao tang shan wo bu xi ru name gua huan ni qu de hua
If you can measure meaning then you ought to be able to tell me which is
the real chinese sentence! You can't measure meaning and thus it is not
a topic within information theory.
Unfortunately, I lose again my connection with internet for a while.
Someone else will have to take up the discussion.
z@z
>>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
>>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
>>
>> I do not understand well your criticism.
>
> Yes, I think you do.
Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
in the article.
The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
the rest. Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
is possible. That reproduction is a concept based on finality
is another inconsistency of modern Darwinism.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the
> emergence of this information by selection."
>
> Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> explains the emergence of this information "by
> selection."
Also in my statement 'selection' represents at least
'selection, mutation and reproduction'.
So it is you who erroneously knocked down a strawman!
However, the fact that you suppose that Johnson tries
to refute Darwinism by such absurd means, clearly shows
that you do not at all understand him. Johnson is a good
logician and epistemologist and he would never make
intentionally or unintentionally such a catastrophic error.
> Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
> He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
> "explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
> which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
> that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
> amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> before."
>
> Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
> saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
If follows by logical reasoning that 'natural selection', i.e.
the principles of Darwinism are responsible for the addition
of vast amounts of genetic information.
>> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
>> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
>
> You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
> Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
> judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
> supported by anything he says in the interview. ...
I understand Johnson more or less correctly, I think,
but you apparently not.
> Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> genetic variation.
There is, however another aspect: the creative power must
be attributed rather to selection than to mutation. Random
mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
(the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
the information needed for a human body.
>> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
>> statements" everywhere.
>
> Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
> you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
> holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
> attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
> merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
> conclusion as you are here.
I'm sorry, it was only a misunderstanding of you!
But there is a general rule: one always should choose
the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
is written by a person one does not agree with!
>> (Furthermore the criticized sentence is formulated
>> not as a claim but as a question.)
>
> Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
My remark would make sense if Johnson was imprecise in
the corresponding statements, as I assumed because of
your criticism. But he is very precise (I've checked it now),
so my remark in parentheses is superfluous.
Now I see your dichotomy:
"The idea that there has been a warfare between
Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist
propaganda."
"No, the contradiction between Darwinism and theism
goes much deeper."
You equate Darwinism with science. However, one must
not confuse science itself with the concrete scientific
theories or hypotheses such as Darwinism.
...
>>>
>>> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
>>> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
>>> motives derive from something other than a desire to
>>> "explore the difference between good science and bad
>>> science."
>>
>> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
>> of Johnson's previous quotes.
>
> You say that as if you thought I expected a different
> reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
> task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
> over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
> do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
> assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
> free objection.
If I write somewhere: "It is clear from ... that ..." and someone
doubts my statement, then I'm able (or at least I believe that
I'm able) to explain and to defend my statement. It was
you who challenged me with this statement:
"If you promise to admit he was being dishonest, and not
to go off on a tangent, I'll point out one or two of his
consciously deceptive statements."
Anyway, I have done some work on the whole evolution issue:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
>> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
>> no alternative theory was conceivable
>
> Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
> theory, cite it).
How can you believe that no alternative to Darwinism is
conceivable? See my work for instance. Darwinism does
not equal science!
>> because of the limitation of our human mind.
>
> But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
> regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
What's 'modern evolution'? I do not reject the fact of a
continuous evolution or creation, but I reject the prevailing
theories, because they are based on many erroneous and
even absurd premises.
>> Nevertheless I have a strong desire to "explore the
>> difference between good science and bad science."
>
> That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
> know something about science. Tell me: what is the
> simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
> that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
> even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
What's the importance of this definition? I'm interested
in nature, life and evolution, but not in arbitrary definitions.
To know many orthodox definitions has absolutely nothing
to do with exploring the difference between good science
and bad science.
> And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
> scientific view means he must give up the most profound
> thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
The bias you recognize in Johnson's opinions is primarily a
consequence of your own biased view on Johnson. Please
try to understand that the 'scientific view itself' is not identical
with the currently prevailing scientific world view. Such an
identity has never existed in history, why should it exist now?
>> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
>> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
>> therefore you should retract it.
>
> On the contrary, I have shown just that. All you've
> offered in rebuttal is name-calling and blatant
> assertion. Therefore I think you should admit he was
> being dishonest as you promised.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Eric Von Schrondger
WRowe0521 wrote in message <19990404133722...@ng152.aol.com>...
>Eric Von Schrondger wrote:
>
>>a common sense definition
>>of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
>>say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
>>to fashion; or to organize.
>
"more
>information" than another? If so, given two genome sequences, how would you
>determine which contains the larger "amount of information"?
I would say that the longer the genome sequence the greater the
information content. However the genome of some anphibians
contain several times the genetic information of the human genetic code.
This is due to redundancy of the code.
>
>If this is not possible even in principle, then the notion of genomic
>"information" cannot be used in an argument against evolution theory.
>
I think future discoveries will determine the informational content of any
given genome. As you know the human genome project expects to
have the human genome mapped out within next few years. Several
examples of shorter genomes, as I understand it have already been
mapped out. such as several bacterial stains, nimotodes, earthworms
etc.
Eric Von Schrondger
>Bill Rowe
>
Wesley R. Elsberry
Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
could not account for certain biological information, and I
asked for his substantiation of that claim. Eric's interposed
commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"All praise\He's found the awful truth\Balthazar\Has found the saucer news"-BOC
WRowe0521
>I would say that the longer the genome sequence the greater the
>information content.
But much of the Eukaryote genome is junk DNA. This is not "information"
according to your "common sense" definition:
>I would
>>>say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
>>>to fashion; or to organize.
If length is the only criterion, a pathological genome containing nothing but
junk sequences, if such a thing could exist, would contain as much
"information" as a viable genome of the same length. Using your defintion,
"information" tells us nothing about evolution or anything else, and is thus a
competely useless concept.
Bill Rowe
Eric Von Schrondger
Glenn R. Morton wrote in message <3707A7...@waymark.net>...
>Eric Von Schrondger wrote:
>
>> No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am not familiar
>> with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a common sense definition
>> of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
>> say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
>> to fashion; or to organize.
>
>discussions of information in the creation/evolution debate.
>Information is not 'instructions'; information is a precisely defined
>mathematical definition. And if you go to what you erroneously call
>'common sense' you will get all bollixed up in your discussions.
>Information like entropy has a mathematical definition which lawyers
>like Johnson and participants like you ignore.
>
I'm not ignoring the fact that Shannon - Webber information
theory is different from what I called "common sense"
defination. But I would suspect that Johnson knows nothing
about Shannon - Webber. He is a law prof. so upon what
grounds is he critical of Darwinism. I am saying that
Johnson criticism is predicated upon a "common sense"
defination of information.
You are preaching to the choir here since I am both an
evolutionist and an atheist.
Eric Von Schrondger
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
>
> >>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
> >>
> z>that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
> z>beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
> z>Where does this information come from according to you? At
> z>least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> z>of this information by (random mutation and) selection. Do you
> z>think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
> >
> > Keep in mind that there are many kinds of mutations that are
> > known. And there are several kinds of mutations that increase
> > the length of the genome. Basically the question of adding
> > information (in the Shannon sense anyway) requires that
> > there exists mechanism to increase the length of the genome.
> > Since they exists it is futile for Johnson and others to continually
> > make the claim that "information" cannot be created by the
> > evolutionary process. By the way, how do you define
> > information? How does Johnson define it?
>
> understand the writings of Johnson, you would not argue in
> such a way. That information has been created somehow
> is a fact, but it is also a (logical) fact, that this information
> cannot be explained by random mutation and selection.
No it is you and Johnson who have little understanding of the problem. I just
showed above why evolution can create more information. Now you just assert,
with no reasons, that it can't. Its like I'm talking to brick wall or
something. Either refute the argument I made above or admit your error.
>
> z> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
> z> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
> z> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
> z> statements" everywhere. (Furthermore the criticized
> z> sentence is formulated not as a claim but as a question.)
> >
> > Its not petty. It is stupid to talk about evolution without
> > mentioning both mutation and selection. Its like describing
> > Christianity without mentioning Jesus.
>
> It is stupid to mention Jesus every time one mentions
> Christianity, don't you think so? That would make sense
> in a discussion with uninformed people, but certainly
> not in a religion discussion group.
We're not talking about casual mentions of a topic and were not ina religious
discussion group. Johnson's book is supposed demosntrate the scientific and
philosophical faallacies in the underpinnings of evolutionary theory, right?
So it is incumbent on him to describe the theory accurately and use a straw
man version of it. Likewise I can't imagine a Christian accurately describing
their religion without mentioning Jesus. Can you?
>
> And there is another aspect: the creative power must be
> attributed rather to selection than to mutation. Random
> mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
> (the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
> the information needed for a human body.
Again an assertion without any supporting evidence. How do you know? Upon what
testable hypothesis is that assertion based? Define the kind of information
needed for life and how it can be quantified and measured. All you're doing is
naysaying without offering any concrete ideas.
>
> >>> I also find this interesting:
> >>>
> >>> "The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> >>> misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> >>> Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> >>> They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> >>> promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> >>> been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
> >>>
> >>> Compare
> >>>
> . . .
> >>
> z> What's wrong with these two excerpts? Both seem completely
> z> sound to me,
> >
> > Really? That Gallileo was placed under house arrest and force
> > to recant before the inquisition is a made up story?
>
> When Galilei started his famous conflict with some dogmatic and
> influent clergymen, the heliocentric view was already spreading.
Gallileo didn't start it. The church did.
> The heliocentric theory had been proposed many times before
> Galilei. (The books of Copernicus, a member of the Catholic church,
> were forbidden by the church only as a consequence of Galilei's
> behaviour.)
Learn some history pal. The church started to become ultra conservative as a
response to the protestant reformations. And Copernicus hedeged his bets by
arranging to have his manuscript published after his death. Smart move,
considering what happened to Giordano Bruno. Stop excusing the mideval
excesses of the church.
>
> And Galilei fought the genuinely new astronomy of Kepler
> (replacement of the epicycles by modern physical laws) in a similar
> way the religious orthodoxy fought the heliocentric view.
Yeah so? At least he didn't drag anyone before the inquistion... or intimidate
them.
>
> z> although I myself would not write something very similar to the
> z> second. And they are certainly not mutually contradictory.
> >
> > Who said they were contradictory? Both statements are foolish.
>
> Wasn't it intended to give such an impression to superficial
> readers? What's the meaning of 'Compare' (see above)?
>
> z> In any case you have not shown that your claim "It was
> z> painfully typical of creationist dishonesty" was justified,
> z> therefore you should retract it.
> >
> > It was and Johnson should retract his books...
>
> If all books with the same or a lower quality than Johnson's
> had to be retracted, then certainly less than 1 in 1000 books
> would survive such a selection.
Only the ones written by creationists...
Stuart
>
> Cheers
> Wolfgang
>
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/links.html
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
"To err is human, but to really foul things up
requires a creationist"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
Adamski
<grmo...@waymark.net> writes
>MEaning is a pre-agreed upon convention between 2 or more people about
>what a given sequence means.
Meaning is a convention about what a sequence means? What does this
mean? It seems I missed the pre-agreement meeting which decided what
your given sequence means. Perhaps I wasn't meant to be there.
> But it has nothing to do with
>information.
A very unwise statement. Though sometimes in writing more is less.
see maff91.
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>In article <8vMN2.14581$Uk.25...@news3.mia>,
>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>
> W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
> W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection.
>
>WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
>EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
>EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
>EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
>EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
>EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
>EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
>EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
>EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
>EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
>EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
>EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
>
>Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
>doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
>made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
>could not account for certain biological information, and I
>asked for his substantiation of that claim.
>
It is the inherent nature of science to doubt the reality of a
process or enmity until it is discovered and documented.
It appears that you *assume* the actuality of an event or
process then challenge others to substantiate their claim
that it isn't factual. I may assert that there were living
unicorns in the past, then challenge you to substantiate
the claim that unicorns have never existed. But this is not
scientific procedure.
>Eric's interposed
>commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
>establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
>
Biological information is real and requires an explanation
as to it's origin.
I think this issue just about sums up the entire debate. If one can
demonstrate that mutation and natural selection cannot explain
the origin of biological information, then it is a foregone conclusion
that information must have originated by some _other_ means.
But this is unacceptable from a scientific point of view, since it
requires an intelligent agency.
Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
has been added in measurable quantities through random
mutations and natural selection then nothing more is required.
The issue in a nutshell is to explain the existence of huge
quantities of information where there is no intelligence.
Eric Von Schrondger
>--
>Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
>Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
>Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is
capacious.
>"All praise\He's found the awful truth\Balthazar\Has found the saucer
news"-BOC
>
Donald C. Lindsay
In article <FejKlAAz...@mobius1.demon.co.uk>,
Adamski <ada...@mobius1.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>MEaning is a pre-agreed upon convention between 2 or more people about
>>what a given sequence means.
>
>Meaning is a convention about what a sequence means? What does this
>mean? It seems I missed the pre-agreement meeting which decided what
>your given sequence means. Perhaps I wasn't meant to be there.
"If it's really true that words have meanings, then let's eliminate
the words and just use the meanings."
--
Don
Donald C. Lindsay www.best.com/~dlindsay
Del
> Hello Del!
> > > >> I promise to "not to go off on a tangent". Please let me
> > > >> know which statements of Johnson you think are consciously
> > > >> deceptive.
> > > >
> > > > "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> > > > information that weren't there before?"
> > > >
> > > > Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
> > > > vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> > > > Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> > > > changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> > > > be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> > > > favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> > > > example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> > > > reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> > > > these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> > > > knows that science doesn't say this. Johnson shows that
> > > > he knows the relationship between mutation and natural
> > > > selection in the following:
> > > >
> > > > "Of course, God *could* make some use of random mutation and
> > > > natural selection in a fundamentally directed creative process. God
> > > > can act freely as He chooses: that is just the problem for those
> > > > who would constrain God by philosophy. God could employ mutation
> > > > and natural selction or act supernaturally, whether or not His choice
> > > > causes inconvenience for scientists who want to be able to explain and
> > > > control everything. -- Johnson, Phillip: First Things, 1-93 p.12
> >>> Ergo, Johnson makes use of a straw man he knows to be
> >>> to a false depiction of the scientific view.
> >>
> >> I do not understand well your criticism.
> >
> > Yes, I think you do.
>
> Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
> different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
> You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
>
> But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
> ( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
> and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
> Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
> in the article.
>
> The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
> synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
>
> Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
> selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
> the rest.
Wrong. Sorry, but you do not, nor does any other
theistic anti-evolutionist, define terms for science.
This excuse doesn't wash anyway.
> Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
> is possible.
Straw man.
That reproduction is a concept based on finality
> is another inconsistency of modern Darwinism.
> see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
Red herring.
> > "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the
> > emergence of this information by selection."
> >
> > Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> > scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> > explains the emergence of this information "by
> > selection."
You ignore this and do so for reasons that are obvious.
> Also in my statement 'selection' represents at least
> 'selection, mutation and reproduction'.
>
> So it is you who erroneously knocked down a strawman!
How clever. Leave out the preceding text, without
noting the deletion, then accuse me of committing a
fallacy. Let's put it back in, in context:
> > > I do not understand well your criticism.
> >
> > Yes, I think you do.
> >
> >
> > It cannot be denied
> > > that the (genetic) information which is necessary for living
> > > beings such as humans did not exist some billion years ago.
> > > Where does this information come from according to you? At
> > > least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> > > of this information by (random mutation and) selection.
> >
> > You demonstrate here that you understand what I am
> > saying with your parenthetical addition (above) to what
> > Johnson said.
> >
> >
> > > Do you think that such an explanation constitutes a straw men?
> >
> > Let's leave out your parenthetical:
> >
> > "At least the majority of neo-Darwininists explain the emergence
> > of this information by selection."
> >
> > Clearly it is now a straw man -- at best. Show me a
> > scientist working in an evolution-related field who
> > explains the emergence of this information "by
> > selection."
----- End replaced text -----
Quite a bit different meaning now, isn't it?
>
> However, the fact that you suppose that Johnson tries
> to refute Darwinism by such absurd means, clearly shows
> that you do not at all understand him.
Oh I see. I am not allowed to evaluate his words
because I don't "understand him" and you do. You are
right because you say you are.
> Johnson is a good
> logician and epistemologist and he would never make
> intentionally or unintentionally such a catastrophic error.
This blatant assertion is your defense? I note the
similarity between this and defending Biblical errors:
it just can't be an error because God wouldn't make an
error. Sorry, but I don't believe (in) either one of
your gods.
> > Furthermore your paraphrase of Johnson is convenient.
> > He doesn't accuse science of claiming "selection"
> > "explain[s] the emergence" of genetic information,
> > which is bad enough. He sets up the larger straw man
> > that science claims natural selection "add[s] vast
> > amounts of genetic information that weren't there
> > before."
> >
> > Provide an in-context quote of a scientist in the field
> > saying what Johnson insinuates, please.
>
> If follows by logical reasoning that 'natural selection', i.e.
> the principles of Darwinism are responsible for the addition
> of vast amounts of genetic information.
Begging the question. You can't provide an in-context
quote of a scientist in the field saying what Johnson
insinuates. So you offer this blatant assertion of
yours, which is nothing but a re-statement of your
premise (begging the question) in lieu of actual
argument or actual evidence.
> >> But probably your criticism is solely based on the fact that
> >> Johnson shortens 'blind mutations and selection' to 'selection'.
> >
> > You say "Please try to read without prejudice what
> > Johnson is saying!" but you reserve the right to pre-
> > judge in his favor, making excuses for him that are not
> > supported by anything he says in the interview. ...
>
> I understand Johnson more or less correctly, I think,
> but you apparently not.
Now there is a good "argument:" "I'm right, you're
wrong," improperly appealing to your own "authority"
for the claim. No reasons, no evidence deemed
necessary. Geeze, how many fallacies have you now
committed so far?
Regardless, the evidence of your double standards --
your prejudice in favor of whatever your demi-god
Johnson says -- stands, unrefuted.
> > Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> > genetic variation.
>
> There is, however another aspect: the creative power must
> be attributed rather to selection than to mutation.
Sorry. I can't take 'MUST' as an argument. Especially
not from one who admits he does not even know the
definition of evolution. I also can't help but notice
you once again omit my text that offers evidence for my
conclusion -- and you do so without notice. Was it
because it refuted your blatant assertion, above? Here
it is, again, beginning with a quote from Johnson from
the interview that you posted:
----- Begin Replaced Text -----
> > Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> > genetic variation.
----- End Replaced Text -----
Random
> mutation could create at most 'Shannon-like' information
> (the more random, the more informative), but certainly not
> the information needed for a human body.
Need I point out that, once again, you offer nothing
but blatant assertion? If you wish to contradict
science you will need to offer more than your own
personal "authority" to do so. Much more, as it turns
out, given that you are ignorant of what science
actually says. I'll bet you haven't read a single book
on the subject that wasn't an anti-evolutionist rant --
like Johnson's -- full of lies, misinformation, and
refuted claims -- again like Johnson's -- have you? If
you have, name them. If you have not you better ignore
this point: too embarrassing to you.
>
>
> >> With such a petty-minded attitude you can find "deceptive
> >> statements" everywhere.
> >
> > Typical. If you had evidence to refute my analysis; if
> > you could show that I was being "petty-minded," or
> > holding Johnson to a higher standard than those he
> > attacks, you would. You would _not_ be reduced to
> > merely asserting your ad hominem name-calling
> > conclusion as you are here.
>
> I'm sorry, it was only a misunderstanding of you!
> But there is a general rule: one always should choose
> the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
> is written by a person one does not agree with!
Whether applied to Johnson or myself, "most coherent
interpretation" apparently means to you: "whatever the
most favorable interpretation to z@z's position is,
whether it is actually supported by the text or not."
> >> (Furthermore the criticized sentence is formulated
> >> not as a claim but as a question.)
> >
> > Disingenuous. Did you read the article?:
>
> My remark would make sense if Johnson was imprecise in
> the corresponding statements,
Which must be why you deleted my in-context quote of
his (which I replaced, above,) that was the smoking-gun
evidence of his deception.
as I assumed because of
> your criticism. But he is very precise (I've checked it now),
> so my remark in parentheses is superfluous.
Oh yes, "very precise." From a review of Darwin on
Trial:
"Sometimes Darwin on Trial uses 'Darwinism' to mean
evolution by natural selection, sometimes to mean what
scientists call the 'synthetic theory of evolution'
(the union of genetic theory with natural selection
theory), sometimes to mean gradual evolution, and
sometimes 'Darwinism' means evolution itself. Sometimes
'evolution' is used as a purely scientific idea, and
other times it is confused with evolutionism, a
naturalistic ideology that excludes the possibility of
divine intervention. Just as science is not equivalent
to philosophical naturalism, so evolution does not
equal evolutionism." -- DARWIN ON TRIAL: A Review
Eugenie C. Scott, Ph.D., Executive Director, NCSE
No, you equivocate the meaning of Darwinism, as Johnson
does. I don't find the term useful, you do. Ironic,
too, since it seems pretty clear you don't know what it
means from a scientific perspective, and or you think
you have the right to define it in terms convenient to
your anti-evolutionism.
However, one must
> not confuse science itself with the concrete scientific
> theories or hypotheses such as Darwinism.
A sentence rife with unstated and unique assumptions,
assumptions which amount to claims about the nature of
more than a few things, including science. You
apparently see no reason why you should have to qualify
any of them, let alone show your qualifications for
making them.
> >>> It is clear from his previous statements regarding the
> >>> incompatibility of his religion and evolution that his
> >>> motives derive from something other than a desire to
> >>> "explore the difference between good science and bad
> >>> science."
> >>
> >> I don't think that your conclusion is a logical consequence
> >> of Johnson's previous quotes.
> >
> > You say that as if you thought I expected a different
> > reaction! I'm not here to convince you -- an impossible
> > task in any event -- nor are you here to be the arbiter
> > over my arguments. If you want to be taken seriously,
> > do some work: ARGUE for your position, don't merely
> > assert it, as if I am obliged to overcome your fact-
> > free objection.
>
> If I write somewhere: "It is clear from ... that ..." and someone
> doubts my statement, then I'm able (or at least I believe that
> I'm able) to explain and to defend my statement.
Then defend YOUR assessment "I don't think that your
conclusion is a logical consequence of Johnson's
previous quotes." Odd, that you didn't see any reason
to do so here and now, after what you said, above!
The misconception you are laboring under is that I must
go beyond successfully arguing my point. That I must
ALSO force you to admit that I have. I'm telling you I
do not. (Trust me on this)
As I have pointed out in the above, over and over, you
have not offered ANYTHING in the way of rebuttal --
just assertions of the type: "I don't think that your
conclusion is a logical consequence..."
That is not rebuttal. That is gainsaying. Gainsaying is
not argument, so I assume you have no argument to
offer. Therefore my argument stands, unrefuted.
It was
> you who challenged me with this statement:
>
> "If you promise to admit he was being dishonest, and not
> to go off on a tangent, I'll point out one or two of his
> consciously deceptive statements."
And I made my case, remember? That text of mine, above,
whole blocks of which you selectively removed without
notice? Does that ring a bell?
> Anyway, I have done some work on the whole evolution issue:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
>
> >> I would accept (reductionist) Darwinism as a general
> >> explanation for the history of life not even in the case, that
> >> no alternative theory was conceivable
> >
> > Which is, in fact, the case (if you have an alternative
> > theory, cite it).
>
> How can you believe that no alternative to Darwinism is
> conceivable?
I assume you mean by "Darwinism" the current state of
the science of evolution in it's multiplicity of forms,
given that you did not choose to offer any definition
yourself. That's what I am talking about.
Now share with us your alternative theory.
> See my work for instance.
Give me a reason to believe it won't be a complete
waste of time. Show me, for instance, you know the
first thing about evolution. You haven't yet.
> Darwinism does not equal science!
Define your unique meaning for the word "Darwinism," so
we don't have to take your word for this, as you expect
us to do at virtually every juncture.
> >> because of the limitation of our human mind.
> >
> > But you reject modern evolution (not Darwinism) without
> > regard to the same limitation. Interesting.
>
> What's 'modern evolution'?
"Modern scientists accept that evolution occurred, but
differ over the relative importance of natural
selection and other mechanisms, over whether the
pattern of evolution is smooth and gradual or jerky and
punctuated, over which characteristics link modern
groups, and so on." -- Eugenie C. Scott ibid.
I do not reject the fact of a
> continuous evolution or creation, but I reject the prevailing
> theories, because they are based on many erroneous and
> even absurd premises.
Well if you say so it must be true!
> >> Nevertheless I have a strong desire to "explore the
> >> difference between good science and bad science."
> >
> > That implies you can tell the difference, and that you
> > know something about science. Tell me: what is the
> > simple, one sentence definition of evolution, the one
> > that used by biologists and found in college-level (or
> > even high school) introduction-to-biology texts?
>
> What's the importance of this definition? I'm interested
> in nature, life and evolution, but not in arbitrary definitions.
Ah. So you don't even know what the definition is. I
see. Furthermore you are not interested in knowing.
> To know many orthodox definitions has absolutely nothing
> to do with exploring the difference between good science
> and bad science.
I rather think it does. Not knowing what you are in
opposition to is a serious defect. That you don't care
to know is a fatal flaw. Sorry, your demand for
credibility, revealed in you expecting us to take your
word for every proclamation you make (which are many)
is rejected -- for cause.
> > And a bias so great as his -- for him to accept the
> > scientific view means he must give up the most profound
> > thing in his life -- is notable in such a context.
>
> The bias you recognize in Johnson's opinions is primarily a
> consequence of your own biased view on Johnson.
More blatant assertion.
z@z
Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
Yours posts, however, remind me even much stronger of
Richard than the posts of mcoon remind me of Ian Musgrave.
Such a combination of erudition, good style, naivety, dogmatism,
arrogance and intentional (or instinctive) misrepresentation is
very exceptional.
Because I think that it is much more probable you are Richard
than you are not, this post is based on the 'Del equals Richard
hypothesis'.
Do you remember our discussion on entropy:
I wrote:
"Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove a
temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin."
You answered:
"What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
the math.
As far as I can see, you are a talker and have no acquaintance with
doing. So prove me wrong: how do you know your statement here is
true? Why should anyone believe it?"
I answered:
I hope that our dabate will show you that it is 'dangerous' to defend an
inconsistent view such as modern science. Because of its inconsistent
basis, logically correct conclusions can lead to strange claims. The
most extreme case of such a strange conclusion seems to me the
following passage of your last email (or should it be a joke?):
>> Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove
>> a temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin.
> What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
> the math.
> As far as I can see, you are a talker and have no acquaintance
> with doing. So prove me wrong: how do you know your statement
> here is true? Why should anyone believe it?
You answered:
I AM STILL AWAITING AN ANSWER FOR THIS:
"Billions of years have not been enough for the earth to remove
a temperature difference of many hundreds of degrees Kelvin."
What qualifies you to say this? What is your source? Show me
the math.
Now back to you, Del. The following extract is representative for
our whole debate:
>> Only now I completely understand why our opinions are so
>> different. Your criticism is based on the following premise:
>> You take literally Johnson's expression 'natural selection'.
>>
>> But Johnson uses this expression nine times in his article
>> ( http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html )
>> and always synonymous with 'THE evolutionary theory' or
>> Darwin's theory. He uses only five times the word 'theory'
>> in the article.
>>
>> The use of 'natural selection' or 'selection theory' as a
>> synonyme of Darwinism is quite normal (also in German).
>
> No it isn't. Not in science, and that's what we are
> talking about. Learn a little about the subject.
> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/darwinism.html
>
>>
>> Used in such a way, 'natural selection' does not only imply
>> selection and random mutation, but also reproduction and
>> the rest.
>
> Wrong. Sorry, but you do not, nor does any other
> theistic anti-evolutionist, define terms for science.
> This excuse doesn't wash anyway.
>
>
>> Without reproduction neither selection nor mutation
>> is possible.
>
> Straw man.
Look for instance:
http://www.sprl.umich.edu/GCL/paper_to_html/selection.html
especially:
Figure 2: The Process of Natural Selection
And even if Johnson's use of 'natural selection' were uncommon,
you would have no right to criticize Johnson's LOGIC based on an
interpretation of 'natural selection' which is not his.
I don't want to apply your method which consists in defending
one's own view by increasing the length of the posts (maybe in the
hope people will not read them carefully).
You really should take to heart what I have written in my previous
post:
"But there is a general rule: one always should choose
the most coherent interpretation of a text, even if the text
is written by a person one does not agree with!"
I'm sorry for my aggressive tone. I do not like to attack anyone's
personal authority, but there are cases where I feel obliged to do so.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Adam Noel Harris
:Hello Richard (C. Carrier)!
:
:Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
:pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
:an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
:
:If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
Actually, "we" are all just one poster. "We" are faking multiple
personalities and email addresses just to make you look bad. "We" are
being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants the HIV myth to
be perpetuated. You are seen as a great threat.
-Adam "Ian Richard Bud Del" Musgrave-Harris
--
Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
z@z
> z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> :Hello Richard (C. Carrier)!
> :
> :Why do you write your posts anonymously (is also 'Bud' a
> :pseudonym of you?). Do you yourself possibly know, what
> :an arrogant pseudo-scientific stuff you write?
> :
> :If I'm in error, and you are not Richard, please forgive me!
"please forgive me" is a quote from a post of mcoon. Unfortunately
after having installed today a new version of my email program, I
have lost all old posts (apart from my own).
> Actually, "we" are all just one poster. "We" are faking multiple
> personalities and email addresses just to make you look bad. "We" are
> being funded by the pharmaceutical industry, which wants the HIV myth to
> be perpetuated. You are seen as a great threat.
I know that, but I'm funded, too. And our organization is more
careful not to make statements which can be proven wrong,
because we are interested more in truth than in scientific power.
> -Adam "Ian Richard Bud Del" Musgrave-Harris
> --
> Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Stanford University.
> PGP Fingerprint = C0 65 A2 BD 8A 67 B3 19 F9 8B C1 4C 8E F2 EA 0E
Wolfgang
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
>
> "Can [natural selection] add vast amounts of genetic
> information that weren't there before?"
>
> Science doesn't claim that natural selection "add[s]
> vast amounts of genetic information," nor does it.
> Natural selection is the mechanism behind adaptive
> changes. But for natural selection to work there must
> be genetic variation to begin with. Selection merely
> favors those genetic changes (caused by mutation for
> example) -- when they occur -- which offer differential
> reproductive success. Natural selection does not cause
> these beneficial genetic changes to appear. Johnson
> knows that science doesn't say this.
Well I note your addition of the word "beneficial" but
besides that I think you might be a bit too hasty here.
While it is true that Natural Selection as casually
observed is a mechanism that removes diversity from the
gene pool it is also noted that genetic diversity is
an advantage to populations facing and unpredictable
future as there are more potential avenues of adaptation
available. It therefore seems possible that selective
pressures over time have favored replication modalities
with greater propensity to add new genetic material that
wasn't there before.
Dave Greene
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
> W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection.
>
> WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
>
> EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
> EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
> EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
> EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
> EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
> EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
> EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
> EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
> EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
> EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
> EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
> EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
>
> Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
> doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
> made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
> could not account for certain biological information, and I
> commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
> establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection account
for the biological information of abiogenesis?
Ed. Stoebenau
<snip Johnson quotes>
Here are yet some more Johnson quotes, which should give more than
sufficient reason to realize that he doesn't know what he is talking
about.
*****
"Guided evolution isn't evolution at all." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet
Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Evolution is a theory to do creating without God." Phillip Johnson,
on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Darwinian evolution is not a matter of scientific investigation."
Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"If there is no god, then... in the beginning were the particles [so]
there has to be random changes, ... and a designing force.... They
ignore all the vast amount of evidence which contradict [evolution.]"
Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"Let's first establish that the present scientific regime wants to get
God out of the picture, regardless of the evidence." Phillip Johnson,
on "Janet Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"It's clear... that when you look at the fossil record as a whole,
it's completely against Darwinism." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet
Parshall's America" 7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"The reality is that Darwinism is built on [a] dogmatic adherence to
materialism." Phillip Johnson, on "Janet Parshall's America"
7-31-1997 4:00 EST
"My experience speaking and debating on this topic at universities has
taught me that scientists, and professors in general, are often
confused about evolution. They may know a lot of details, but they
don't understand the basics. The professors typically think that
evolution from molecule to man is a single process that can be
illustrated by dog breeding or finch-beak variations, that fossil
evidence confirms the Darwinian process of step-by-step change, that
monkeys can type _Hamlet_ if they are aided by a mechanism akin to
natural selection, and that science isn't saying anything about
religion when it says we were created by a purposeless material
process." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p11
"Many ordinary people are also confused about these subjects, of
course, but they do tend to grasp one big truth that the professional
intellectuals usually seem incapable of seeing. The people suspect
that what is being presented to them as 'scientific fact' consists
largely of an ideology that goes far beyond the scientific evidence."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p11
"_Naturalism_ and _materialism_ mean essentially the same thing for
present purposes.... [T]here is no difference between naturalism and
materialism." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p15-16, fn
"Arguments defending Darwinism often seem to beg the question because
they assume the point at issue, which is whether the scientific
evidence really does support the theory.
Here's a typical example:
_Question_: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving
molecules?
_Answer_: Don't reject a scientific theory just because you have a
religious prejudice.
The answer assumes the point in dispute, which is whether the evidence
for the chemical evolution of life is so overwhelming that only a
prejudiced person would be skeptical of it." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p42
"Let's consider two possibilities. One is that 91 percent of the
public consists of ignorant people who ignore the evidence and just
believe what they want to believe. On that assumption, democracy is a
farce. We are like children who think we can set fires and not be
burned. In that case we ought to be ruled by a scientific elite, who
will protect us from the consequences of our folly. The other
possibility is that the evolutionary naturalists are the ones who
believe what they want to believe, and they are likewise the ones who
are less than assiduous in exposing themselves to contrary evidence."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p48
"I am amused by self-styled 'skeptics,' who invariably seem able to
believe the wildest nonsense if it supports Darwinism." Phillip
Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p74, fn (On analogies to natural
selection)
"The gospel of John begins with the memorable statement that 'In the
beginning was the Word.' That is exactly how we would describe the
creation of a literary work, or a computer program, or a building. In
the beginning was the concept and the working out of that concept in
the mind of the author or designer. [....] The Word (information) is
not reducible to matter, and even precedes matter. If only matter
existed in the beginning, then the first verse of the Gospel of John
-- and the worldview of the Bible -- is false." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p71
"Truth (with a capital _T_) is truth as God knows it. When God is no
longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human
opinions. (There can also be no sin, and consciousness of sin is that
built-in moral compass Rorty rejects as illusory.) We can know
something about what is useful for getting whatever we happen to want,
but false beliefs have often been extremely useful." Phillip Johnson,
_Defeating Darwinism_, p89
"To say that a statement is false is to concede that it could
conceivably be true. This can be dangerous. Focusing the mind of an
unbeliever on the question whether Christ's claims are true has often
had unanticipated consequences." Phillip Johnson, _Defeating
Darwinism_, p101
"We might say that the point of Darwinism is to refute the otherwise
compelling teaching of Romans 1:20, which is that God's eternal power
and deity have always been evident from the things that were created."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p113
*****
And one big whopper:
"In early 1997 I participated in an internet debate with Brown
University biology professor Kenneth Miller in connection with the PBS
NOVA television show _The Ultimate Journey_. [....] Professor Miller
did not defend the program but tried to change the subject to talk
about hominid fossils and other stock arguments for Darwinism."
Phillip Johnson, _Defeating Darwinism_, p123-124
"NOVA Online asked two leading spokesmen in the evolution/creation
debate to discuss the question, "How did we get here?" The
participants have agreed to keep their letters to less than 500 words
and have been given equal time to write them. The debate will
continue into December with a new letter every 3-4 days. It should be
noted that neither Miller nor Johnson were involved in the production
of NOVA's Odyssey of Life." From "How Did We Get Here? (A Cyber
Debate)," http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/odyssey/debate/.
*****
I think these two quotes make Johnson's dishonesty very obvious.
--
Ed. Stoebenau
a#143
John Wilkins
What biological information, exactly? If life began as a hypercycle or
catalytically closed cycle of reactants, selection will increase the
efficiency and complexity of those reactions (even in the absence of a
"gene" molecule). What is the information? Sure, there's structural
increase in complexity, but surely that's not a problem?
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
z@z
> Here are yet some more Johnson quotes, which should give more than
> sufficient reason to realize that he doesn't know what he is talking
> about.
> "Guided evolution isn't evolution at all."
Here evolution is used as a synomym of Darwin's theory (based on
purely random mutations).
Guided Darwinism is logical nonsense. A guided development of life
can be seen as some form of a continuous creation.
Compare:
Einsteinian quantum mechanics, not based only on pure
chance, is no (orthodox) quantum mechanics at all.
> "Evolution is a theory to do creating without God."
I would rather say: Darwinism is a theory explaining the evolution
of life without final (order-creating) laws of nature.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
> "Darwinian evolution is not a matter of scientific investigation."
Neo-Darwinism is a logically impossible explanation of the
evolution of life, therefore it is a matter of faith.
> "If there is no god, then... in the beginning were the particles [so]
> there has to be random changes, ... and a designing force.... They
> ignore all the vast amount of evidence which contradict [evolution.]"
If there were no final (order-creating) laws of nature, the second
law would reign over the world and complex life would be impossible.
> "Let's first establish that the present scientific regime wants to get
> God out of the picture, regardless of the evidence."
In the same way, orthodox quantum mechanics (a theory as absurd
as neo-Darwinism) wants to get determinism or other order-creating
principles out of the picture, regardless of the evidence.
> "It's clear... that when you look at the fossil record as a whole,
> it's completely against Darwinism."
Darwinism can not even explain a continuous evolution of life, much
less the fast appearence of new forms, such as for instance modern
aeroplanes, tanks, telecommunication, computers and so on.
> "The reality is that Darwinism is built on [a] dogmatic adherence to
> materialism."
Yes, consciousness for instance is declared at most a by-product.
> "My experience speaking and debating on this topic at universities has
> taught me that scientists, and professors in general, are often
> confused about evolution. They may know a lot of details, but they
> don't understand the basics. The professors typically think that
> evolution from molecule to man is a single process that can be
> illustrated by dog breeding or finch-beak variations, that fossil
> evidence confirms the Darwinian process of step-by-step change, that
> monkeys can type _Hamlet_ if they are aided by a mechanism akin to
> natural selection, and that science isn't saying anything about
> religion when it says we were created by a purposeless material
> process."
> "Many ordinary people are also confused about these subjects, of
> course, but they do tend to grasp one big truth that the professional
> intellectuals usually seem incapable of seeing. The people suspect
> that what is being presented to them as 'scientific fact' consists
> largely of an ideology that goes far beyond the scientific evidence."
What should be wrong with these quotes?
> "_Naturalism_ and _materialism_ mean essentially the same thing for
> present purposes.... [T]here is no difference between naturalism and
> materialism."
My use of 'naturalism' is different, but Johnson's use of 'naturalism'
corresponds to my use of reductionism.
See: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
> "Arguments defending Darwinism often seem to beg the question because
> they assume the point at issue, which is whether the scientific
> evidence really does support the theory.
> Here's a typical example:
> _Question_: What evidence proves that life evolved from nonliving
> molecules?
> _Answer_: Don't reject a scientific theory just because you have a
> religious prejudice.
> The answer assumes the point in dispute, which is whether the evidence
> for the chemical evolution of life is so overwhelming that only a
> prejudiced person would be skeptical of it."
Seems completely sound to me.
> "Let's consider two possibilities. One is that 91 percent of the
> public consists of ignorant people who ignore the evidence and just
> believe what they want to believe. On that assumption, democracy is a
> farce. We are like children who think we can set fires and not be
> burned. In that case we ought to be ruled by a scientific elite, who
> will protect us from the consequences of our folly. The other
> possibility is that the evolutionary naturalists are the ones who
> believe what they want to believe, and they are likewise the ones who
> are less than assiduous in exposing themselves to contrary evidence."
> "I am amused by self-styled 'skeptics,' who invariably seem able to
> believe the wildest nonsense if it supports Darwinism."
I fully agree with that! Also the wildest nonsense about HIV is believed
by most 'skeptics'.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
> "The gospel of John begins with the memorable statement that 'In the
> beginning was the Word.' That is exactly how we would describe the
> creation of a literary work, or a computer program, or a building. In
> the beginning was the concept and the working out of that concept in
> the mind of the author or designer. [....] The Word (information) is
> not reducible to matter, and even precedes matter. If only matter
> existed in the beginning, then the first verse of the Gospel of John
> -- and the worldview of the Bible -- is false."
Interesting, but a very complex philosophical question.
> "Truth (with a capital _T_) is truth as God knows it. When God is no
> longer in the picture there can be no Truth, only conflicting human
> opinions. (There can also be no sin, and consciousness of sin is that
> built-in moral compass Rorty rejects as illusory.) We can know
> something about what is useful for getting whatever we happen to want,
> but false beliefs have often been extremely useful."
> "To say that a statement is false is to concede that it could
> conceivably be true. This can be dangerous. Focusing the mind of an
> unbeliever on the question whether Christ's claims are true has often
> had unanticipated consequences."
> "We might say that the point of Darwinism is to refute the otherwise
> compelling teaching of Romans 1:20, which is that God's eternal power
> and deity have always been evident from the things that were created."
These quotes deal rather with religion than with science. I respect
all religious views (not violating some basic principles).
> And one big whopper:
>
> "In early 1997 I participated in an internet debate with Brown
> University biology professor Kenneth Miller in connection with the PBS
> NOVA television show _The Ultimate Journey_. [....] Professor Miller
> did not defend the program but tried to change the subject to talk
> about hominid fossils and other stock arguments for Darwinism."
>
> "NOVA Online asked two leading spokesmen in the evolution/creation
> debate to discuss the question, "How did we get here?" The
> participants have agreed to keep their letters to less than 500 words
> and have been given equal time to write them. The debate will
> continue into December with a new letter every 3-4 days. It should be
> noted that neither Miller nor Johnson were involved in the production
> of NOVA's Odyssey of Life."
> I think these two quotes make Johnson's dishonesty very obvious.
Why? There may have been different stages of involvement. And
_The Ultimate Journey_ is not necessarily the same as
_Odyssey of Life_.
"Homind fossils and other stock arguments" cannot discriminate
between Darwinism and a continous creation.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Matt Silberstein
daveg...@my-dejanews.com:
[snip]
>
>I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection account
>for the biological information of abiogenesis?
>
It does not. Mutation and Natural Selection are processes that happen
to living organisms. Abiogenesis is the process by which life appeared
from non-life.
Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------------------------------
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr Strangelove,
2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon,
The Shinning, Full Metal Jacket, and, last of all, but I hope
not the least, Eyes Wide Shut. I will miss him.
Wesley R. Elsberry
<daveg...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>"Wesley R. Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
>> Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:
>> >>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
WRE> [...]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
WRE> Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
WRE> doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
WRE> made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
WRE> could not account for certain biological information, and I
WRE> asked for his substantiation of that claim. Eric's interposed
WRE> commentary is fascinating, but also fails to be relevant to
WRE> establishing what Wolfgang was claiming. Try again?
DG>I'll have a go. How does mutation and natural selection
DG>account for the biological information of abiogenesis?
Well, the discussion is about normal biological issues and
information, not abiogenesis. But maybe if Dave were to show
how "mutation and natural selection" could be properly said to
apply to pre-biotic chemistry, and also show that there is
information content to be analyzed in pre-biotic chemistry,
then the question could be addressed as a separate topic.
Beyond that, I notice the lack of specific references that would
substantiate Wolfgang's claim.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"In a hotel room that costs as much as my apartment"-O97s
Wesley R. Elsberry
><1999040419...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>In article <8vMN2.14581$Uk.25...@news3.mia>,
>>><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
WRE>[...]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
EVS>No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am
EVS>not familiar with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a
EVS>common sense definition of *information* would be
EVS>synonymous with instructions. I would say that
EVS>*information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
EVS>construct; to fashion; or to organize. Information
EVS>contained in DNA is why we Homo sapiens are constructed
EVS>with a form distinct from that of an alligator and an
EVS>alligator is different in form than that of or a damsel
EVS>fly. And a damsel fly is different than a mosquito. I read
EVS>this on a newsgroup somewhere. Probably Johnson used such
EVS>a common sense defination of the word.
WRE>Anybody is welcome to participate at any time here. That
WRE>doesn't mean that anybody gets a bunch of slack. Wolfgang
WRE>made a claim that mutation and natural selection obviously
WRE>could not account for certain biological information, and I
WRE>asked for his substantiation of that claim.
EVS>Thank you for the welcome!
EVS>It is the inherent nature of science to doubt the reality
EVS>of a process or enmity until it is discovered and
EVS>documented. It appears that you *assume* the actuality of
EVS>an event or process then challenge others to substantiate
EVS>their claim that it isn't factual.
I don't have to have an opinion of any sort to be able to call
for someone to support their own claim. If somebody is stupid
enough to make a negative claim, that's their tough luck.
They still get to attempt to support it, retract it, or ignore
the fact that their bluff has been called.
Notice that Wolfgang did not *simply* assert that mutation and
natural selection cannot explain biological information, but
further said that this datum is a "(logical) fact". I take
that to mean that Wolfgang asserts the existence of an
argument in some logical form that would substantiate
Wolfgang's claim. Now, I'm just calling for him to reveal it.
EVS>I may assert that there were living unicorns in the past,
EVS>then challenge you to substantiate the claim that unicorns
EVS>have never existed. But this is not scientific procedure.
That's true enough, but Eric has not represented the situation
correctly. Wolfgang has been invited to substantiate his very
own claim, and not anybody else's. That Wolfgang does not or
cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
WRE>Eric's interposed commentary is fascinating, but also
WRE>fails to be relevant to establishing what Wolfgang was
WRE>claiming. Try again?
EVS>Biological information is real and requires an explanation
EVS>as to it's origin.
EVS>I think this issue just about sums up the entire
EVS>debate. If one can demonstrate that mutation and natural
EVS>selection cannot explain the origin of biological
EVS>information, then it is a foregone conclusion that
EVS>information must have originated by some _other_ means.
*If* is a very large small word in the above. Nobody has come
close to fulfilling that conditional statement. Certainly
neither Wolfgang nor Eric have touched it.
EVS>But this is unacceptable from a scientific point of view,
EVS>since it requires an intelligent agency.
Why worry about *that* until the condition referenced above
has been satisfied? And also, one must not leave geentic
drift out of the possible mechanisms of change.
EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
EVS>required.
Measurable quantities?
[Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
[End Quote - WA Dembski,
<http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
Even ID enthusiasts recognize and attempt to quantify the
amount of biological information that natural selection is
capable of adding.
EVS>The issue in a nutshell is to explain the existence of
EVS>huge quantities of information where there is no
EVS>intelligence.
Yes. Where is the problem, though?
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"We won't let you kill the laughter"-RR
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
> Buckna quoted PJ as saying:
>
> "So we have the priesthood of naturalism, which has great cultural
> authority . . ."
>
> Great cultural authority? That must be why there are so few creationists
> around anymore and why the general public is so sympathetic to the concept
> of evolution . . . get real . . .
Perhaps it is you who should get real. Modern twentieth century science has
often changed the story of the origin of modern man according to the current
cultural mythos in vogue at the time.
daveg...@my-dejanews.com
>"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
>variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
>1996]
A couple of points should be made here:
1.) Mutation is not the only process which offers up
genetic variation for selection.
2.) Mutation also creates genetic variation that is
invisible to selection.
>"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
>there is genetic variation in the population to begin
>with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
>'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
>there were no dark moths, the population could not have
>evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
>continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
>increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
>and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
>and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
>to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
Well there had to be a first dark moth then? One should
not assume that evolution is hogtied to pre-existant
phenotypic expressions.
>Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
>genetic variation.
Natural selection can also act to PRESERVE genetic variation.
Case in point: Hybrids are often more robust organisms.
Goyra
<1999040814...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
Let me introduce here an analogy showing
how information is added to the genome by natural
selection.
The solution of the Rubik's cube is
information, and a solved cube can be said to
store this information (especially if we
assume an electronic cube with a memory).
Take 100,000 such cubes, and have them
randomly twisted by monkeys. Pile them all up.
Have you created or moved information around?
No.
Now, select the one cube that is solved
and put it in a box marked "solved cubes look
like this". NOW you have created information.
How did you do it? The choosing of the one specific
cube was the action that inserted information into
the system.
With this analogy, it becomes clear that
information IS added to the genome - information
about how to build a working animal. And this
information is added at the moment when natural
selection weeds out the unsuitable animals. So
the processes of fighting, hunting, eating etc
are the sources of information.
These processes are driven by energy that
is given to us free from the Sun. Free energy is
mathematically capable of countering (local)
entropy and creating information. So there is no problem.
Goyra
z@z
You have invited me to substantiate my claim:
"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
explained by random mutation and selection."
I'll do it in a new thread "Darwinism smashed by probability
arguments" which I intend to start in the near future.
I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
of usable energy.
Here some quotes from what I have written until now:
"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random emergence
of a system (e.g. a living organism) is unrealistically low, the system
is taken apart to smaller and smaller sub-systems until random
emergence gets realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for
the whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities for
the emergence of all systems from their respective sub-systems.
Reductionist causal laws do not explain why sub-systems which
are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
disappearing after having appeared by chance."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot be
denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by this
advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist causal
laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt to explain
evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units) to spread is
based on finality. A reductionist causal explanation must derive
what seems to us a tendency to spread from physical and
chemical laws."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less scientific
than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution without final laws
of nature, are either not aware of the finality used in their
explanations, or they extremely overestimate the creativity of
pure chance. To be consistent, they would also have to explain
scientific and cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking
or copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles have
always been effective in evolution is much more consistent and
elegant than the hypothesis that such principles appeared only as
a result of organisms having emerged themselves by pure chance."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot
be stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
during the transformation from the original DNA information to
the final read only information. There should rather be an
information loss.
Some scientists assume that there is such an information gain
in the case of protein folding. They are right insofar as the
information corresponding to the protein behaviour is much
larger than the information corresponding to the amino acid
sequence. I, however, would prefer as a last resort the
hypothesis 'God' to such a mysterious information increase
violating common sense and logical reasoning.
Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least several
bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern in the
DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability that
behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather low. For
macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell types
and other structures must evolve at the same time together with
behaviour patterns. Because it is generally accepted that negative
mutations are more likely than positive ones, macroevolution
would be impossible."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
> EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
> EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
> EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
> EVS>required.
>
> Measurable quantities?
>
> [Quote]
>
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
>
> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
>
<http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembsk
i.html>]
Can I assume that "1 f M f N" should be "1 <= M <= N".
In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense (at least
out of context). Unfortunately the online article uses a character
set incompatible with my browser.
Why do you appreciate this quote?
Cheers
Wolfgang
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
your position, is _automatically_ thrown into a negative role. There
is no alternative.
Current scientific convention says there were unicorns.
Wolfgang rejects convention. He consequently, is seen as
making a negative claim. I.e. he, in effect, makes the claim
that there were no unicorns.
Consequently, you challenge him to prove his claim.
His only options are to agree with your position, or prove the
impossible (a negative). This is an excellent defensive posture.
But it isn't supportive evidence, nor is it a scientific proposition.
>
>Notice that Wolfgang did not *simply* assert that mutation and
>natural selection cannot explain biological information, but
>further said that this datum is a "(logical) fact". I take
>that to mean that Wolfgang asserts the existence of an
>argument in some logical form that would substantiate
>Wolfgang's claim. Now, I'm just calling for him to reveal it.
>
he should follow up with a "logical" discourse. I did not see
this, however.
>
>EVS>I may assert that there were living unicorns in the past,
>EVS>then challenge you to substantiate the claim that unicorns
>EVS>have never existed. But this is not scientific procedure.
>
>That's true enough, but Eric has not represented the situation
>correctly. Wolfgang has been invited to substantiate his very
>own claim, and not anybody else's.
>
OK, I guess this is where the rub is - you see him _not_ as taking
issue with a commonly held scientific dogma, but making
a personal claim independant of any such dogma.
>
That Wolfgang does not or
>cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
>assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
>contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
>me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
>
But it seems that he is inadvertently challenging scientific orthordoxy.
Therefore it is this challenge that we, as evolutionist, are confronted
with. Yes, I am an evolutionist and an agnostic with some tendencies
towards atheism. It isn't your position I am at odds with, but rather
the logic of your challenge. I don't believe we need any defensive
posturing. I do not see creationist as a legimate threat.
>
>WRE>Eric's interposed commentary is fascinating, but also
>WRE>fails to be relevant to establishing what Wolfgang was
>WRE>claiming. Try again?
>
>EVS>Biological information is real and requires an explanation
>EVS>as to it's origin.
>
>EVS>I think this issue just about sums up the entire
>EVS>debate. If one can demonstrate that mutation and natural
>EVS>selection cannot explain the origin of biological
>EVS>information, then it is a foregone conclusion that
>EVS>information must have originated by some _other_ means.
>
>*If* is a very large small word in the above. Nobody has come
>close to fulfilling that conditional statement. Certainly
>neither Wolfgang nor Eric have touched it.
>
True, but it may be argued that this is insufficient to account for
additional information. Something is missing or it may be that my
understanding is incompelete. I do not rule that possibility out!
>
>EVS>But this is unacceptable from a scientific point of view,
>EVS>since it requires an intelligent agency.
>
>Why worry about *that* until the condition referenced above
>has been satisfied? And also, one must not leave geentic
>drift out of the possible mechanisms of change.
>
>EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
>EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
>EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
>EVS>required.
>
>Measurable quantities?
>
It could be that we have not reached the level of competency that
we can measure increased information in higher organisms. At
present the human genome is being mapped, therefore the first
step in measuring a change in information is underway. However,
in the case of resistant bacteria we know that information has
been altered.
>
>[Quote]
>
>This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
>organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
>these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
>amount of information introduced through selection is then
>-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
>misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
>universally and is non-mysterious.
>
>[End Quote - WA Dembski,
><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembs
ki.html>]
>
>Even ID enthusiasts recognize and attempt to quantify the
>amount of biological information that natural selection is
>capable of adding.
>
I have never come to grips with the proposition that natural
selection is anything more than a passive force; a non-
"creative" process that can only act upon rafts of *new*
information made available by random mutation. To me
N.S. is impotient in the generation of additional genetic
information, although it does sift out and pass on new
information. N.S. does not originate it.
>EVS>The issue in a nutshell is to explain the existence of
>EVS>huge quantities of information where there is no
>EVS>intelligence.
>
>Yes. Where is the problem, though?
>
We must be careful not to discount new findings because
at _first_ blush they seem to implicate meddling by some
intelligent agent.
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
W>You have invited me to substantiate my claim:
W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection."
I did so by this response to the above:
Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
be referenced where? Be specific.
W>I'll do it in a new thread "Darwinism smashed by probability
W>arguments" which I intend to start in the near future.
Uh-huh. Yeah. Right. Wolfgang doesn't know how many times
I've heard promises like this that never come to fruition.
W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
W>of usable energy.
Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
original discussion was about *biological* information, not
pre-biotic chemistry.
W>Here some quotes from what I have written until now:
Will they have anything to do with showing that random
mutation and selection are incapable of adding biological
information?
W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
final assertion is just plain wrong.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
thread?
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
W>an information loss.
Wolfgang might be surprised at what I can doubt. That will
be pretty much anything Wolfgang has to say that touches
upon biology, apparently. If Wolfgang told me that the sky
was blue, I'd open the window to check it.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>Some scientists assume that there is such an information
W>gain in the case of protein folding. They are right insofar
W>as the information corresponding to the protein behaviour is
W>much larger than the information corresponding to the amino
W>acid sequence. I, however, would prefer as a last resort the
W>hypothesis 'God' to such a mysterious information increase
W>violating common sense and logical reasoning.
This appears to be a simple digression away from the topic.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
competition, but the above should put him in the running.
That doesn't appear to show that random mutation and selection
are incapable of addng biological information.
OK, so Wolfgang's quotes don't exactly help him out with his
assertion. Did anyone expect something different? Notice
that Wolfgang provides no references to evidence at all, as
was requested originally.
EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
EVS>required.
WRE> Measurable quantities?
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
W>Can I assume that "1 f M f N" should be "1 <= M <= N".
That looks reasonable.
W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
biological information.
I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
conspicuous by their absence.
Of course, there are changes in biological information content
whose most natural explanation is simply mutation (if
discussing an individual as compared to a parent, for example)
or genetic drift (when discussing a population). I've talked
before about increase in information due to polyploid events
in orchids. See
<http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424416762>. I'm
assuming that Wolfgang is trying to get at non-banal support
of his claim, though, and will provide as his examples
observed *adaptive* change. If, though, that's all that
Wolfgang meant by his claim, then I will be happy to stipulate
that mutation and genetic drift explain biological information
increases that mutation and natural selection do not.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"I've got a timebomb\In my mind mom\I hear it ticking but I don't know why"-O97
Wesley R. Elsberry
his timing.
In article <ylqP2.4522$_d7.1...@news1.mia>,
WRE>[...]
WRE>I don't have to have an opinion of any sort to be able to call
WRE>for someone to support their own claim. If somebody is stupid
WRE>enough to make a negative claim, that's their tough luck.
WRE>They still get to attempt to support it, retract it, or ignore
WRE>the fact that their bluff has been called.
EVS>By the nature of your challenge, anyone who takes
EVS>exception to your position, is _automatically_ thrown into
EVS>a negative role. There is no alternative.
My position is that Wolfgang hasn't supported his assertions.
What's so negative about asking for the support for a claim
that someone makes?
EVS>Current scientific convention says there were unicorns.
EVS>Wolfgang rejects convention. He consequently, is seen as
EVS>making a negative claim. I.e. he, in effect, makes the
EVS>claim that there were no unicorns. Consequently, you
EVS>challenge him to prove his claim. His only options are to
EVS>agree with your position, or prove the impossible (a
EVS>negative). This is an excellent defensive posture. But it
EVS>isn't supportive evidence, nor is it a scientific
EVS>proposition.
First, the analogy is off. Scientific convention says there
are elephants, but Wolfgang rejects convention. He is making
a negative claim all right, but he still has the burden of
proof for the claim that no elephants exist.
WRE>Notice that Wolfgang did not *simply* assert that mutation and
WRE>natural selection cannot explain biological information, but
WRE>further said that this datum is a "(logical) fact". I take
WRE>that to mean that Wolfgang asserts the existence of an
WRE>argument in some logical form that would substantiate
WRE>Wolfgang's claim. Now, I'm just calling for him to reveal it.
EVS>Did he imply that it is a logical argument? If so, you are
EVS>right, he should follow up with a "logical" discourse. I
EVS>did not see this, however.
Too bad. Maybe if Eric tried *reading* what Wolfgang said
and gave his *alternative* explanation of the indicated
phrasing...
EVS>I may assert that there were living unicorns in the past,
EVS>then challenge you to substantiate the claim that unicorns
EVS>have never existed. But this is not scientific procedure.
WRE>That's true enough, but Eric has not represented the situation
WRE>correctly. Wolfgang has been invited to substantiate his very
WRE>own claim, and not anybody else's.
EVS>OK, I guess this is where the rub is - you see him _not_
EVS>as taking issue with a commonly held scientific dogma, but
EVS>making a personal claim independant of any such dogma.
It doesn't matter what is or is not dogma or whether it is a
simple case of denial of the bleeding obvious. What matters
is that Wolfgang has made a claim that he cannot even begin to
support, and I called him on it. If all Eric is going to do
is blubber that it is cruel to make people support their own
stupid claims, then this may be my final follow-up to Eric.
We will have to agree to disagree.
WRE>That Wolfgang does not or
WRE>cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
WRE>assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
WRE>contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
WRE>me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
EVS>But it seems that he is inadvertently challenging
EVS>scientific orthordoxy.
SFW?
EVS>Therefore it is this challenge that we, as evolutionist,
EVS>are confronted with.
What I see is that we are confronted with yet another ignorant
blowhard who wouldn't know information if it bit him on the
butt. And maybe not just one, but two of them. YMMV.
EVS>Yes, I am an evolutionist and an agnostic with some
EVS>tendencies towards atheism.
La-de-da. Is this supposed to have some bearing on the
ability of mutation and natural selection to add biological
information? If so, I fail to see it.
I have no particular sympathy for atheists, agnostics, or
evolutionists who apparently are without clue. If the above
was an attempt to do some sort of "buddy-buddy" thing, it
failed.
EVS>It isn't your position I am at odds with, but rather the
EVS>logic of your challenge.
OK, I'm glad we're clear on that. The logic of my challenge
is that Wolfgang gets to support the assertions that he made.
Eric has a problem with that. I can live with Eric's
disapproval.
EVS>I don't believe we need any defensive posturing.
Calling for somebody to support their assertions is posturing?
Here's another place we will have to agree to disagree.
EVS>I do not see creationist as a legimate threat.
You're a moron.
OK, maybe Eric *isn't* a moron. Maybe Eric has somehow missed
out on the reports of the various legal cases where
anti-evolutionists have made legislative attempts to get
SciCre into high school science classes. Maybe Eric has
missed every single report of state textbook adoption
committees getting pressured to dumb-down or eliminate
references to evolutionary biology. Maybe Eric is completely
and blissfully ignorant of every case of school boards getting
packed with stealth SciCre members who oppose any mention of
evolutionary biology in classes, or who try to get
anti-science stuff brought in. Maybe Eric has no clue about
the opposition that individual science teachers encounter when
they actually do teach evolutionary biology. Maybe Eric's
tinfoil hat shut out the reports of various state legislatures
madating the insertion of "disclaimers" into biology
textbooks. A certain subset of creationists is actively
pursuing an anti-scientific agenda. This is amply
demonstrated by the examples mentioned above. If that doesn't
cause someone with an interest in effective science education
some alarm, I'd cite that as a symptom of brain-death. Yes,
maybe Eric isn't a moron, but comes from some strange,
sheltered place where none of this stuff is ever mentioned or
discussed. Someplace that Bellsouth as an ISP operates that
has no newspapers, radio, or television. A region of the
world as yet untouched by controversy on this topic. Yeah,
that's the ticket.
WRE>Eric's interposed commentary is fascinating, but also
WRE>fails to be relevant to establishing what Wolfgang was
WRE>claiming. Try again?
EVS>Biological information is real and requires an explanation
EVS>as to it's origin.
EVS>I think this issue just about sums up the entire
EVS>debate. If one can demonstrate that mutation and natural
EVS>selection cannot explain the origin of biological
EVS>information, then it is a foregone conclusion that
EVS>information must have originated by some _other_ means.
WRE>*If* is a very large small word in the above. Nobody has come
WRE>close to fulfilling that conditional statement. Certainly
WRE>neither Wolfgang nor Eric have touched it.
EVS>True, but it may be argued that this is insufficient to
EVS>account for additional information.
Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
be referenced where? Be specific.
EVS>Something is missing or it may be that my understanding is
EVS>incompelete. I do not rule that possibility out!
I'd be more inclined to take Eric's statements seriously if
he could back up his assertions with some tangible evidence.
So far, that has been conspicuous by its absence.
EVS>But this is unacceptable from a scientific point of view,
EVS>since it requires an intelligent agency.
WRE>Why worry about *that* until the condition referenced
WRE>above has been satisfied? And also, one must not leave
WRE>genetic drift out of the possible mechanisms of change.
EVS>Conversely, if it can be demonstrated that new information
EVS>has been added in measurable quantities through random
EVS>mutations and natural selection then nothing more is
EVS>required.
WRE>Measurable quantities?
EVS>It could be that we have not reached the level of
EVS>competency that we can measure increased information in
EVS>higher organisms.
I mentioned it again to preface the quote, which showed
someone attempting to derive just such a quantification.
Since Eric had just stated that all that was necessary was to
show that measurable quantities of information could be
explained by the action of mutation and natural selection, I
was providing a quote that presented just such an instance.
EVS>At present the human genome is being mapped, therefore the
EVS>first step in measuring a change in information is
EVS>underway. However, in the case of resistant bacteria we
EVS>know that information has been altered.
Yes, indeed we do. We also know about increased information
due to polyploidy.
WRE>[Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE>[End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
WRE>Even ID enthusiasts recognize and attempt to quantify the
WRE>amount of biological information that natural selection is
WRE>capable of adding.
EVS>I have never come to grips with the proposition that
EVS>natural selection is anything more than a passive force; a
EVS>non- "creative" process that can only act upon rafts of
EVS>*new* information made available by random mutation. To me
EVS>N.S. is impotient in the generation of additional genetic
EVS>information, although it does sift out and pass on new
EVS>information. N.S. does not originate it.
Yes, NS does not produce information. I was sloppy. NS acts
a filter upon the existing variation in a population plus any
new variation introduced by mutation that results in
differential reproductive success. Many descriptions of NS
subsume the variation part, but it is a good idea to
specifically state the joint processes.
That, though, ignores the import of the quote for Eric's
commentary. Dembski claims that his quantification applies
universally. That fulfills Eric's requirement for a
satisfactory establishment of mutation and natural selection
as a source of biological information.
I should mention, though, that Dembski is wrong about using
his measure as an upper limit on the amount of information
that mutation and natural selection can introduce on a
per-generation basis. Bill Jefferys pointed out several
problems in Dembski's analysis at the 1997 NTSE conference.
But the fact remains that even some of those who argue against
the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection to explain
all biological information do admit that mutation and natural
selection explain some biological information.
EVS>The issue in a nutshell is to explain the existence of
EVS>huge quantities of information where there is no
EVS>intelligence.
WRE>Yes. Where is the problem, though?
EVS>We must be careful not to discount new findings because at
EVS>_first_ blush they seem to implicate meddling by some
EVS>intelligent agent.
Really? What new findings? Where is this evidence? Be
specific.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"It's springtime now and cares subside\The planning's almost done" - BOC
z@z
You are further evidence for this statement :
The more educated, naive and dogmatic at the same
time posters to talk.origins are, the more arrogant
their behaviour.
Unlike you, Eric Von Schrondger is a person with
common sense.
My answer to your post to me will follow.
> It doesn't matter what is or is not dogma or whether it is a
> simple case of denial of the bleeding obvious. What matters
> is that Wolfgang has made a claim that he cannot even begin to
> support, and I called him on it. If all Eric is going to do
> is blubber that it is cruel to make people support their own
> stupid claims, then this may be my final follow-up to Eric.
> We will have to agree to disagree.
> What I see is that we are confronted with yet another ignorant
> blowhard who wouldn't know information if it bit him on the
> butt. And maybe not just one, but two of them. YMMV.
> You're a moron.
Wolfgang
Matt Silberstein
<w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>:
>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
>his timing.
>
[snip]
>
>SFW?
>
I understand you are feeling cranky, but does that justify swearing at
him?
[snip]
Wesley R. Elsberry
Yet another attribution-line trimmer. Pagano is enough. OK,
the cast of characters here is Wolfgang (cited above), myself,
and Eric Von Schrondger.
W>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
W>You are further evidence for this statement :
W>The more educated, naive and dogmatic at the same
W>time posters to talk.origins are, the more arrogant
W>their behaviour.
At least we have symmetry in our opinions of each other. Now,
I invite everybody to look to see who in this thread has been
asking for evidence of grand assertions made, and who else has
not been providing any.
W>Unlike you, Eric Von Schrondger is a person with
W>common sense.
Eric may have this "common sense" thing, but so far he has,
like Wolfgang, been unable to support his assertions with
actual evidence. "Common sense" appears not to be correlated
with actually being able to support grand assertions with
evidence.
W>My answer to your post to me will follow.
I've heard this formula many times before. It has failed to
impress me before, and it continues to fail to impress me. If
Wolfgang's post actually appears, its merits or flaws will be
soon enough revealed. So far, the flaw of not providing
evidence to back his grand assertions has been the main
feature of Wolfgang's posts.
WRE> It doesn't matter what is or is not dogma or whether it is a
WRE> simple case of denial of the bleeding obvious. What matters
WRE> is that Wolfgang has made a claim that he cannot even begin to
WRE> support, and I called him on it. If all Eric is going to do
WRE> is blubber that it is cruel to make people support their own
WRE> stupid claims, then this may be my final follow-up to Eric.
WRE> We will have to agree to disagree.
This is still *true*.
WRE> What I see is that we are confronted with yet another ignorant
WRE> blowhard who wouldn't know information if it bit him on the
WRE> butt. And maybe not just one, but two of them. YMMV.
And there is so far no evidence that would indicate that this
statement is false.
WRE> You're a moron.
I call 'em as I see 'em.
WRE> OK, maybe Eric *isn't* a moron. Maybe Eric has somehow missed
WRE> out on the reports of the various legal cases where
WRE> anti-evolutionists have made legislative attempts to get
WRE> SciCre into high school science classes. Maybe Eric has
WRE> missed every single report of state textbook adoption
WRE> committees getting pressured to dumb-down or eliminate
WRE> references to evolutionary biology. Maybe Eric is completely
WRE> and blissfully ignorant of every case of school boards getting
WRE> packed with stealth SciCre members who oppose any mention of
WRE> evolutionary biology in classes, or who try to get
WRE> anti-science stuff brought in. Maybe Eric has no clue about
WRE> the opposition that individual science teachers encounter when
WRE> they actually do teach evolutionary biology. Maybe Eric's
WRE> tinfoil hat shut out the reports of various state legislatures
WRE> madating the insertion of "disclaimers" into biology
WRE> textbooks. A certain subset of creationists is actively
WRE> pursuing an anti-scientific agenda. This is amply
WRE> demonstrated by the examples mentioned above. If that doesn't
WRE> cause someone with an interest in effective science education
WRE> some alarm, I'd cite that as a symptom of brain-death. Yes,
WRE> maybe Eric isn't a moron, but comes from some strange,
WRE> sheltered place where none of this stuff is ever mentioned or
WRE> discussed. Someplace that Bellsouth as an ISP operates that
WRE> has no newspapers, radio, or television. A region of the
WRE> world as yet untouched by controversy on this topic. Yeah,
WRE> that's the ticket.
And this all appears to be true, so far as the identification
of examples goes, or to be my quite sincerely held opinion. I
bet that the small fact that the examples are real makes
Wolfgang very unhappy.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Facts are stupid things." - R Reagan
Wesley R. Elsberry
Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>In talk.origins I read this message from "Wesley R. Elsberry"
><w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>:
WRE>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
WRE>his timing.
MS>[snip]
WRE>SFW?
MS>I understand you are feeling cranky, but does that justify
MS>swearing at him?
MS>[snip]
Gee, Matt, I dunno. What did Eric say that got that response?
Ooops, Matt appears to have trimmed it. That means that
anybody who might be interested in finding out whether the
provocation meets their own standard of "justification" has to
go and look for the post again. How inconvenient for them.
Let's see, I think I can find the thing ... <rummage>.
[Quote]
WRE>That Wolfgang does not or
WRE>cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
WRE>assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
WRE>contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
WRE>me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
EVS>But it seems that he is inadvertently challenging
EVS>scientific orthordoxy.
SFW?
[End Quote]
I dunno, it does seem to be a marginal case. A simple "SW?"
may well have been sufficient. I just wasn't much in the
mood for pointless digression last night. Was it justified?
I think I'll stand by the emphatic rendering.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"And surely we did offer up\Behind that stage at dawn\Beers and barracuda"-BOC
Matt Silberstein
<w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>:
>In article <371066b3...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Matt Silberstein <mat...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>In talk.origins I read this message from "Wesley R. Elsberry"
>><w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>:
>
>WRE>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
>WRE>his timing.
>
>MS>[snip]
>
>WRE>SFW?
>
>MS>I understand you are feeling cranky, but does that justify
>MS>swearing at him?
>
>MS>[snip]
>
>Gee, Matt, I dunno. What did Eric say that got that response?
>Ooops, Matt appears to have trimmed it. That means that
>anybody who might be interested in finding out whether the
>provocation meets their own standard of "justification" has to
>go and look for the post again. How inconvenient for them.
>
>Let's see, I think I can find the thing ... <rummage>.
>
>[Quote]
>
>WRE>That Wolfgang does not or
>WRE>cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
>WRE>assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
>WRE>contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
>WRE>me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
>
>EVS>But it seems that he is inadvertently challenging
>EVS>scientific orthordoxy.
>
>SFW?
>
>[End Quote]
>
>I dunno, it does seem to be a marginal case. A simple "SW?"
>may well have been sufficient. I just wasn't much in the
>mood for pointless digression last night. Was it justified?
>I think I'll stand by the emphatic rendering.
Sorry for the post. If you had been following some other thread you
might have picked up my point, but since your probably wisely have
ignored that thread my post did not make sense. Was your emphasis
justified? Only you can make the determination. Did you swear *at* him
(as I said)? No, you did not. I had hoped that you would pick up on
the "at" rather than the swear. Anyway, don't pay any attention, I
certainly see nothing wrong with a "SFW" and personally consider your
use quite justified.
Glenn R. Morton
>
> Glenn R. Morton wrote in message <3707A7...@waymark.net>...
> >Eric Von Schrondger wrote:
> >
> >> No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am not familiar
> >> with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a common sense definition
> >> of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
> >> say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
> >> to fashion; or to organize.
> >
> >discussions of information in the creation/evolution debate.
> >Information is not 'instructions'; information is a precisely defined
> >mathematical definition. And if you go to what you erroneously call
> >'common sense' you will get all bollixed up in your discussions.
> >Information like entropy has a mathematical definition which lawyers
> >like Johnson and participants like you ignore.
> >
> What is wrong with my "common sense" defination?
> I'm not ignoring the fact that Shannon - Webber information
> theory is different from what I called "common sense"
> defination. But I would suspect that Johnson knows nothing
> about Shannon - Webber. He is a law prof. so upon what
> grounds is he critical of Darwinism. I am saying that
> Johnson criticism is predicated upon a "common sense"
> defination of information.
First off, it is Shannon-WEAVER. But yes Johnson is basing his
criticism of evolution on the common sense definition which as Hubert
Yockey has so adequately pointed out, gets you into lots of logical
problems. Information is NOT semantics and that is the problem with the
common sense definition--it is a logical equivocation of information
with semantic meaning. It is like saying an apple is an orange.
z@z
> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> be referenced where? Be specific.
Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
> W>of usable energy.
>
> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
> pre-biotic chemistry.
But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
the emergence of biological information. There must be
reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
arbitrary. Also the immense information of the first self-
replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
> W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
> W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
> W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
> W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
> W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
> W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
> W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
> W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
> W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
> W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
> W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
>
> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
> final assertion is just plain wrong.
Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
purposefulness and so on).
Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
again after having appeared by chance.
> W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
> W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
> W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
> W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
> W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
> W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
> W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
> W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>
> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
> W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
> W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
> W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
> W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
> W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
> W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
> W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
> W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
> W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
> W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
> W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
> W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>
> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
> thread?
But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
other alternative theories.)
Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism. Do you
know one single non-living thing undergoing reproduction,
mutation and selection. Computer simulations are not
convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
replicating machines.
> W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
> W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
> W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
> W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
> W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
> W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
> W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
> W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
> W>an information loss.
> W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
> W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
> W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
> W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
> W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
> W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
> W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
> W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
> W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
> W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
>
> Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
> fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
> competition, but the above should put him in the running.
You are bluffing here, so it's very probable that you bluff
regularly.
Please try to explain at least in principle my logical fallacies!
> WRE> [Quote]
>
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
>
> WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
>
>
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/De
mbski.html>]
> W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
> W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
> W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
>
> W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
>
> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
> biological information.
Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
can add information. My specific argument is based on the
fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
more probable than an information loss and that the principles
neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
in the long term.
The quote you cited from "a major figure in the ID hierarchy"
clearly shows that you don't understand well what you write
about. Even after having read some paragraphs before and
after the quote, it's difficult for me to figure out a context where
this paragraph could make sense, but it certainly does not make
sense in our discussion.
> I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
> conspicuous by their absence.
Read my work on evolution on the internet. There you will
find enough logical arguments which support my claim. But I
suppose you read only scriptures having received the official
approval of orthodoxy.
Cheers
Wolfgang
z@z
>
> Eric Von Schrondger wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Eric Von Schrondger wrote:
>>>
E>>> No body asked me, but I hope this is an open forum. I am not familiar
E>>> with the protocol of Talk Origins. But a common sense definition
E>>> of *information* would be synonymous with instructions. I would
E>>> say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to
E>>> construct; to fashion; or to organize.
>>>
G>> Yes this is an open forum. What you say is precisely what is wrong with
G>> discussions of information in the creation/evolution debate.
G>> Information is not 'instructions'; information is a precisely defined
G>> mathematical definition. And if you go to what you erroneously call
G>> 'common sense' you will get all bollixed up in your discussions.
G>> Information like entropy has a mathematical definition which lawyers
G>> like Johnson and participants like you ignore.
>>>
E> What is wrong with my "common sense" defination?
E> I'm not ignoring the fact that Shannon - Webber information
E> theory is different from what I called "common sense"
E> defination. But I would suspect that Johnson knows nothing
E> about Shannon - Webber. He is a law prof. so upon what
E> grounds is he critical of Darwinism. I am saying that
E> Johnson criticism is predicated upon a "common sense"
E> defination of information.
>
G First off, it is Shannon-WEAVER. But yes Johnson is basing his
G criticism of evolution on the common sense definition which as Hubert
G Yockey has so adequately pointed out, gets you into lots of logical
G problems. Information is NOT semantics and that is the problem with the
G common sense definition--it is a logical equivocation of information
G with semantic meaning. It is like saying an apple is an orange.
Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
computer program must have not only information but also semantics
(interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
Regards
Wolfgang
Matt Silberstein
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
>> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
>> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
>> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>> be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
Here is a hint: when your logic and reasoning lead you to a conclusion
that contradicts observation you should probably take a second look at
the logic and reasoning.
>> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
>> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
>> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
>> W>of usable energy.
>>
>> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
>> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
>> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
>> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
>the emergence of biological information. There must be
>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
Mutation implies both reproduction and inheritance.
>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
>arbitrary.
Lets see. Abiogenesis means the emergence of life from non-life.
Evolution means the change in life over time. Sounds like a rather
clear distinction. Yes, I suppose we could use different terms for
these processes, but so what?
> Also the immense information of the first self-
>replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
>prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
>
However, it is not requisite for the description and explanation for
the changes that occurred between that first cell and the first H.s.
>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
>children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
Not only do we not have to take that for granted, I am not sure it
means anything.
[snip]
>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
>purposefulness and so on).
>
Not in any absolute or a priori sense. It does state that we can
explain certain aspect and then explains them.
>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
>
What in the world is a "logical fact"?
>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
>disappearing after having appeared by chance."
Where is that a quote from? It seems so odd. What does it mean for a
sub-system to reproduce itself? And the reason for something to
continue verses "disappear" is rather neatly explained by Natural
Selection and/or Drift.
> But at the same
>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
>again after having appeared by chance.
>
Why?
[snip]
>
>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
Not at all. Not only does Neo-Darwinism (or Darwinism or any
evolutionary biology) not care about the origin of the first
reproductive system but none of science says it happens by "pure
chance". It happens because events are strongly constrained by
physical laws. If Kauffman is right then given a rich enough set of
interactions and a system far from equilibrium you get life as the
expected result, not as a surprising one.
> Do you
>know one single non-living thing undergoing reproduction,
>mutation and selection.
Well it all depends on how you define life.
> Computer simulations are not
>convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
>replicating machines.
>
Why machines and not computer programs?
[snip]
Tim Ikeda
w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com says...
[...]
> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
> conspicuous by their absence.
I saw that Wolfgang (z@z....)responded:...
[...]
Z> Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
Z> some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
I don't think Wesley meant that Wolfgang had to find a specific
reference in a literature. Certainly a logical/mathematical
argument would work just as well.... provided, of course, that
Wolfgang can put one together and present it. I haven't seen that
happen yet.
> Of course, there are changes in biological information content
> whose most natural explanation is simply mutation (if
> discussing an individual as compared to a parent, for example)
> or genetic drift (when discussing a population). I've talked
> before about increase in information due to polyploid events
> in orchids. See
> <http://x15.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=424416762>.
[...]
See also:
http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
speculate about what is and isn't possible. The trouble with
logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
Regards,
Tim Ikeda
tik...@sprintmail.hormel.com (despam address before use)
Bonz
message <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net> :
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
>> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
>> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
>> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>> be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
>> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
>> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
>> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
>> W>of usable energy.
>>
>> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
>> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
>> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
>> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
>the emergence of biological information. There must be
>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism.
No, they are based on chemistry.
>If you
>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
>arbitrary.
No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
> Also the immense information of the first self-
>replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
>prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
>children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
>> W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
>> W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
>> W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
>> W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
>> W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
>> W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
>> W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
>> W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
>> W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
>> W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
>> W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
>>
>> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
>> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
>> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
>> final assertion is just plain wrong.
>
>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
>purposefulness and so on).
>
>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
so on
>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
>again after having appeared by chance.
Huh? Where is your support for this?
>
>> W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
>> W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
>> W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
>> W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
>> W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
>> W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
>> W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
>> W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
>> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
>>
>> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
>
>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
Ah. "Nuts just like me"
>
>> W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
>> W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
>> W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
>> W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
>> W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
>> W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
>> W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
>> W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
>> W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
>> W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
>> W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
>> W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
>> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>>
>> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
>> thread?
>
>But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
>Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
>basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
>used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
>other alternative theories.)
They are? Can you support this?
>
>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
Wrong.
Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
Stephen R Gould
> Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
> > W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
> > W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> > W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
> > Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> > be referenced where? Be specific.
>
> Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
> some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
>
what appears to be a logical argument may merely be fallacious. Example:
someone with limited reasoning power and some knowledge of maths - the
epistemology is irrelevant here - would find it logical that one cannot
devise a set of three dice A, B, and C such that when comparing rolls, A
will on average roll a higher number than B, B a higher number than C, and C
a higher number than A. It may appear logical, but it's also wrong.
<snip>
> But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
> the emergence of biological information. There must be
> reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
> on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
> do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
>
> The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
> arbitrary. Also the immense information of the first self-
> replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
> prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
>
> Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
> granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
> overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
> children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
>
> In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
> artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
The environment itself may be considered as having indefinitely large
supplies of information. Selection can sometimes be viewed as a net transfer
of information from the environment to the genes. End of story.
S.
<rest snipped>
Glenn R. Morton
> Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
> computer program must have not only information but also semantics
> (interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
> useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
> definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
> than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
> sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
Wolfgang,
The first mistake is to make the analogy that a living system is
equivalent to a computer program. It isn't. As Yockey, Information
Theory and Molecular Biology p. 256 there are approximately 10^93
different proteins of 110-amino-acid-length which perform the function
of cytochrome c.
You can not possibly find that many different combinations which will
successfully perform the programing statement:
If ((a=b) and (d=g) and (t=rt)) or ((a>c) or (a<5)) then
A=t*g/45*PI*sqrt(ty/er)*137.1
which is approximately 100 characters in length. The constant analogy
of living systems with computer code is highly flawed. Functionality
among the proteins is much greater than among computer code. If this
were not the case then pig, sheep, cow, and horse insulin would not be
able to work in a human. If this were not the case you could not
transplant gorilla mitochondria into a human cell and have it work
(which it does).
You should read the Dec 1993 (?) article by Gerald Joyce, entitled
Directed Evolution. He randomly made proteins to perform a particular
function. He was always able to find molecules that performed the
function he required.
Now, you can't do that with a line of computer code so cease making the
very fallacious analogy between a living system and computers.
Unfortunately I will not have internet access til next Saturday.
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
>his timing.
>
>In article <ylqP2.4522$_d7.1...@news1.mia>,
>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>><1999040815...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>In article <u9SN2.9771$Ek.40...@news1.mia>,
>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>><1999040419...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>In article <8vMN2.14581$Uk.25...@news3.mia>,
>>>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>>>><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>>>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>
> WRE>[...]
>
> W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
> W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
> W>explained by random mutation and selection.
>
> WRE>Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
> WRE>be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>
<snip>
>
>WRE>I don't have to have an opinion of any sort to be able to call
>WRE>for someone to support their own claim. If somebody is stupid
>WRE>enough to make a negative claim, that's their tough luck.
>WRE>They still get to attempt to support it, retract it, or ignore
>WRE>the fact that their bluff has been called.
>
>EVS>By the nature of your challenge, anyone who takes
>EVS>exception to your position, is _automatically_ thrown into
>EVS>a negative role. There is no alternative.
>
>My position is that Wolfgang hasn't supported his assertions.
>What's so negative about asking for the support for a claim
>that someone makes?
>
>EVS>Current scientific convention says there were unicorns.
>EVS>Wolfgang rejects convention. He consequently, is seen as
>EVS>making a negative claim. I.e. he, in effect, makes the
>EVS>claim that there were no unicorns. Consequently, you
>EVS>challenge him to prove his claim. His only options are to
>EVS>agree with your position, or prove the impossible (a
>EVS>negative). This is an excellent defensive posture. But it
>EVS>isn't supportive evidence, nor is it a scientific
>EVS>proposition.
>
>First, the analogy is off. Scientific convention says there
>are elephants, but Wolfgang rejects convention. He is making
>a negative claim all right, but he still has the burden of
>proof for the claim that no elephants exist.
>
is valid (from his prospective). The objective is to convince
him that they are not unicorns, but elephants.
>
>WRE>Notice that Wolfgang did not *simply* assert that mutation and
>WRE>natural selection cannot explain biological information, but
>WRE>further said that this datum is a "(logical) fact". I take
>WRE>that to mean that Wolfgang asserts the existence of an
>WRE>argument in some logical form that would substantiate
>WRE>Wolfgang's claim. Now, I'm just calling for him to reveal it.
>
>EVS>Did he imply that it is a logical argument? If so, you are
>EVS>right, he should follow up with a "logical" discourse. I
>EVS>did not see this, however.
>
>Too bad. Maybe if Eric tried *reading* what Wolfgang said
>and gave his *alternative* explanation of the indicated
>phrasing...
>
more than a little paranoid. This does nothing to convince
Wolfgang that he is wrong. You seem determined to build a
wall to protect yourself rather than show the opposition where
they are wrong.
>
> EVS>I may assert that there were living unicorns in the past,
> EVS>then challenge you to substantiate the claim that unicorns
> EVS>have never existed. But this is not scientific procedure.
>
>WRE>That's true enough, but Eric has not represented the situation
>WRE>correctly. Wolfgang has been invited to substantiate his very
>WRE>own claim, and not anybody else's.
>
>EVS>OK, I guess this is where the rub is - you see him _not_
>EVS>as taking issue with a commonly held scientific dogma, but
>EVS>making a personal claim independant of any such dogma.
>
>It doesn't matter what is or is not dogma or whether it is a
>simple case of denial of the bleeding obvious. What matters
>is that Wolfgang has made a claim that he cannot even begin to
>support, and I called him on it. If all Eric is going to do
>is blubber that it is cruel to make people support their own
>stupid claims, then this may be my final follow-up to Eric.
>We will have to agree to disagree.
>
challenge ts to convince the Wolfgangs of the world that the answer
lies within science. You seem to be taking the position that it is
wolfgang responsibility to prove something to you. This is nonsense!
He has nothing to prove to you. You should come out from your cover
and convince these Wolfgangs where there are wrong.
>WRE>That Wolfgang does not or
>WRE>cannot provide that support is not my concern. Wolfgang's
>WRE>assertion that a logical argument exists supporting his
>WRE>contention concerning mutation and natural selection looks to
>WRE>me very much like a claim of a unicorn sighting.
>
>EVS>But it seems that he is inadvertently challenging
>EVS>scientific orthordoxy.
>
>SFW?
>
What the hell does SFW mean?
>
>EVS>Therefore it is this challenge that we, as evolutionist,
>EVS>are confronted with.
>
>What I see is that we are confronted with yet another ignorant
>blowhard who wouldn't know information if it bit him on the
>butt. And maybe not just one, but two of them. YMMV.
>
How does it go: if you can't discredit the man's argument, then
discredit the man. Is this a ploy in your arsenal of tactics?
>
>EVS>Yes, I am an evolutionist and an agnostic with some
>EVS>tendencies towards atheism.
>
>La-de-da. Is this supposed to have some bearing on the
>ability of mutation and natural selection to add biological
>information? If so, I fail to see it.
>
>I have no particular sympathy for atheists, agnostics, or
>evolutionists who apparently are without clue. If the above
>was an attempt to do some sort of "buddy-buddy" thing, it
>failed.
>
Frankly, I don't give a damn about you. I had absolutely
no intentions of being on a "buddy - buddy thing"
with you. So don't flatter yourself!
>
>EVS>It isn't your position I am at odds with, but rather the
>EVS>logic of your challenge.
>
>OK, I'm glad we're clear on that. The logic of my challenge
>is that Wolfgang gets to support the assertions that he made.
>Eric has a problem with that. I can live with Eric's
>disapproval.
>
Allright them convince him - don't demand that he convince
you. That is not HIS responsibility. He disbelieves - that is
enough to justify a campeign to convince him. There is
no grounds for you to go into a foxhole and hide from him.
>
>EVS>I don't believe we need any defensive posturing.
>
>Calling for somebody to support their assertions is posturing?
>Here's another place we will have to agree to disagree.
>
You are being paranoid again. The world is not out to "get"
you. You do nothing to convince Wolfgang by your
"hit, run and hide" strategy. This is a self-serving ploy on your
part.
>EVS>I do not see creationist as a legimate threat.
>
>You're a moron.
>
I frankly dislike you intensely. You are far far more insidious
than any creationist I ever came across.
The reason I do not see creationist as a threat is because they
like "flat-earthers" do NOT have the legal or moral authority to
influence the powers that be - to say nothing of science, which
is opposed to their positions. So don't lose any sleep over
something so infantile.
You yourself mentioned polyploidy. That is one reference - you
>
>EVS>Something is missing or it may be that my understanding is
>EVS>incompelete. I do not rule that possibility out!
>
>I'd be more inclined to take Eric's statements seriously if
>he could back up his assertions with some tangible evidence.
>So far, that has been conspicuous by its absence.
>
What the hell are you talking about? What assertion?
I have made no damn assertions! I've only expressed personal
opinions.
>
You remind me of the schoolyard bully that tries to pick fights
with your stupid challenges. You convince nobody. This a self-
serving exercise on your part. Something to bullress your own
views, rather than to convince the opposition.
You misstated my "requirement". I did not say that randon mutations
are incapable of increasing information. Surely mutations alter
and occasionally add new information otherwise N.S. would have
nothing to act upon. So again you are deliberately being
provocative.
>
>I should mention, though, that Dembski is wrong about using
>his measure as an upper limit on the amount of information
>that mutation and natural selection can introduce on a
>per-generation basis. Bill Jefferys pointed out several
>problems in Dembski's analysis at the 1997 NTSE conference.
>But the fact remains that even some of those who argue against
>the sufficiency of mutation and natural selection to explain
>all biological information do admit that mutation and natural
>selection explain some biological information.
>
> EVS>The issue in a nutshell is to explain the existence of
> EVS>huge quantities of information where there is no
> EVS>intelligence.
>
>WRE>Yes. Where is the problem, though?
>
>EVS>We must be careful not to discount new findings because at
>EVS>_first_ blush they seem to implicate meddling by some
>EVS>intelligent agent.
>
>Really? What new findings? Where is this evidence? Be
>specific.
>
For example: two decades ago when it was first discovered that a certain
amount of redundancy exist in crucial areas of DNA this was unexpected
and at first it was met with alarm.
This may be my final response on this News group it's too hostile for
my taste. Oddly enough it the evolutionist who are hostile!
so goodbye!!
Eric.
Mark D. Kluge
>Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
>outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
>the whole interview:
>
>Please try to read without prejudice what Johnson is saying!
>
>"We're asking for something other than bluff and promises
>to demonstrate that unguided and purposeless material
>mechanisms can really do work that is beyond the capacity
>of human software designers and engineers.
Johnson concentrates upon the irrelevant. Science scarcely notices whether
material processes are or are not unguided or purposeless. It's just that
guidance and purpose are not what science can or does investigate. It's a
fair question to ask whether material mechanisms can really do certain
things, but irrelevant that those certain things are beyond the capacity
of human software designers and engineers.
>And we want to focus on that rather than on other questions
>that tend to distract us from the main point. We don't want
>to talk about the biblical chronology, the age of the earth,
>whether or not there is a relationship among living things,
>and so on.
One of the most important and difficult aspects of science is to learn to
ask the right questions. The right questions are those which have not yet
been answered, but are reasonably likely to be answerable in the near
term. One is not allowed to arbitrarily select one's main question and
ignore related issues. Rather, one must be guided by related questions in
solving a "main" question.
By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
not like is pure sophistry.
>The mainstream scientific community manages to get this
>whole issue tremendously confused by stating the question
>as being whether evolution has occurred. Well, evolution then
>just means any change whatsoever, so of course when it is
>put that way, well yeah, some change has occurred."
What is meant by "evolution has occurred" is rather more than Johnson
pretends.
>"Ask the important questions and examine the answers to
>those questions to see whether they are true or not, instead
>of getting off on these confusing sidetracks that has prevented
>the truth from coming out."
In other words, instead of considering those "confusing sidetracks" that
Johnson can't understand, consider only what Johnson considers important.
>"And if you are arguing the Bible vs. Science, then people
>think that you are arguing for blind faith against objectively
>determined knowledge or experiment. That's the way the press
>always presents it, and so the argument's over before it even
>gets started when it is phrased in those terms."
Indeed. and the Young-earth-creationist argument can always be properly
phrased in those terms. It is an argument of a peculiar interpretation of
the Bible against nearly the whole of science. (Whole branches of modern
science, astronomy, geology, would be inconceivable within the YEC
framework. That is why, as a scientific matter, Phil Johnson is right
here. The scientific argument about young-earth creationism is indeed over
before it starts.
And that is something that Johnson should not be afraid of, but should
build upon. YEC is scientifically garbage. Fine. Johnson and other
students of Intelligent Design should examine straightforwardly the
consequences for the Intelligent Design Hypothesis of the demise of
YECism. Instead of playing for an untenable political alliance with YEC's,
Johnson should embrace what is known about the age of the earth and derive
what consequences can be derived from it.
>"What we want to do is to explore the difference between good
>science and bad science without bringing the Bible into it at all,
>because that just confuses the issue.
That is what scientists have done for centuries. You don't see scientists
bringing the Bible into science. What the Bible says is irrelevant to
science. As far as science is concerned the Bible may be, and is, ignored.
It is the creationists and to some extent the Intelligent-Design theorists
who are bringing the Bible into the scientific discussion. I laud Johnson
in his efforts to correct his coreligionists and co-intelligent-design
theorists.
> So, I want to ask questions like:
>Does natural selection have the fantastic creative power that's
>assigned to it?
A fair question. What is Johnson's research program for answering it?
>Can it add vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there
>before?
A poorly-worded question. In what sense is Johnson referring to
"information?" Does he mean "information" in the Shannon
information-theory sense, or does he have some vague notion of "meaning"
in mind?
>Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
>designer?
An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
>The moment you ask that question, you see, then you open up
>to scientific investigation what natural selection can and can't do.
I wish it were that simple. Imagine a world in which just asking a
cleverly-misworded question opens up to scientific investigation vast
fields of inquiry!
>"It's just amazing to me when I got into this field that the scientists
>couldn't see that or couldn't see the importance of it. I found it
>hard to believe that otherwise intelligent scientists really believed
>that the micro-evolutionary examples of mutations that could make
>a bacteria resistant to antibiotics or something really are the same
>thing as the creative process that created bacteria and human
>beings in the first place, but they do seem to believe it."
Then Johnson should take time to study to understand why it is that those
expert in the field think that the two mechanisms are similar. Instead
Johnson appeals to the ignorant masses to join him in his opinion on the
grounds that they can't understand what biologists think any better than
Johnson.
>"It was an enormous shock to me getting into this to see, in fact,
>how bad the reasoning really is, how illogical the whole scientific
>field of evolution is and how resistant the scientists are to having
>any logic brought into it."
I also find it hard to see why scientists, who know that the earth and
life on earth are orders of magnitude more than 10,000 years old, would
not want to put that knowledge off to the side in considering whether the
observed diversity of living things is due to evolution by means of
natural selection or intelligent design. Like Johnson I always try to
reach the most far-reaching conclusions with as little of the available
evidence as possible.
>"Biologists who spend their lifetimes studying biology will be
>legitimate authorities, obviously, on the details of what they've
>learned in that investigation, and an outsider can't really challenge
>that, but an outsider definitely can challenge their thinking,
>particularly when it turns out that they believe in what they believe
>in not because of what they know as biologists, but in spite of
>what they know as biologists. It's a philosophical movement
>based on materialism."
And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
>"So, my basic inclination is to follow the evidence wherever it leads,
>and then live with the consequences of that."
The evidence is that the earth is a lot older than 10,000 years. Live with
the consequences of that for intelligent design, whatever they might be.
Confront them squarely, taking that important evidence into consideration.
>"One of the things I had noticed as a professor of law was how
>unsuccessful science was at explaining human behavior and the
>human condition on the basis of material factors or scientific ideas
>of causation.
>We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
>into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
>crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
>of physical causes.
ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
a scientific determination.
>Or, perhaps it's psychological causes in early childhood as in
>Freudianism, perhaps it's training as in behaviorism, perhaps it's
>chemical reactions as in modern neuroscientific theories of the
>brain, but these are all responsible for human action. And
>whenever you go in this way, you end up in madness very quickly.
>You actually cannot explain human behavior on the basis of
>cause and effect relations like that."
And except for some extreme behaviorists, no one tries.
[rant deleted]
>"If our mental capacities are produced by natural selection or by
>chemical reactions in the brain, how in the world would we ever
>have developed the capacity to produce true scientific theories?
>This has no ability to increase the organism's powers of
>reproduction so that they could breed more viable descendents
>or whatever."
>"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment myth. The
Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century. Darwin flourished during
the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had little or no effect a century before
Darwin.
>"Galileo got in trouble with the professoriate of his day because
>he was a cocky, arrogant theorizer who treated everybody else
>with contempt. He was brilliant, of course, and he was right about
>important things, but people who've studied the history of the
>Galileo episodes don't find it too surprising that he eventually got
>into trouble."
Finally something we can agree upon. The Galileo episode is complex, and
not well explained by a simplistic science-church warfare.
>"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
>particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
>the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
>today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
>in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
An unsupported analogy.
>See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
>power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
>always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
>So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
>the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
>censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
>to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone be, since
there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The National
Academy of Science can't control all of them, except, possibly, in the
delusional world of Philip Johnson.
>"But you find the notion that non-Western ways of thinking must
>be treated with respect, that even ancient traditions of tribes
>may have their truth value--these are healthy developments,
>I think, and they help open up the universities to challenges to
>the dominant scientific materialism."
It's trivial that non-Western ways of thinking must be treated with
respect in a pluralistic world. That includes tribal beliefs, which might
be, in some sense, true. It is unlikely that any tribal beliefs are true
or useful in any scientific sense, though.
>"Oh, I often say that in 1859, Darwin published the Origin of
>Species. In 1959, there was a very triumphalist celebration of
>the centennial of its publication at the University of Chicago,
>and the scientists came from all over and every message was
>"Darwinian evolution has conquered all, it has defeated Christianity,
>it has taken over science, it is the wave of the future." I think that
>in 2059, there will be another vast convention on this subject and
>the theme will be "How could we ever have let this happen?" "
There is no basis for Johnson's saying that evolution was widely claimed
to have defeated Christianity, let alone conquered all.
Well, that's the Best of Phil Johnson. Not much there.
Mkluge
Mark D. Kluge
>Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
>computer program must have not only information but also semantics
>(interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
>useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
>definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
>than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
>sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
In what sense is it better? Be precise. What are the semantics whose
appearance you think needs explaining? What law of nature do you think is
violoated if those semantics exist at one point in time while not having
existed at previous times?
Mkluge
Bigdakine
>interview (Communiqué, Spring 1999))
>From: "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li>
>Date: 4/10/99 10:39 AM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>
>
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
>
>> W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
>> W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
>> W>explained by random mutation and selection."
>
>> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
>> be referenced where? Be specific.
>
>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
Since you didn't supply such reasoning, Wesley assummed that you had a source
which contained the logic... etc...
>
>> W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
>> W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
>> W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
>> W>of usable energy.
>>
>> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
>> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
>> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
>> pre-biotic chemistry.
>
>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
>the emergence of biological information. There must be
>reproduction and inheritance.
No shit sherlock.... But that is already implied by selection and mutation. If
mutations can't be inherited then selection has no effect beyond the life of
the individual... and good traits cannot be passed on to the progeny...
And these principles are based
>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
That is meaningless gibberish. If you understand that, then You have a problem.
>
>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
>arbitrary.
Abiogenesis is the processed by which the first life appeared. Evolution is the
process through which life changes with time. Doesn't sound arbitrary to me.
How do you define them?
Also the immense information of the first self-
>replicating proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a
>prerequisite of the information needed for a human being.
How do you know it was immense? Please state your maths showing the information
of the first self-replicating cell. This should be especially interesting,
since no one really knows what the first proto cell was like.
>
>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
>children who were born after successive mutation and selection.
Well, have you seen the first proto cell lately? Send it my regards...
>
>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
ROFTLMAO. You haven't presented a theory yet. You're a troll.
>
<snippage>
>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
>disappearing after having appeared by chance."
Chance? You mean mutation and natural selection... not the same as chance
sorry...
But at the same
>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
>again after having appeared by chance.
?????
>
<retarded gibberish snipped>
>
>> W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
>> W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
>> W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
>> W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
>> W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
>> W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
>> W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
>> W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
>> W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
>> W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
>> W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
>> W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
>> W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
>>
>> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
>> thread?
>
>But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
>Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
>basis of chemistry and biology.
No it is not. Now an ignoramus like you is telling us what evolutionary theory
is and what quantum is... Your either a dope or a troll. For the record aspects
of quantum have been tested to a precision of one part in 10 billion. Deal with
it. And for the umpteenth time, Darwinism has an element of chance, but it is
not pure chance!
(Such 'basic principles' are
>used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
>other alternative theories.)
Uhhh what distinguishes scientific theories from one another is, more
fundamentally, the different predictions they make.
>
>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism. Do you
>know one single non-living thing undergoing reproduction,
>mutation and selection. Computer simulations are not
>convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
>replicating machines.
Yeah sure... DNA
>
<utterly infatuous gibberish snipped>
>
>Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
>vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
>nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
>can add information. My specific argument is based on the
>fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
>more probable than an information loss and that the principles
>neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
>in the long term.
But Darwinisn is not based on pure chance. Are you thick or what?
Good-bye troll...
Stuart
>
>
>Read my work on evolution on the internet. There you will
>find enough logical arguments which support my claim. But I
>suppose you read only scriptures having received the official
>approval of orthodoxy.
Yeah right.. look who's talking...
>
>Cheers
>Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to realy foul things up
requires a creationist"
z@z
I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem purposeful
to me to answer comprehensively your remarks:
> No, they are based on chemistry.
That's self-evident!
> No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
And life is when evolution starts. Before that is no life.
> Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
It is a fact that it has. Every organism needs a lot of information.
> Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
> I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
> Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
> have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
> so on
> Huh? Where is your support for this?
Sound reasoning.
> Ah. "Nuts just like me"
> They are? Can you support this?
> Wrong.
> Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
> baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
My ideas have a better and broader basis than neo-Darwinism.
That's all you have written. Not one single argument to justify your
statements. What do you intend with such an answer?
Cheers
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html
(My theory is published there where it should be
at the beginning of the third millennium.)
z@z
> z@z wrote:
>
> > Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
> > computer program must have not only information but also semantics
> > (interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
> > useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
> > definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
> > than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
> > sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
>
> Wolfgang,
>
> The first mistake is to make the analogy that a living system is
> equivalent to a computer program. It isn't.
I only stated that biological information is rather analoguous to
computer information than to Shannon-style information.
> As Yockey, Information
> Theory and Molecular Biology p. 256 there are approximately 10^93
> different proteins of 110-amino-acid-length which perform the function
> of cytochrome c.
The figure 10^93 is probably too high, but there are at least 20^110 =
10^143 different proteins of such a length. So only one in 10^50 proteins
(of the needed length) can perform the function and the probability remains
as low as 10^-50 !!! There are, however, hundreds of different functioning
proteins in simple living cells, which even must be able to cooperate.
> You can not possibly find that many different combinations which will
> successfully perform the programing statement:
>
> If ((a=b) and (d=g) and (t=rt)) or ((a>c) or (a<5)) then
> A=t*g/45*PI*sqrt(ty/er)*137.1
>
> which is approximately 100 characters in length.
There are also many different programs with the same result. E.g. you
can replace
a with x
PI with 3,14159
45 with 5*9 or 90/2
and so on
can write
((a>c) or (a<5)) as not ((a<=c) and (a>=5))
and so on
can choose
between different ways of addressing memory
between different data types
and so on
> The constant analogy
> of living systems with computer code is highly flawed. Functionality
> among the proteins is much greater than among computer code. If this
> were not the case then pig, sheep, cow, and horse insulin would not be
> able to work in a human. If this were not the case you could not
> transplant gorilla mitochondria into a human cell and have it work
> (which it does).
I do not deny this. I only deny that chemical and physical laws can be
enough to explain the complex behaviour of enzymes.
> You should read the Dec 1993 (?) article by Gerald Joyce, entitled
> Directed Evolution. He randomly made proteins to perform a particular
> function. He was always able to find molecules that performed the
> function he required.
Yes, could be interesting. If there is something on the internet, I'm
interested in it.
> Now, you can't do that with a line of computer code so cease making
> the very fallacious analogy between a living system and computers.
It's not me who makes the analogy. In my opinion living systems are
totally different from mechanical systems.
see: http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a05
And it's not me who compares living organisms with machines and
brains with computers. I fight for a panpsychist view of life.
You know, according to the Shannon definition a text has the more
information the more characters the text contains and the more random
they are distributed in the text. But it is completely absurd to use
such an information definition in the context of abiogenesis and
evolution.
> Unfortunately I will not have internet access til next Saturday.
Cheers
Wolfgang
z@z
[snip]
> See also:
> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
>
> Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
> generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
> to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
> speculate about what is and isn't possible.
I do not deny the fact of a continuous evolution or creation
of life. I only deny the prevailing scientific explanation of this
fact. It is not necessary to explain me things I already know.
To speculate is also very important for scientific philosophical
progress.
> The trouble with
> logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
> Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
> and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
> a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
If I need more background about biology and biochemistry
than you might benefit even more from a little background
reading about philosophy, logics, and above all about
epistemology.
Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so
many side effects that finally the immune system gets
exhausted!
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
Cheers
Wolfgang
Pim van Meurs
"z@z" wrote:
>
> G First off, it is Shannon-WEAVER. But yes Johnson is basing his
> G criticism of evolution on the common sense definition which as Hubert
> G Yockey has so adequately pointed out, gets you into lots of logical
> G problems. Information is NOT semantics and that is the problem with the
> G common sense definition--it is a logical equivocation of information
> G with semantic meaning. It is like saying an apple is an orange.
>
> Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
> computer program must have not only information but also semantics
> (interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
> useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
> definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
> than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
> sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
Sometimes "common sense" is not thebest definition Wolfgang.
Pim van Meurs
"z@z" wrote:
> Hello Bonz!
>
> I hope you can understand that it doesn't seem purposeful
> to me to answer comprehensively your remarks:
>
> > No, they are based on chemistry.
>
> That's self-evident!
>
> > No, abiogenesis is when life starts. After that is evolution.
>
> And life is when evolution starts. Before that is no life.
>
Life can exist without evolution.
>
> > Uh... so what? Do you think evolution had to produce humans?
>
> It is a fact that it has. Every organism needs a lot of information.
>
Do they ? And so what ?
>
> > Why? Sounds idiotic to me.
>
> > I see. Then why don't you publish this theory?
>
> > Your main problem seems to be that you try to drag in things that
> > have no relevance: teleology, "souls", Gods, purposefulness and
> > so on
>
> > Huh? Where is your support for this?
>
> Sound reasoning.
>
So you admit there is no real support for this after all.
>
> > Ah. "Nuts just like me"
>
> > They are? Can you support this?
>
> > Wrong.
>
> > Mostly, what you say just has no foundation at all. You pull half
> > baked ideas out of your ass and proclaim them to be true.
>
> My ideas have a better and broader basis than neo-Darwinism.
Nice assertion but somewhat meaningless. Care to try again ?
Mark D. Kluge
>> The first mistake is to make the analogy that a living system is
>> equivalent to a computer program. It isn't.
>I only stated that biological information is rather analoguous to
>computer information than to Shannon-style information.
In what way is biological information analogous to "computer information"
(whatever is meant by that!) rather than to Shannon-style information?
Your notion of biological information is too fuzzy even to criticize. You
say that it is a problem of some sort for biological information (whatever
you mean by that) to have arisen either through abiogenesis or through
evolution; but you are not precise enough to pin down what you think the
problem is.
>> As Yockey, Information
>> Theory and Molecular Biology p. 256 there are approximately 10^93
>> different proteins of 110-amino-acid-length which perform the function
>> of cytochrome c.
>The figure 10^93 is probably too high, but there are at least 20^110 =
>10^143 different proteins of such a length. So only one in 10^50 proteins
>(of the needed length) can perform the function and the probability remains
>as low as 10^-50 !!!
The probability OF WHAT is as low as a0^-50? You have to be specific.
Here the probability you have calculated is that of a 110 amino acid chain
consisting of independent and equiprobable units of each of 20 amino acids
being among the 10^93 such sequences able to perform the biological
functions of cytochrome c.
However, there is no reason to think that proteins form in such a manner.
No one has ever suggested that cytochrome c or any other modern protein
formed in a single step by the random polymerization of amino acids. Hence
your probability is not germane.
>I only deny that chemical and physical laws can be
>enough to explain the complex behaviour of enzymes.
What complex behavior of enzymes? As far as I know, all of the observed
behavior of enzymes is physical or chemical, and is understood in terms of
physical and chemical laws. You might believe there is something more, but
what is that something?
>You know, according to the Shannon definition a text has the more
>information the more characters the text contains and the more random
>they are distributed in the text. But it is completely absurd to use
>such an information definition in the context of abiogenesis and
>evolution.
We await with baited breath the definition of information which you think
is necessary to use in the context of abiogenesis.
MKluge
Wesley R. Elsberry
WRE>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
WRE>his timing.
>>In article <ylqP2.4522$_d7.1...@news1.mia>,
>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>><1999040815...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>In article <u9SN2.9771$Ek.40...@news1.mia>,
>>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>>><1999040419...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>>In article <8vMN2.14581$Uk.25...@news3.mia>,
>>>>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>>>>><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>>>>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
WRE>Too bad. Maybe if Eric tried *reading* what Wolfgang said
WRE>and gave his *alternative* explanation of the indicated
WRE>phrasing...
EVS>As I said before, you assume a _defensive_ posture, this
EVS>seems more than a little paranoid. This does nothing to
EVS>convince Wolfgang that he is wrong. You seem determined to
EVS>build a wall to protect yourself rather than show the
EVS>opposition where they are wrong.
We were discussing what Wolfgang said. Or at least I was.
Somehow Eric seems to have missed the point.
In my experience, my approach is effective. Eric is welcome
to use any strategy he wishes to counter anti-evolutionary
idiocy. We'll see who gets results. I disagree with Eric on
the rightness of my approach.
I'll note right now that sometimes I do try to provide an
education on some topics. On others, my time is best employed
in showing the vacuousness of the assertions made by someone
else. Eric is welcome to check out my web page and some of
my contributions to the t.o. archive.
[...]
EVS>I do not see creationist as a legimate threat.
WRE>You're a moron.
EVS>I frankly dislike you intensely. You are far far more
EVS>insidious than any creationist I ever came across.
I'll put that in my collection of "consider the source"
compliments.
And I think that Eric has been lying about his stances and
the issues. I think Eric is yet another crypto-creationist.
No, I don't have any hard evidence of that, but that's how
I'm putting together the pieces at the moment.
EVS>The reason I do not see creationist as a threat is because
EVS>they like "flat-earthers" do NOT have the legal or moral
EVS>authority to influence the powers that be - to say nothing
EVS>of science, which is opposed to their positions. So don't
EVS>lose any sleep over something so infantile.
Oh, Eric? What about the *real*, *actual* *harm* caused by
those *harmless* SciCre-ists that I mentioned in the following
paragraph? If these folks didn't have the legal or moral
authority to influence the powers that be, just how did it
happen that those authorities *have* been influenced? Was it
fairies? Cosmic rays? The Mafia? Marsh gas?
[...]
EVS>We must be careful not to discount new findings because at
EVS>_first_ blush they seem to implicate meddling by some
EVS>intelligent agent.
WRE>Really? What new findings? Where is this evidence? Be
WRE>specific.
EVS>For example: two decades ago when it was first discovered
EVS>that a certain amount of redundancy exist in crucial areas
EVS>of DNA this was unexpected and at first it was met with
EVS>alarm.
That doesn't look very specific. It doesn't look like any
source is even referred to, much less properly cited.
And the evidence that someone *actually* *discounted* these
findings can be found where? Be specific.
EVS>This may be my final response on this News group it's too
EVS>hostile for my taste. Oddly enough it the evolutionist who
EVS>are hostile! so goodbye!!
So long. I admit that I am very hostile to ignoramuses and
those who seek to protect ignorance. I just don't see the
point in being artificially nice in those circumstances.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"And even locks that won't explode\When the sky's become a scroll" - BOC
Eric Von Schrondger
Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>In article <laVP2.8398$HB5.2...@news3.mia>,
>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>><1999041007...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>
>WRE>I'm feeling cranky. That's just too bad for Eric, at least on
>WRE>his timing.
>
>>>In article <ylqP2.4522$_d7.1...@news1.mia>,
>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>><1999040815...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>In article <u9SN2.9771$Ek.40...@news1.mia>,
>>>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>>>><1999040419...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>>>In article <8vMN2.14581$Uk.25...@news3.mia>,
>>>>>>>Eric Von Schrondger <e...@news.mia.bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>Wesley R. Elsberry wrote in message
>>>>>>>><1999040415...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com>...
>>>>>>>>>In article <7e7or1$a8o$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li>
wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>WRE>Too bad. Maybe if Eric tried *reading* what Wolfgang said
>WRE>and gave his *alternative* explanation of the indicated
>WRE>phrasing...
>
>EVS>As I said before, you assume a _defensive_ posture, this
>EVS>seems more than a little paranoid. This does nothing to
>EVS>convince Wolfgang that he is wrong. You seem determined to
>EVS>build a wall to protect yourself rather than show the
>EVS>opposition where they are wrong.
>
>We were discussing what Wolfgang said. Or at least I was.
>Somehow Eric seems to have missed the point.
>
criticizing your tactics. What he said was immaterial. He is
mistaken, but your methods offend rather than elucidate.
That is my complaint. Too self-serving.
>
>In my experience, my approach is effective. Eric is welcome
>to use any strategy he wishes to counter anti-evolutionary
>idiocy. We'll see who gets results. I disagree with Eric on
>the rightness of my approach.
>
I would really be interested to know.
>
>I'll note right now that sometimes I do try to provide an
>education on some topics. On others, my time is best employed
>in showing the vacuousness of the assertions made by someone
>else. Eric is welcome to check out my web page and some of
>my contributions to the t.o. archive.
>
>[...]
>
> EVS>I do not see creationist as a legimate threat.
>
>WRE>You're a moron.
>
>EVS>I frankly dislike you intensely. You are far far more
>EVS>insidious than any creationist I ever came across.
>
>I'll put that in my collection of "consider the source"
>compliments.
>
sorry about that.
>
>And I think that Eric has been lying about his stances and
>the issues. I think Eric is yet another crypto-creationist.
>No, I don't have any hard evidence of that, but that's how
>I'm putting together the pieces at the moment.
>
shape or form! What is crypto- creationist anyway?
>
>EVS>The reason I do not see creationist as a threat is because
>EVS>they like "flat-earthers" do NOT have the legal or moral
>EVS>authority to influence the powers that be - to say nothing
>EVS>of science, which is opposed to their positions. So don't
>EVS>lose any sleep over something so infantile.
>
>Oh, Eric? What about the *real*, *actual* *harm* caused by
>those *harmless* SciCre-ists that I mentioned in the following
>paragraph? If these folks didn't have the legal or moral
>authority to influence the powers that be, just how did it
>happen that those authorities *have* been influenced? Was it
>fairies? Cosmic rays? The Mafia? Marsh gas?
>
I am in Germany most of my life. In Germany we have none of this.
Therefore I am not so aware. But it seems to me to be uniquely
an American problem. But hopefully the creationist are
losing their will, as they are losing in virtually every court case.
Maybe you are right. Ironically American industry must import
technical talent from Europe, India and Asia because American
schools are failing to educate sufficient numbers of technical
people. And yet it isn't that talent isn't here. It's underdeveloped.
I think U.S. obsession with "political correctness" deserves
much of the blame for this failure.
There are certain political ideologies that take priority
over education. American education was among the best in
the world during the earlier part of this century. That was even
before creation Vs evolution was an issue in American
education.
>[...]
><snip>
Eric.
Tim Ikeda
In article <7eqbgr$pbr$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z...@z.lol.li says...
> Hello Tim Ikeda!
>
> [snip]
>
>> See also:
>> http://www.calvin.edu/archive/evolution/199903/0092.html
>>
>> Where I discussed examples of gene duplications as "positive
>> generators of genetic information." They are not that hard
>> to find if one bothers to read the literature rather than
>> speculate about what is and isn't possible.
>
> I do not deny the fact of a continuous evolution or creation
> of life. I only deny the prevailing scientific explanation of this
> fact. It is not necessary to explain me things I already know.
The explanation for the examples described are gene duplication
and selection. Both of these processes have been observed
operating independently and in tandem to increase "information"
in organisms.
> To speculate is also very important for scientific philosophical
> progress.
Agreed. Nothing wrong with speculation. One can always speculate
that "standard-mechanism-X + unknown-mechanism-Y" are behind an
event. But this has little relevance unless one can distinguish
between events caused by "mechanism-X" and those caused by
"mechanisms-X + Y".
One can determine this positively, by demonstrating the existence
of mechanism-Y, or negatively, by demonstrating that mechanism-X
is not sufficient. Positive support is more often preferred over
negative support. That is because it is often very, very difficult
to conclusively demonstrate the insufficiency of mechanism-X;
particularly when all the possible outcomes involving mechanism-X
cannot be sufficiently described.
>> The trouble with
>> logical/mathematical arguments is: Garbage in = garbage out.
>> Wolfgang, judging from your past responses in this thread
>> and the AIDS thread, I think that you might benefit from
>> a little more background reading about biology/biochemistry.
>
> If I need more background about biology and biochemistry
> than you might benefit even more from a little background
> reading about philosophy, logics, and above all about
> epistemology.
What about my writing suggests that I haven't? I'm very
interested in these subjects as they apply to science.
I'm card-carrying doctor of philosophy.
Philosophy is fine, but the Devil is in the details...
> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
Actually, Wolfgang, I think the following comments (which you've
posted previously but never adequately defended except to repeat
them again), illustrate the problem I see in many of your posts.
> Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
> of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless) with hundreds of
> thousands of micrograms of very toxic substances having so many
> side effects that finally the immune system gets exhausted!
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
> If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning.
Let's take that passage apart to evaluate any claims...
Sentence #1
"Do you really think that it makes sense to fight 0.1 microgram
of HIV (retroviruses are generally harmless)"
"Generally" is not the same as never. It is a risky to assume that the
general case extends to specific cases. If we were to restrict ourselves
to generalities, we might conclude that viruses, DNA & RNA-based, are
harmless -- That's because viral specificity limits host range so that
most (99.99+%) of the viruses you encounter in nature will simply do
nothing to you (Likewise bacteria). Of course, run across a virus that
is specific for _you_ and you'll find where generalizations fail. For
example, feline leukemia viruses (FeLV), influenza viruses, & SIV are
all retroviruses that are not harmless in many of their hosts. Nor is
HIV, as far as we can tell. The comment, "retroviruses are generally
harmless" is irrelvant to particular cases.
Continued:
"with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
(~ 100's of mg range)
That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
HIV is no exception.
[Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
activity & etc.]
The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
drug cocktails should be used.
Continued:
"of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
are clear signs of immune system impairment.
As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
repeat what others have said before: Your point?
Continued:
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
"Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
less than 200/mL..."
The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
the trials.
[Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
-- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
Let's review where the comments stand:
RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
provided.
Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
individuals.
Second paragraph:
"If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
to pathogen is clearly missing something.
I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
"dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
nobody would ever know...
So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection."
WRE> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
WRE> be referenced where? Be specific.
W>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
W>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
A logical argument also has things like premises and
conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it, or
provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
Nobody is stopping him.
[...]
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"swarm stab and bite what we want is justice" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>I garantee you: the assumption that random changes can create
W>humans from simple matter is very similar to the assumption
W>that a mechanical perpetuum mobile can provide huge amounts
W>of usable energy.
WRE> Notice the claim was concerning "random mutation AND
WRE> selection", not just "random changes". Notice also that the
WRE> original discussion was about *biological* information, not
WRE> pre-biotic chemistry.
W>But "random mutation AND selection" certainly cannot explain
W>the emergence of biological information. There must be
W>reproduction and inheritance. And these principles are based
W>on finality, a principle incompatible with neo-Darwinism. If you
W>do not understand this, then it is your problem, not mine.
Reproduction and inheritance are not finalistic at basis.
While finalism of various forms has been expressed in biology
before, such things as orthogenesis and arstogenesis are now
quite extinct. I can't help it if Wolfgang is confused by
reality.
As has been pointed out, the concepts of "mutation" and
"natural selection" are dependent upon both reproduction and
inheritance. This would indicate that Wolfgang has a certain
amount of confusion concerning very basic concepts in biology.
W>The distinction between abiogenesis and evolution is rather
W>arbitrary.
The qualitative distinction between systems without mechanisms
of inheritance and systems with mechanisms of inheritance
seems pretty clear.
W>Also the immense information of the first self- replicating
W>proto-cell must be explained somehow. It is a prerequisite
W>of the information needed for a human being.
If Wolfgang provides the information content of the first
protocell and its precursors for analysis, we'll be able to
see whether "cell fairies" are necessary for explanations
or not. But that wasn't what this thread was about. We can
go into that elsewhere. In this thread, what is at issue is
Wolfgang's claim that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
W>Within neo-Darwinian framework one must not take it for
W>granted that the proto-cell certainly would have been vastly
W>overpowered and driven to extinction by its more advanced
W>children who were born after successive mutation and
W>selection.
And this is relevant to proving that mutation and natural
selection cannot add biological information in what way?
W>In a sound evolution theory as my own there is no such
W>artificial distinction as between abiogenesis and evolution.
[...]
Some of us disagree on the "artificiality" of the distinction.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"she told me it is merely a plutonic attachment" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"If it cannot be denied that the probability for random
W>emergence of a system (e.g. a living organism) is
W>unrealistically low, the system is taken apart to smaller
W>and smaller sub-systems until random emergence gets
W>realistic. But it is ignored that the probability for the
W>whole system is calculated by multiplying the probabilities
W>for the emergence of all systems from their respective
W>sub-systems. Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance." http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a03
WRE> What do "reductionist causal laws" have to do with the topic?
WRE> Are "mutation and natural selection" classified as
WRE> reductionist causal laws by Wolfgang? If so, Wolfgang's
WRE> final assertion is just plain wrong.
W>Neo-Darwinism states that reductionist causal laws can explain
W>the evolution of life (no teleology, no souls, no God, no
W>purposefulness and so on).
And is thus comprised of applications of reductionist causal
laws, right?
W>Your main problem, Wesley, is that you confuse empirical facts
W>with predictions of neo-Darwinism and logical facts.
Really? Provide an illustrative instance for documentation,
then. If this claim is true, that should be a piece of cake.
W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
W>again after having appeared by chance.
If one takes
"Reductionist causal laws do not explain why sub-systems which are
useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of disappearing
after having appeared by chance."
to mean, "Reductionist causal laws do not explain how adaptive
subsystems become widespread in a population instead of
disappearing after their first instantiation via mutation or
recombination", then one can easily point to Fisher's 1930
"Genetical Basis of Natural Selection" for detailed
mathematical treatments of just how often we should *expect* a
new adaptive feature to be propagated in a population, and how
often we should expect it to simply disappear again. It is
precisely in that sense that I said that Wolfgang's original
statement was wrong.
Let me repeat Wolfgang's old assertion and his new text:
W>Reductionist causal laws do not explain why
W>sub-systems which are useful for the whole reproduce
W>themselves instead of disappearing after having appeared by
W>chance.
W>Neo-Darwinism claims that it can explain "why sub-systems
W>which are useful for the whole reproduce themselves instead of
W>disappearing after having appeared by chance." But at the same
W>time the principles neo-Darwinism is based on entail that sub-
W>systems useful for a self-replicating system would disappear
W>again after having appeared by chance.
Wolfgang's old assertion and the first of his new assertions
are inconsistent with each other. But Wolfgang is apparently
trying to assert that "neoDarwinism" is self-contradictory
with the juxtaposition of these two new assertions. IIRC,
Fisher's 1930 text shows the fact that the incorporation or
exclusion of a new mutation can be treated mathematically
under a Darwinian framework. The first new assertion isn't
about "claims"; the theoretical structure exists. If Wolfgang
wishes to dispute it, he is welcome to point out errors in
Fisher's math. Go ahead, Wolfgang, we'll wait... and
wait... and wait...
As for the second of Wolfgang's new assertions, I want to see
the documentation that the second assertion is an accurate
representation and not just another strawman buddy that
Wolfgang keeps around for company. So, Wolfgang is invited to
provide his references to show those "entailed" consequences.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot add
biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"The skies are filled with herds of shivering angels"-BOC
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
WRE> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
W>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
[...]
Ah. Wolfgang is one of the Emperor's tailors, I see.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"1277 express to heaven\Rumbles the steel like a dogfight" - BOC
John Wilkins
Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
|Bit.listserv.skeptic removed at moderator's request.
|
|In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
|>Hello Wesley (R. Elsberry)!
|
| W>"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but
| W>it is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
| W>explained by random mutation and selection."
|
|WRE> Really? And the evidence which supports this contention can
|WRE> be referenced where? Be specific.
|
|W>Why a reference? For a logical argument, logical reasoning and
|W>some knowledge of maths and epistemology must be enough.
|
|A logical argument also has things like premises and
|conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
|logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it, or
|provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
|Nobody is stopping him.
|
|[...]
|
Also, there seems to be this recurring notion that "information" in
whatever sense is intended here cannot be created nor destroyed - a
somewhat Platonic notion of information. We are all awaiting justification
of this based upon some work done - where and why would anyone think
information is conserved in this way. It's not merely a logical/formal
argument. The premises need support as well.
FWIW, I think information can be created and destroyed in purely physical
ways (one of which is NS and mutation) - why am I wrong? Also, I have some
knowledge of epistemology. On this topic, I recommend Dretske.
Dretske, Fred I. 1981. Knowledge and the flow of information. Cambridge,
Mass.: MIT Press.
Dretske, Fred I. 1988. Explaining behavior: reasons in a world of causes.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Dretske, Fred I. 1995. Naturalizing the mind. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
--
John Wilkins
Head, Graphic Production
The Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research
Melbourne, Australia
<mailto:wil...@WEHI.EDU.AU><http://www.wehi.edu.au/~wilkins>
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"Final (teleological) laws of nature are not apriori less
W>scientific than causal laws. Theorists explaining evolution
W>without final laws of nature, are either not aware of the
W>finality used in their explanations, or they extremely
W>overestimate the creativity of pure chance. To be
W>consistent, they would also have to explain scientific and
W>cultural progress by random errors (e.g. in thinking or
W>copying data). The hypothesis that teleological principles
W>have always been effective in evolution is much more
W>consistent and elegant than the hypothesis that such
W>principles appeared only as a result of organisms having
W>emerged themselves by pure chance."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/reductionism.html
WRE> What's all this bullshit about "pure chance" doing in this
WRE> thread?
W>But "pure chance" is the 'basic principle' not only of neo-
W>Darwinism but also of orthodox quantum mechanics, the
W>basis of chemistry and biology. (Such 'basic principles' are
W>used to characterize theories or to distinguish them from
W>other alternative theories.)
This neatly avoids the *obvious* misrepresentation that
Wolfgang indulges in. Theorists explaining evolution do not
do so on the basis of "pure chance", as Wolfgang's text above
states. That pure chance cannot be avoided in quantum physics
does not mean that it is the sole means of explanation in
biology.
W>Furthermore, the first system capable of undergoing
W>reproduction, mutation and selection must have appeared
W>by pure chance according to neo-Darwinism.
This doesn't appear to have any relevance to Wolfgang's claim
that mutation and natural selection cannot add biological
information.
W>Do you know one single non-living thing undergoing
W>reproduction, mutation and selection. Computer simulations
W>are not convincing. Convincing, however, would be self-
W>replicating machines.
My ignorance of chemistry of self-replicating systems is
extensive. This doesn't mean, though, that mutation and
natural selection do not add biological information, which
is the point at issue in this thread.
Others find computer simulations to have more capacity
for persuasion than does Wolfgang.
[...]
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"boss sometimes i think that our friend mehitabel is a trifle too gay" - archy
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
W>"One cannot doubt that an innate behaviour pattern cannot be
W>stored directly in the DNA. So all the (certainly complex)
W>principles by which DNA sequences are transformed into read
W>only memory of the brain must also be coded in the DNA (and
W>are subject to negative mutations). And there cannot be a
W>miraculous mechanism increasing the amount of information
W>during the transformation from the original DNA information
W>to the final read only information. There should rather be
W>an information loss.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte! Because at least
W>several bytes would be necessary to code a behaviour pattern
W>in the DNA (think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!), the probability
W>that behaviour patterns could evolve would be rather
W>low. For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns. Because it is generally
W>accepted that negative mutations are more likely than
W>positive ones, macroevolution would be impossible."
W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/evidence.html#instinctive
WRE> Wow. Is Wolfgang aiming for some "highest density of logical
WRE> fallacies in one paragraph" award? He is up against stiff
WRE> competition, but the above should put him in the running.
W>You are bluffing here, so it's very probable that you bluff
W>regularly.
Bluffing? Wolfgang thinks his paragraph is free of logical
blunders?
W>Please try to explain at least in principle my logical fallacies!
[...]
In principle? I take it that Wolfgang would like specific
indentification of the fallacies, then.
W>Four base pairs can store only 1 byte!
This is not a logical error, but a misrepresentation of
reality. Four base pairs yield 256 different permutations of
nucleotide bases, which would be one byte. But DNA codes are
transcribed into proteins. Each codon, or three base pairs,
code for one amino acid out of twenty (in humans). That's
only 4.47 bits of information, not the 6 bits that would be
expected without reference to how DNA actually works.
W>Because at least several bytes would be necessary to code a
W>behaviour pattern in the DNA
There is no demonstration of such a length necessity. Appeal
to facts not in evidence. Logical error #1.
W>(think about the bytes which would be needed for
W>simulating such a behaviour in a robot!),
False analogy. Logical error #2.
W>the probability that behaviour patterns could evolve would
W>be rather low.
Non sequitur. Logical error #3.
W>For macroevolution to work many enzyme types, many cell
W>types and other structures must evolve at the same time
W>together with behaviour patterns.
Misrepresentation. Macroevolution, in the form of speciation
events, has been observed to occur without these restrictions.
W>Because it is generally accepted that negative mutations
W>are more likely than positive ones, macroevolution would be
W>impossible."
[...]
Non sequitur. Logical error #4. See also the previous
comment.
Wolfgang doesn't know me very well if he thinks I bluff on
these matters. Wolfgang also has a very low opinion of the
cognitive capabilities of readers here if he thought these
problems were not fairly obvious to others.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Time marches on\Time stands still\Time on my hands\Time to kill"-WZ
Wesley R. Elsberry
In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
[...]
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
W>In any case the quote itself is complete (logical) nonsense
W>(at least out of context). Unfortunately the online article
W>uses a character set incompatible with my browser.
W>Why do you appreciate this quote?
WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
WRE> biological information.
W>Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
W>vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
W>nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
W>can add information. My specific argument is based on the
W>fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
W>more probable than an information loss and that the principles
W>neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
W>in the long term.
Let's look at that "specific argument" again.
[Quote]
W>That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
W>is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
W>explained by random mutation and selection.
[End Quote - Wolfgang,
<http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=462581020>]
I don't see any qualifiers about time or anything else in
that claim. If Wolfgang is officially retracting his original
claim in order to make a less reality-challenged one, that
would be fine by me.
I doubt that Wolfgang can produce any more evidence for his
new claim than he has for his old, apparently abandoned, one.
And that would be: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None.
W>The quote you cited from "a major figure in the ID hierarchy"
W>clearly shows that you don't understand well what you write
W>about. Even after having read some paragraphs before and
W>after the quote, it's difficult for me to figure out a context where
W>this paragraph could make sense, but it certainly does not make
W>sense in our discussion.
That quote was cited by me in response to *Eric*, not
Wolfgang. *Wolfgang* then asked about it. If Wolfgang wants
to see where it makes sense, he need only look back to
<http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=464061759> to find it.
It does make sense in this discussion, though, in that Dembski
is trying to quantify the amount of biological information
that can be said to be due to mutation and natural selection.
Wolfgang's original statement would indicate that the value
that Dembski should come up with would be zero or negative.
That is not the case. I can see how Wolfgang could wish that
the cited source did not exist.
WRE> I'm still looking for Wolfgang to provide specific references
WRE> to evidence that supports his claim. Those have been
WRE> conspicuous by their absence.
W>Read my work on evolution on the internet.
It seems to have the same active disregard for evidence that
Wolfgang's posts here do.
W>There you will find enough logical arguments which support
W>my claim. But I suppose you read only scriptures having
W>received the official approval of orthodoxy.
Yeah. Right. Here's one of those *brilliant* logical
arguments mentioned above:
[Quote]
Look at the ontogenesis (computers do not grow)!
Look at the complexity of the immune system!
Look at the repair mecanisms at all levels!
Look at ...!
Look at the complexity of the human body!
Look at the complexity of our brain!
Look at the complexity of the eye!
Look at ...!
Look at the human powers of perception!
Look at the human learning capacity!
Look at the ability of language!
Look at ...!
Look at persons like W.A.Mozart!
Look at ...!
[End Quote - Wolfgang,
<http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html>]
Personally, I think the final "n" in Wolfgang's URL is
superfluous.
So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"When Sir Rastus Bear\Taught children how to play" - BOC
John Wilkins
Elsberry" <w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
|Bit.listserv.skeptic removed at moderator's request.
|
|In article <7eod1b$rhv$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>, z@z <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
|
|[...]
|
| W>"That repair enzymes are advantageous to living cells cannot
| W>be denied. But if the origin of such enzymes is explained by
| W>this advantage, the explanation is based not on reductionist
| W>causal laws but on finality. In the same way, every attempt
| W>to explain evolution by a tendency of genes (or other units)
| W>to spread is based on finality. A reductionist causal
| W>explanation must derive what seems to us a tendency to
| W>spread from physical and chemical laws."
| W>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a04
|
|WRE> Is this bafflegab supposed to be impressive to someone?
|
|W>At most to those sensible enough to understand it.
|
|[...]
|
|Ah. Wolfgang is one of the Emperor's tailors, I see.
|
|So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
|contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
|add biological information.
|
Perhaps he should read this:
Eigen, M. 1993. The origin of genetic information: viruses as models. Gene
135 (1-2):3747.
Abstract: A living entity can be described as a complex adaptive system
which differs from any, however complex, chemical structure by its
capability of functional self-organization based on the processing of
information. If one asks, where does this information come from and what
is its primary semantics, the answer is: information generates itself in
feedback loops via replication and selection, the objective being 'to be
or not to be'. This paper describes the theoretical framework of
information-generating systems and provides experimental clues for some
basic forms of genetic organization, such as molecular quasi-species,
hypercyclic and compartmentalized RNA-protein assemblies. The results are
primarily obtained with RNA viruses and virus-like systems. The
experiments are carried out with the help of automated,
computer-controlled bioreactors, called 'evolution machines', that may
form the basis of a new 'evolutionary biotechnology'.
Mark D. Kluge
<w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
> WRE> [Quote]
> This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
> organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
> these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
> amount of information introduced through selection is then
> -log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
> misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
> universally and is non-mysterious.
> WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
> WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
<snip>
>WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
>WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
>WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
>WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
>WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
>WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
>WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
>WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
>WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
>WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
>WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
>WRE> biological information.
I'm curious, Wesley, about what you think Dembski is trying to get at
here. From the examples he gave it appears that he's trying to consider
the quantity of information obtained by learning which M of N objects are
selected for, given that each selection is independent. Of course that is
obviously not the same as the change in genetic information. (It depends
upon the history, upon the actual numbers of offspring produced and
surviving, instead of being a function of genetic composition of the
population.)
But even worse, if M of N objects are selected, and each selection is
equiprobable and independent, then there are C(N,M) = N!/(M!(N-M)!)
equiprobable selections, so the formula for the (non-genetic) information
that Dembski wants is H = log_2(C(N,M)), and not log_2(N/M).
Do you agree with me on what Dembski is trying (unsuccessfully to do), or
am I missing something very profound from Dembski?
Mkluge
Wesley R. Elsberry
Mark D. Kluge <mkl...@wizard.net> wrote:
>On 12 Apr 1999 00:04:37 -0400, "Wesley R. Elsberry"
><w...@cx33978-a.dt1.sdca.home.com> wrote:
WRE> [Quote]
This point deserves careful attention. Suppose that an
organism in reproducing generates N offspring, and that of
these N offspring M (1 f M f N) succeed in reproducing. The
amount of information introduced through selection is then
-log2(M/N). Let me stress that this formula is not an case of
misplaced mathematical exactness. This formula holds
universally and is non-mysterious.
WRE> [End Quote - WA Dembski,
WRE><http://www.dla.utexas.edu/depts/philosophy/faculty/koons/ntse/papers/Dembski.html>]
MDK><snip>
WRE> The quote shows that a major figure in the ID hierarchy does
WRE> believe that mutation and natural selection adds biological
WRE> information, contra Wolfgang's claim. What Dembski is
WRE> attempting to do in the passage being quoted is to establish
WRE> an *upper limit* on the amount of information added by
WRE> mutation and natural selection per generation. Various
WRE> problems in Dembski's approach to analysis were pointed out at
WRE> the 1997 NTSE conference by Bill Jefferys. The quote, though,
WRE> fulfills my purpose of showing that even those who reject
WRE> Darwinian explanation as inclusive of all adaptive phenomena
WRE> do still recognize that mutation and natural selection add
WRE> biological information.
MDK>I'm curious, Wesley, about what you think Dembski is
MDK>trying to get at here.
Like I said above, Dembski's purpose is to find an upper limit
to the amount of information that can be said to be due to
mutation and natural selection on a per-generation basis.
MDK>From the examples he gave it appears that he's trying to
MDK>consider the quantity of information obtained by learning
MDK>which M of N objects are selected for, given that each
MDK>selection is independent. Of course that is obviously not
MDK>the same as the change in genetic information. (It depends
MDK>upon the history, upon the actual numbers of offspring
MDK>produced and surviving, instead of being a function of
MDK>genetic composition of the population.)
Yes. This is one of the points that Bill Jefferys brought up
at the 1997 NTSE conference.
MDK>But even worse, if M of N objects are selected, and each
MDK>selection is equiprobable and independent, then there are
MDK>C(N,M) = N!/(M!(N-M)!) equiprobable selections, so the
MDK>formula for the (non-genetic) information that Dembski
MDK>wants is H = log_2(C(N,M)), and not log_2(N/M).
Yes. I criticized the equation that Dembski came up with,
too, back in 1997.
MDK>Do you agree with me on what Dembski is trying
MDK>(unsuccessfully to do), or am I missing something very
MDK>profound from Dembski?
No, Mark, you are right on the ball. As I indicated above,
the exercise shows that Dembski believes biological
information is added by mutation and natural selection, but
Dembski's derivation of a quantification has problems.
--
Wesley R. Elsberry, Student in Wildlife & Fisheries Sciences, Tx A&M U.
Visit the Online Zoologists page (http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry)
Email to this account is dumped to /dev/null, whose Spam appetite is capacious.
"Having her in my brain's like getting hit by a train\She's gonna kill me"-O97s
z@z
> >Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
> >outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
> >the whole interview:
> >>> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
> By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
> a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
> already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
> doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
> big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
> not like is pure sophistry.
For a short article it makes always sense to confine oneself to
specific areas. I think that's even necessary, don't you think so?
> > So, I want to ask questions like:
> >Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
> >designer?
>
> An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
> defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
> selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
> designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
"Poorer question" is undefined. The "creative power" of humans
cannot be denied. But humans are a product of nature. So, at
least in humans, nature shows that there is some form of "creative
power" which cannot be explained only by random changes
(errors in thinking, in copying data and similar happenings) and
selection.
Therefore it is your paragraph which seems to me little more than
a play on words.
> And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
> which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
> in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
Because of sound logical reasoning.
Similar cases, where evidence against a dogma is taken as evidence
for the dogma, are not exceptional in human history.
> >We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
> >into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
> >crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
> >of physical causes.
>
> ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
> insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
> want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
> a scientific determination.
Insanity is also a question of pychology and psychiatry.
> >"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
> >misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
> >Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
> >They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
> >promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
> >been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>
> Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment
> myth. The Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century.
> Darwin flourished during the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had
> little or no effect a century before Darwin.
Whether this myth had existed before the nineteenth century is
not very important. The myth was used by Darwinists, and
therefore it flourished.
> Finally something we can agree upon. The Galileo episode is complex,
> and not well explained by a simplistic science-church warfare.
We agree all.
> >"So, there were political currents that were unique to that
> >particular time, but more than that, if you want to think of what
> >the College of Cardinals of Galileo's day was like, the analogy
> >today, the equivalent body today, is not the College of Cardinals
> >in Rome, it's the National Academy of Sciences in Washington.
>
> An unsupported analogy.
I would subscribe Johnson's statement. The College of Cardinals
of today would correspond to some kind of a Heathen College of
Galileo's day.
> >See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
> >power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
> >always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
> >So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
> >the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
> >censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
> >to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
>
> And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone
> be, since there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The
> National Academy of Science can't control all of them, except,
> possibly, in the delusional world of Philip Johnson.
Censorship has evolved too. It is much more sophisticated today
than it was at the times of Galilei. The immense quantity of scientific
output is a very good means to hide criticism of the prevailing belief
system.
Imagine: something is published, but nobody notices.
Cheers
Wolfgang
z@z
> >> The first mistake is to make the analogy that a living system is
> >> equivalent to a computer program. It isn't.
>
> >I only stated that biological information is rather analoguous to
> >computer information than to Shannon-style information.
>
> In what way is biological information analogous to "computer information"
> (whatever is meant by that!) rather than to Shannon-style information?
> Your notion of biological information is too fuzzy even to criticize. You
> say that it is a problem of some sort for biological information (whatever
> you mean by that) to have arisen either through abiogenesis or through
> evolution; but you are not precise enough to pin down what you think the
> problem is.
My definition is the common sense definition which has been
sufficiently well described in this thread by Eric von Schrondger.
I don't see why a sound definition of biological information should
be less fuzzy than the definition of the information which is needed
to build a modern aeroplane. I suppose you agree with me that
Shannon's definition cannot help in this case.
> >> As Yockey, Information
> >> Theory and Molecular Biology p. 256 there are approximately 10^93
> >> different proteins of 110-amino-acid-length which perform the function
> >> of cytochrome c.
>
> >The figure 10^93 is probably too high, but there are at least 20^110 =
> >10^143 different proteins of such a length. So only one in 10^50 proteins
> >(of the needed length) can perform the function and the probability
> >remains as low as 10^-50 !!!
>
> The probability OF WHAT is as low as 10^-50? You have to be specific.
You know yourself.
> Here the probability you have calculated is that of a 110 amino acid chain
> consisting of independent and equiprobable units of each of 20 amino acids
> being among the 10^93 such sequences able to perform the biological
> functions of cytochrome c.
>
> However, there is no reason to think that proteins form in such a manner.
> No one has ever suggested that cytochrome c or any other modern protein
> formed in a single step by the random polymerization of amino acids. Hence
> your probability is not germane.
Certainly, but all intermediate steps must have been able to do something
useful in a self-replicating system.
> >I only deny that chemical and physical laws can be
> >enough to explain the complex behaviour of enzymes.
>
> What complex behavior of enzymes? As far as I know, all of the observed
> behavior of enzymes is physical or chemical, and is understood in terms of
> physical and chemical laws. You might believe there is something more, but
> what is that something?
In order to produce a fully-functioning HIV, the protease must cut
an HIV super protein at *EIGHT* different sites. In order to cut, the
protease must move and (allosterically) change its own form. Also
animals and humans cannot work without moving their bodies.
I'm sure that it is logical nonsense to assume that chemical and
physical laws as formutated by the prevailing theories can lead
to such a complex behaviour of enzymes. Not even the folding
process is understood by orthodox science.
That's my explanation of protein folding:
"The maturation of a protein from the corresponding chain of
amino acids can happen in the following way: <In important
(evolutionarily older) sequences of the chain, amino acids become
active, that is they are animated by psychons. Because of
environment continuity these psychons are the ones which have
built up the same protein (or the same sequence of different
proteins) innumerable times. These psychons build up protein parts
which can be animated as a whole by other psychons which then
build up the complete protein.> So it also becomes comprehensible
that RNA sequences (introns) are able to cut out themselves or
that order is maintained during DNA recombination."
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a09
> >You know, according to the Shannon definition a text has the more
> >information the more characters the text contains and the more random
> >they are distributed in the text. But it is completely absurd to use
> >such an information definition in the context of abiogenesis and
> >evolution.
>
> We await with baited breath the definition of information which you think
> is necessary to use in the context of abiogenesis.
I have given my definition, but now I'm awaiting your.
Cheers
Wolfgang
WRowe0521
>Your notion of biological information is too fuzzy even to criticize.
>You
> say that it is a problem of some sort for biological information (whatever
> you mean by that) to have arisen either through abiogenesis or through
> evolution; but you are not precise enough to pin down what you think the
> problem is.
Wolfgang responded:
>My definition is the common sense definition which has been
>sufficiently well described in this thread by Eric von Schrondger.
But von Schrondger has contradicted himself on the definition. Originally we
had:
>I would
>>>say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture; to construct;
>>>to fashion; or to organize.
But when it was pointed out to him that this definition does not allow for one
genome to contain "more information" than another, he tried again with:
>I would say that the longer the genome sequence the greater the
>information content.
And when I pointed out the contradiction, naturally he ignored what I had
written.
Thus Mark D. Kluge is right; an adequate definition of biological information
has not yet been provided.
At the very least it
1. conform to von Schrondger’s first definition.
2. allow the calculation of the "amount of information" in a genome.
(By the way, has anyone else had the suspicion that W and EVS are the same
person?)
Bill Rowe
z@z
> Mark D. Kluge wrote, in reference to Wolfgang:
>
> > Your notion of biological information is too fuzzy even to criticize.
> > You say that it is a problem of some sort for biological information
> > (whatever you mean by that) to have arisen either through
> > abiogenesis or through evolution; but you are not precise enough
> > to pin down what you think the problem is.
>
> Wolfgang responded:
>
> > My definition is the common sense definition which has been
> > sufficiently well described in this thread by Eric von Schrondger.
>
> But von Schrondger has contradicted himself on the definition.
> Originally we had:
>
> >>> I would say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture;
> >>> to construct; to fashion; or to organize.
>
> But when it was pointed out to him that this definition does not allow
> for one genome to contain "more information" than another, he tried
> again with:
>
> > I would say that the longer the genome sequence the greater the
> > information content.
>
> And when I pointed out the contradiction, naturally he ignored what I had
> written.
As far as I can remember, Eric mentioned redundancy and therefore
your objection did not make as much as sense as you suggest now.
In general, higher forms of life need more (base pairs of) genetic
information than lower forms, isn't it?
The question of the information contained in a computer program is
quite similar. The more complex a program, the more bytes are needed.
Nevertheless, you cannot judge the complexity of computer programs
from their code lengths.
> Thus Mark D. Kluge is right; an adequate definition of biological
> information has not yet been provided.
> At the very least it
> 1. conform to von Schrondger's first definition.
> 2. allow the calculation of the "amount of information" in a genome.
>
> (By the way, has anyone else had the suspicion that W and EVS are the
> same person?)
Are you serious, or should it be an allusion?
Cheers
Wolfgang
Mark D. Kluge
>Hi Mark D. Kluge!
>> >Here some interesting quotes from the interview with this
>> >outstandig critic of science, for those who don't want to read
>> >the whole interview:
>> >>> http://www.communiquejournal.org/q6/q6_johnson.html
>> By refusing to talk about the age of the earth, or whether or not there is
>> a relationship among living things, etc., Johnson asks to ignore what we
>> already know in pursuit of his arbitrarily-determined main question. It
>> doesn't work that way. We have to use everything we know in answering the
>> big questions. For Johnson to airily dismiss related areas which he does
>> not like is pure sophistry.
>For a short article it makes always sense to confine oneself to
>specific areas. I think that's even necessary, don't you think so?
Johnson isn't evading the age issue just here. Throughout his work Johnson
systematically and deliberately avoids discussing the matter. Why? Because
it is too "controversial" among his admirers. Yet, age is a fundamental
issue. While it is indeed possible to omit certain issues from a synopsis,
it is not possible to omit them in the main. Where does Johnson treat the
issue of age with respect to Intelligent Design Theory? Where has he shown
that it doesn't matter?
>> > So, I want to ask questions like:
>> >Does it have this creative power, more so than any other human
>> >designer?
>> An even poorer question. "Creative power" is undefined. Even if it were
>> defined, there is no way to compare the "creative power" of natural
>> selection with the qualitatively different creative power of human
>> designers. Johnson's question is little more than a play on words.
>"Poorer question" is undefined. The "creative power" of humans
>cannot be denied.
Oh, I don't deny that human beings have creative power I just have no idea
how to quantify it. In fact, I don't even know how to order it. If George
writes a symphony and Fred paints a picture, I have no idea, and neither
has anyone else, of how to determine whether George's creative power >
Fred's creative power, or vice versa. And that's an easy case of comparing
he creative powers of two human beings. What are we to do when comparing
the creative power of a human being with the creative power of nature? It
just doesn't make sense.
>> And non-biologist Johnson knows that the consensus of biologists' beliefs,
>> which they think are derived from their knowledge of biology, are really
>> in spite of what they know as biologists because of what?
>Because of sound logical reasoning.
Sound logical reasoning is not enough. Sound logical reasoning deals only
with the formal aspects of reasoning. To be knowledgeable in a field one
must also know that field's material. To speak authoritatively about
biology one must study biology.
>Similar cases, where evidence against a dogma is taken as evidence
>for the dogma, are not exceptional in human history.
But it requires intimate familiarity with the material concerned with the
alleged dogma to determine which is the case. Johnson doesn't have that.
>> >We saw this in the insanity defense and in the efforts to reform it
>> >into a scientific model in which we would have science tell us that
>> >crimes and even non-crimes--all human actions--are the product
>> >of physical causes.
>> ROTFL! Earth to Johnson... It shouldn't be news to Lawyer Johnson that
>> insanity is a LEGAL concept and not a scientific one. Lawyers and judges
>> want the dignity of a scientific underpinning for what is a legal, and not
>> a scientific determination.
>Insanity is also a question of pychology and psychiatry.
Oh really? Find a psychologist who writes professionally about insanity in
a context other than the law.
>> >"The first thing is that the Galileo episode has been greatly
>> >misunderstood. The idea that there has been a warfare between
>> >Christianity and science is an artifact of Darwinist propaganda.
>> >They made this story up in the nineteenth century in order to
>> >promote their theory and their atheism. But the church has always
>> >been the patron of science and of scientific thinking."
>> Actually the war between science and church is an Enlightenment
>> myth. The Enlightenment occurred during the 18th century.
>> Darwin flourished during the 19th. Darwinist propaganda had
>> little or no effect a century before Darwin.
>Whether this myth had existed before the nineteenth century is
>not very important. The myth was used by Darwinists, and
>therefore it flourished.
Right. And the fact that the myth that the Catholic Church hindered
science (see what they did to Galileo?) existed long before Protestant
Fundamentalism is not very important. The myth was used by Protestant
Fundamentalists and therefore it flourished.
Lots of people, for a variety of reasons, have used the Galileo myth. The
idea that there has been warfare between church and science has been
espoused by many, including, but not limited, to Darwinists. So where's
the connection between the myth and Darwinism? It was popular before
Darwinism, and remains popular after. What evidence is there that
Darwinists have spread the myth more virulently than others?
For a lawyer writing to complain about how others mishandle evidence,
Johnson exhibits singular indifference to his own evidence-handling.
>> >See, that's our College of Cardinals--the official government and
>> >power-wielding leaders of the intellectual world. And they will
>> >always crack down on heresy that threatens their position.
>> >So, the Darwinists are the College of Cardinals today. They're
>> >the ones who are trying to keep their belief system going by
>> >censorship and the use of their power. And they're analogous
>> >to the Aristotelian professors whom Galileo got in trouble with."
>> And who's been censored? Why no one, of course. Nor could anyone
>> be, since there are, literally, thousands of scientific journals. The
>> National Academy of Science can't control all of them, except,
>> possibly, in the delusional world of Philip Johnson.
>Censorship has evolved too. It is much more sophisticated today
>than it was at the times of Galilei. The immense quantity of scientific
>output is a very good means to hide criticism of the prevailing belief
>system.
I'm sorry that George Orwell didn't live to read about that one. "War is
Peace." "Freedom is slavery." "Ignorance is strength." "The ability to
publish a lot is censorship."
Mkluge
Mark D. Kluge
>My definition [of information] is the common sense definition
>which has been sufficiently well described in this thread by
>Eric von Schrondger.
>I don't see why a sound definition of biological information should
>be less fuzzy than the definition of the information which is needed
>to build a modern aeroplane. I suppose you agree with me that
>Shannon's definition cannot help in this case.
It depends what you want to use "plane-building information" theory to
explain about building airplanes. You (and your ID cohorts) are the ones
who keep saying that something about "information" highly constrains the
extent to which the current diversity of life can be explained in terms of
evolution by means of natural selection. It is therefore up to you to
describe what this "information" is that you are talking about. If I make
a similar claim that some information constraint tells me something about
the construction of airplanes, then, of course, I shall be obligated to
define what I mean by "information" in that context.
Meanwhile, all you give me is a "common-sense" definition of information.
One of the reasons for doing science is to get beyond "common sense" and
"common sense definitions." We frequently, and perhaps usually, find that
what "common sense" tells us is nothing more than what the common ignorant
prejudice tells us. The "common sense" definition of information is only
that which will be provided by someone who hasn't thought on the matter.
Common sense definitions can be used at the periphery of scientific
discussions if the outcome doesn't depend crucially upon the definition in
question. That is manifestly not the case when studying the significance
of information in evolution. You need to tell us what you mean by
"information" in the context of your discussion. Until you do your
discussions, together with those of your ID colleagues, won't mean a thing
except as a matter of common prejudice.
>> >> As Yockey, Information
>> >> Theory and Molecular Biology p. 256 there are approximately 10^93
>> >> different proteins of 110-amino-acid-length which perform the function
>> >> of cytochrome c.
>> >The figure 10^93 is probably too high, but there are at least 20^110 =
>> >10^143 different proteins of such a length. So only one in 10^50 proteins
>> >(of the needed length) can perform the function and the probability
>> >remains as low as 10^-50 !!!
>> The probability OF WHAT is as low as 10^-50? You have to be specific.
>You know yourself.
If I knew myself I wouldn't have asked you. I will ask you again, what
probability are you referring to?
>> Here the probability you have calculated is that of a 110 amino acid chain
>> consisting of independent and equiprobable units of each of 20 amino acids
>> being among the 10^93 such sequences able to perform the biological
>> functions of cytochrome c.
>> However, there is no reason to think that proteins form in such a manner.
>> No one has ever suggested that cytochrome c or any other modern protein
>> formed in a single step by the random polymerization of amino acids. Hence
>> your probability is not germane.
>Certainly, but all intermediate steps must have been able to do something
>useful in a self-replicating system.
At least some of them must. How many such intermediate states are there?
How dense are they in the space of all states? What? You don't know? But
yet you are so sure that the final probability (of I know not what) is at
most 10^-50.
>In order to produce a fully-functioning HIV, the protease must cut
>an HIV super protein at *EIGHT* different sites. In order to cut, the
>protease must move and (allosterically) change its own form. Also
>animals and humans cannot work without moving their bodies.
>I'm sure that it is logical nonsense to assume that chemical and
>physical laws as formutated by the prevailing theories can lead
>to such a complex behaviour of enzymes. Not even the folding
>process is understood by orthodox science.
Nonsense. The mechanisms behind the folding process are well-understood.
However, it is, what physicists call, a many-body problem. It's analytical
solution is sometimes computationally too expensive or difficult to solve.
No one seriously, however, suggests that new fundamental physics is
necessary to understanding protein folding.
>That's my explanation of protein folding:
>"The maturation of a protein from the corresponding chain of
>amino acids can happen in the following way: <In important
>(evolutionarily older) sequences of the chain, amino acids become
>active, that is they are animated by psychons. Because of
>environment continuity these psychons are the ones which have
>built up the same protein (or the same sequence of different
>proteins) innumerable times. These psychons build up protein parts
>which can be animated as a whole by other psychons which then
>build up the complete protein.> So it also becomes comprehensible
>that RNA sequences (introns) are able to cut out themselves or
>that order is maintained during DNA recombination."
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/psychon.html#a09
That's excellent Intelligent-Design science.
>> We await with baited breath the definition of information which you think
>> is necessary to use in the context of abiogenesis.
>I have given my definition, but now I'm awaiting your.
You haven't given yours, except for the common-sense version. I'm not the
one claiming importance for some "information" as a limiting factor in
evolution. My only interest in "information" here is to understand what
you and your fellow ID theorists think that limiting factor is. You say
that it is of some fundamental importance to understand the origin of
"information" in evolution, not I. So it is incumbent upon you, and not
me, to say what you mean by that important quantity (or is it only a
quality?) of information. Until you do what you say about information
won't make any sense.
Mkluge
Del
> jfa...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net (Del) wrote:
>
> >"Mutation is the process by which fresh genetic
> >variation is offered up for selection" -- [Dawkins,
> >1996]
>
> A couple of points should be made here:
> 1.) Mutation is not the only process which offers up
> genetic variation for selection.
> 2.) Mutation also creates genetic variation that is
> invisible to selection.
Right.
>
> >"Bringing about a change in the gene pool assumes that
> >there is genetic variation in the population to begin
> >with, or a way to generate it. Genetic variation is
> >'grist for the evolutionary mill.' For example, if
> >there were no dark moths, the population could not have
> >evolved from mostly light to mostly dark. In order for
> >continuing evolution there must be mechanisms to
> >increase or create genetic variation (e.g. mutation)
> >and mechanisms to decrease it (e.g. natural selection
> >and genetic drift)." -- Chris Colby: An Introduction
> >to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
>
> Well there had to be a first dark moth then? One should
> not assume that evolution is hogtied to pre-existant
> phenotypic expressions.
For the purposes of this issue my quote would be out of
context. Preceding the paragraph I quoted from the FAQ,
was the following:
HOW DOES EVOLUTION WORK?
If evolution is a change in the gene pool; what causes
the gene pool to change? Several mechanisms can change
a gene pool, among them: natural selection, genetic
drift, gene flow, mutation and recombination. I will
discuss these in more detail later. It is important to
understand the difference between evolution and the
mechanisms that bring about this change.
----- End Quote -----
> >Note: natural selection as mechanism to DECREASE
> >genetic variation.
>
> Natural selection can also act to PRESERVE genetic variation.
> Case in point: Hybrids are often more robust organisms.
>
> Dave Greene
>
> -----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
> http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On 11 Apr 1999 09:45:59 -0400, "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
>Hello Glenn (R. Morton)!
>
>> z@z wrote:
>>
>> > Computer languages have both syntax and semantics. Any useful
>> > computer program must have not only information but also semantics
>> > (interpretation of information). Information without semantics is
>> > useless also as biological information. So Eric's common sense
>> > definition is much better in the context of abiogenesis and evolution
>> > than Shannons 'the-more-random-the-better' or similar 'uncommon
>> > sense' and 'common nonsense' definitions.
>>
>> Wolfgang,
>>
>> The first mistake is to make the analogy that a living system is
>> equivalent to a computer program. It isn't.
>
>I only stated that biological information is rather analoguous to
>computer information than to Shannon-style information.
Well, actually no. "Computer information", or rather, the information
in a computer program, can be evaluated by Chaitin-Komologorov
alogrithmyic information theory, and C-K information is precisely
equivalent to Shannon-Weaver information.
Don't be misled by the fact that random sequnces have the highest
"information" content in S-W measures, because what is also relevant
is the coding scheme, as Glenn tried to point out. An encoded message,
with _all_ redundancy stripped out, also has the highest information
content. It is simply the reflection of the fact that, in any alphabet
of symbols, only a small number of symbols strings have meaning out
all possible symbol strings (whether in English, Hungarian, Fortran or
DNA). As information theroy has to deal with the transmission of _all_
possible codes, in all possible symbol sets, transmission of random
strings (in a given code) must be accomodated.
But turning to "biological" information, I like to use
Chaitin-Komologorov alogrithmyic information theory, not because the
results are any different to S-W theory, but because the concepts used
are easier to illustrate. Here "compressibility" is used to define
information.
The string
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
can be compressed to 10A (3 vs 17 characters) has less information
than
This thing thinks
which can be compressed to 3thi s ng nks (11 vs 17 characters) which
has less information than
cats like naping
which is nearly incompressible.
Of course, the C-K theory is usually applied to computer programs
rather than strings of english letters, however, the principle is the
same. You can think of a computer program as a string of functions (in
the computer programming sense). A computer program that has more
_non-redundant_ functions that another is less compressible, and has
more information.
You can apply this argument to the genome. A genome of any given
organism is composed of a string of protein coding genes, and you can
treat each gene as a symbol.
For example consider a hypothetical genome with four protein coding
genes ABCD.
duplicate A and the genome becomes AABCD, which has, under the
compressibility measure slightly more information than the original
(2ABCD vs ABCD).
Now let one of the A genes be mutated into a different allelle A'
AA'BCD now has more information than the original (ABCD) and the
intermediate AABCD.
I use allelle losely here, in order to encompass things with very
similar structure and function, like variants of the haemoglobins to
things with different functions like the VanA gene (from the D-ala
D-ala ligase), to things with wildly divergent structures and
functions like the nylon metabolizing enzyme and it's parent gene, and
the Sdic gene and its parents, the Cdic/annexin genes.
Thus it can be seen that gene duplication and mutation, can generate
information in the formal sense. Selection acts to remove those
variants that are deleterious to the organism, this is where
"function" in terms of the organism comes in. I've used a model
genome, but the same thing happens in real genomes thousand of genes
long.
My favorite example of this is the nylon hydrolysing enzyme. It
recently came in to existance via duplication of an existing gene,
followed by a frame shift mutation. The nylon example is the killer
example as it demonstrates both an increase in gene number and the
production of a new gene function, and has been seen both in the wild,
and in the laboratory. Furthermore, there is no way that anyone can
claim that the new "function" of Nyl B or Nyl C is due to intelligent
design.
Ohno S. (1984 Apr). Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative
reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding
sequence. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A , 81, 2421-5.
Another nylon degrading enzyme has been isolated as new mutants in the
laboratory, it is disctict from the above enzyme, but I do not know if
it is a duplication event.
Negoro S, Kakudo S, Urabe I, and Okada H. (1992 Dec). A new nylon
oligomer degradation gene (nylC) on plasmid pOAD2 from a
Flavobacterium sp. J Bacteriol , 174, 7948-53
My second favorite example is the Sdic gene, where the annexin and
dynenin intermediate chain genes were duplicated in tandem, then the
intervening sequences deleted to form a single new gene, (the Sperm
specific dynenin intermediate chain gene Sdic). The good thing about
this example is that a previously non-coding part of the sequence
became the protein coding sequence, and the protein coding sequence
has a non-coding role.
Capy P. (1998 Dec 10). Evolutionary biology. A plastic genome [news;
comment] Nature , 396, 522-3.
Nurminsky DI, Nurminskaya MV, De Aguiar D, and Hartl DL. (1998 Dec
10). Selective sweep of a newly evolved sperm-specific gene in
Drosophila [see comments] Nature , 396, 572-5.
My third favorite is the vancomycin resistance gene, where a D-alanine
D-alanyl-ligase was duplicated and mutated into a D-alanine D-lactate
ligase.
Park IS, et al. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine
synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia
coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry. 1996 Aug
13;35(32):10464-71.
Park IS, et al.
The thing that confounds people is that the "semantics" of proteins is
utterly unlike anything in computer programing (or natural language).
Chopping out sections of a program will hardly ever result in a
working program, but the nylon enzyme and the Sdic genes are examples
of a novel function arising from deletion.
Similarly, repeating a function in a program will just give a stutter,
but in the case of clotting protein plasminogen, repeating the kringle
domain within the enzyme gave rise to lipid binding protein
Apolioprotein a. Many other examples can be given, from the lens
protein S-crystalin (from duplication of segments within the enzyme
stress-response protein glutathione S transferase) to the interleukins
(from duplication within the TGF-beta gene)
Lawn RM, Boonmark NW, Schwartz K, Lindahl GE, Wade DP, Byrne CD, Fong
KJ, Meer K, and Patthy L. (1995 Oct 13). The recurring evolution of
lipoprotein(a). Insights from cloning of hedgehog apolipoprotein(a). J
Biol Chem , 270, 24004-9.
Dwyer DS (1998) Assembly of exons from unitary transposable genetic
elements: implications for the evolution of protein-protein
interactions
[snip rest]
Cheers! Ian
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue and Jack Francis Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
a collection of Dawkins inspired weasle programs http://www-personal.monash.edu.au/~ianm/whale.htm
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Bigdakine
>From: "z@z" <z...@z.lol.li>
>Date: 4/12/99 12:53 PM Hawaiian Standard Time
>Message-id: <7ettli$btk$1...@pollux.ip-plus.net>
>
>Hello Bill Rowe!
>
>> Mark D. Kluge wrote, in reference to Wolfgang:
>>
>> > Your notion of biological information is too fuzzy even to criticize.
>> > You say that it is a problem of some sort for biological information
>> > (whatever you mean by that) to have arisen either through
>> > abiogenesis or through evolution; but you are not precise enough
>> > to pin down what you think the problem is.
>>
>> Wolfgang responded:
>>
>> > sufficiently well described in this thread by Eric von Schrondger.
>>
>> Originally we had:
>>
>> >>> I would say that *information* is the instructions to manufacture;
>> >>> to construct; to fashion; or to organize.
>>
>> But when it was pointed out to him that this definition does not allow
>> for one genome to contain "more information" than another, he tried
>> again with:
>>
>> > I would say that the longer the genome sequence the greater the
>> > information content.
>>
>> And when I pointed out the contradiction, naturally he ignored what I had
>> written.
>
>As far as I can remember, Eric mentioned redundancy and therefore
>your objection did not make as much as sense as you suggest now.
>In general, higher forms of life need more (base pairs of) genetic
>information than lower forms, isn't it?
>
>The question of the information contained in a computer program is
>quite similar. The more complex a program, the more bytes are needed.
>Nevertheless, you cannot judge the complexity of computer programs
>from their code lengths.
On the other hand, you now have no point. "Common sense" definitions of
complexity don't make sense scientifically.
>
>> Thus Mark D. Kluge is right; an adequate definition of biological
>> information has not yet been provided.
>> At the very least it
>> 1. conform to von Schrondger's first definition.
>> 2. allow the calculation of the "amount of information" in a genome.
>>
>> (By the way, has anyone else had the suspicion that W and EVS are the
>> same person?)
>
>Are you serious, or should it be an allusion?
>
>Cheers
>Wolfgang
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Dr. Stuart A. Weinstein
Ewa Beach Institute of Tectonics
"To err is human, but to realy foul things up
requires a creationist"
z@z
[snip]
FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
(at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
HIV causes AIDS in humans.
Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
> Continued:
> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>
> (~ 100's of mg range)
> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
> HIV is no exception.
In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
to death.
There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
> activity & etc.]
>
> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
> drug cocktails should be used.
How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant? What's
about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
have been proposed by which HIV could harm. I do not believe
in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the devil-like properties
attributed such a totally incapable virus. The less evidence that a
supposedly fatal virus has any measurable effects, the more
astonishing and insidious properties must be ascribed to it.
>
> Continued:
> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
>
> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
-------------------------------
According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
onset of the antiviral therapy.
That's easy to understand: if a work animal doesn't work any
more because of exhaustion, you can make it to continue to
work by several means (e.g. whip), but the risk increases that
the animal collapses from exhaustion. Similar situations are
conceivable with an exhausted police force, an exhausted fire
brigade or an exhausted army.
There is a second aspect:
"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
that are unclear.
When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
protease inhibitors."
http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm
My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
-------------------------------
> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
is murderous!
A quote of Duesberg:
"Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
asymptomatic carriers."
http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
technologies such as PCR.
> Continued:
> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
> less than 200/mL..."
>
> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
> the trials.
The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
phase on a well-known pretext.)
> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
-------quote--------------------
And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
The following quote is quite representative:
"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
-------quote--------------------
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
> Let's review where the comments stand:
> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
harm caused by HIV.
> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
> provided.
Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
cocktails.
> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
> individuals.
How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
> Second paragraph:
> "If you really knew enough facts and figures about HIV
> and AIDS and you would believe nevertheless in the
> HIV AIDS dogma, then I would doubt not only your
> common sense but also your capability of logical reasoning."
>
> That's your claim. You haven't convinced me in any of the threads
> so far. Your references to date (particularly in the rebuttal of
> Steve Harris' article) often suggest the opposite of what you've
> claimed so far. Today's argument about the relative amounts of drug
> to pathogen is clearly missing something.
I know this: nobody can be convinced in this world. The world is
in one's own head and it is almost impossible to change somebody's
head.
> I'm not impervious to evidence. I've seen enough biological
> "dogmas" overturned in my time not to expect to see more.
> I don't work directly in AIDS research and I would be fascinated
> to read about a radical new set of ideas about the cause of AIDS.
> So what's in it for me to support the status quo if I don't think
> the HIV/AIDS connection is really there? Grant support? Not an
> issue. Scientific reputation? Ha! I'd enjoy being first on a
> new wave. Think of the brand new areas of research that would
> open up (There would be lots of new opportunities there...).
> Here's the final "kicker", even if I were afraid of voicing
> my dissent, I could always keep my opinions to myself and
> nobody would ever know...
>
> So what's keeping me among the "HIV has a causal role in AIDS" camp?
> It's just that I've seen your arguments previously, in many
> other forums (try sci.med.aids - I monitored that group in the
> early '90s before Phil Johnson started posting there. Steve Harris
> is still there. Why don't you find him?) Put within the context of
> the papers I've read over the years and the details I happen to
> know, those rebuttals seem extremely weak and poorly thought out
> to me. But that's just the position of this working biochemist...
Cheers
Wolfgang
http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
(A refutation of the HIV AIDS dogma)
We all make errors, but we should try to correct them as soon as possible!
mcoo...@my-dejanews.com
"z@z" <z...@z.lol.li> wrote:
> Hello Tim Ikeda!
>
> [snip]
Wolfgang. After you proposed in an earlier post, commiting murder as well as
demonstrating mindnumbing foolishness with your potentially suicidal proposal,
it became clear to me that you are either a troll or deeply disturbed.
Therefore this and any future responses I make to your HIV/AIDS dementia will
consist mostly of direct counters in the scientific literature.
To wit; you wrote;
>snip<
> FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
> (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
> some decades, if one believes that).
>snip<
HTLV-I was shown to the causative agent in a form of Acute T-cell Leukemia
(ATL) by none other than Robert Gallo and colleagues (see PNAS:1980; 77-7415-
7419 and Nature 1981; 294-271) and confirmed by Yoshida, et al (Anat Rev
1983; 117-532). ATL is endemic to Kyushu and Shikoku (the Southernmost
islands of Japan), parts of the Caribbean and Africa (PNAS 1981;30:6476-6480,
Int J Cancer 1982;30: 257-265, Int J. Cancer 1983;32:329-332). ATL has a
latency period of from a few months to 40 years with most victims developing
symptoms 20–30 years after infection.
I would venture to say that those poor folks who suffer from ATL would
consider it a VERY serious disease indeed. ATL is a highly aggressive cancer
with usually a 3 to 4 month (MONTH!) survival after diagnosis.
Other diseases caused by HTLV-I include Tropical Spastic Paraparesis (see
Lancet 1985;2:407-410, Lancet 1986;2:99-100) and HTLV-I Associated Myelopathy
(HAM) (Lancet 1986;1:1031-1032). HTLV-II causes a kind of Hairy Cell Leukemia
(see, for example, Science 1982; 218:571-573).
(note the above was lifted from a post I made earlier this year to Anthony
Pagano who tried to make a similar claim)
Tim Ikeda
I'm cross-posting this to misc-health-aids, where you may get
the chance to meet Steve Harris and discuss his article
on HIV/AIDS (which you "analyzed" previously in talk.origins).
>Hello Tim Ikeda!
>[snip]
Wolfgang wrote:
>>> Why do you not agree with what I have written about AIDS:
>>> http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
I replied:
Wolfgang comments...
> FeLV is probably a cousin of HTLV. HTLV's are not pathgenic
> (at most with a low probability after an incubation time of
> some decades, if one believes that). The evidence that SIV
> causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
> HIV causes AIDS in humans.
mcoon discussed this in his talk.origins reply...
>Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
Oops! My mistake. *blush*
>A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
>their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
>it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
Retroviruses can survive as free forms, inside the cell and
independent of the host genome, or tucked away inside the
host's genome. There is no good way of predicting whether
evolution will lead to attenuated forms.
>> Continued:
>> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>>
>> (~ 100's of mg range)
>> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
>> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
>> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
>> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
>> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
>> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
>> HIV is no exception.
> In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
Big deal. What matters is the carrying capacity or the tolerance of
the system to the pathogen.
> And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
> system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
> to death.
Death occurred before AIDS therapy and happens in areas where AIDS
therapies cannot be afforded.
> There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
> at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
> of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
> accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
If it didn't infect and induce a failure of the immune system, the
story might be different. Perhaps you'd only have to worry about
liver cancer or shingles.
>> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
>> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
>> activity & etc.]
>>
>> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
>> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
>> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
>> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
>> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
>> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
>> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
>> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
>> drug cocktails should be used.
> How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
> onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
"Antiviral immunity" has been discussed before. HIV persists
and is continuously expressed. Drugs may push the expression to
close to (or less than) detectable levels.
> What's about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused
> by HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
> Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
Certainly. If someone did not have HIV, it would not be wise to
take the cocktails.
> HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
> have been proposed by which HIV could harm.
"HIV is not active"? That is, it has no effects at all on the
metabolism or function of its host cells?
So how come people who go off cocktails encounter increasing viral
titres and decreasing CD4+ counts? Why would HIV resistance to
antivirals correlate with higher HIV titres and lower CD4+ counts?
By your "drug induced immune failure model", wouldn't you expect many
cases where HIV remained susceptible to the drugs (and fully repressed)
but the immune system failed (say, CD4+ counts dropped)?
But let's procede with the "whip" analogy. Could that "whip" also
be a virus which perpetually infects cells of the immune system?
There is a second aspect:
[...snip...]
> My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
Great news!
>> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
>> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
>> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
>> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
>> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
> 0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
What's mass got to do with it? HIV is not necessarily
toxic by itself.
> 1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
> is murderous!
Apparently it does reduce the likelihood of passing on HIV to
newborns...
> A quote of Duesberg:
>
> "Viremia initiated from a previously suppressed virus and observed
> years after infection is a classical consequence, rather than the
> cause of immunodeficiency. Indeed, many normally latent parasites
> become activated and may cause chronic "opportunistic infections"
> in immunodeficient persons, as for example Candida, Pneumocystis,
> herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, hepatitis virus, tuberculosis bacillus,
> toxoplasma - and sometimes even HIV. It is consistent with this view
> that HIV viremia is observed more often in AIDS patients than in
> asymptomatic carriers."
> http://www.duesberg.com/ch6.html
I don't think HIV viremia necessarily kills patients directly. I think
it contributes to the failure of the immune system which in turn
allows other diseases to occur.
> In the case of HIV 0.000'000'1 grams are called viremia.
> Even during viremia the virus only can be detected by modern
> technologies such as PCR.
>> Continued:
>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>
>> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
>> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
>> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
>> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
>> less than 200/mL..."
>
>> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
>> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
>> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
>> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
>> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
>> the trials.
> The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
> In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
> the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
>
> The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
> The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
> provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
> all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
> phase on a well-known pretext.)
Odd that the immune system failure comes at about the same time
that HIV resistance to drugs is observed. Wouldn't your proposal
suggest that the resistance of HIV to antivirals would be immaterial
to falling CD4+ counts?
>> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
>> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
>> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
>> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
>> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
-------quote--------------------
>And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
>molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
>blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>
>The following quote is quite representative:
>
>"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
>experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
>and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
>
>20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
>50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
>
Ah, here we go again. Wolfgang, it is extremely easy to
convert factors of a thousand. This uL/mL thing is not a
conspiracy; it is a matter of using convenient units.
Do you realize that the units in the web pages you quoted were
"mL" (milliliters), not "uL" (microliters)? You criticized
Ian for basing calculations on information _you_ presented.
That was what I talking about.
[...snip...]
>> Let's review where the comments stand:
>> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
>Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
>> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new
>> or unusual.
>Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
>> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
>Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
>harm caused by HIV.
That is the claim of the HIV dissidents.
>> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
>> provided.
>Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
> cocktails.
>> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
>> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
>> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
>> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
>> individuals.
>
> How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
Personally, I feel that one of the best indicator of HIV's roles in
AIDS come from those who carry mutations which appear to prevent
HIV infection and subsequently do not succumb to AIDS.
>Cheers
>Wolfgang
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
HTLV's are definitly pathogenic, amongst other things, it is the cause
of Adult T-cell leukemia, and has a very high mortality rate.
Takatsuki K. Kenneth MacGredie Memorial Lectureship. Adult T-cell
leukemia/lymphoma. Leukemia. 1997 Apr;11 Suppl 3:54-6.
as for FeLV, it is well known to cause fatal leukamia and lymphomas.
>The evidence that SIV causes AIDS in monkeys is no better than the evidence that
>HIV causes AIDS in humans.
You mean apart from the fact that experimental introduction of pure
SIV via intavenous, anal and vaginal routes causes HIV infection and
subsequent AIDS in Macaque monkeys? And that these animals develop
classic AIDS pathologies, such as neurodegeneration?
Neildez O, et al. Selective quasispecies transmission after systemic
or mucosal exposure of macaques to simian immunodeficiency virus.
Virology. 1998 Mar 30;243(1):12-20.
Putkonen P, et al. Clinical features and predictive markers of disease
progression in cynomolgus monkeys experimentally infected with simian
immunodeficiency virus. AIDS. 1992 Mar;6(3):257-63.
Daniel, M. D., et al., (1985). Isolation of a T-cell
tropic HTLV-III-like retrovirus from macaques. Science 228, 1200–
1204.
Sasseville VG, et al. Neuropathogenesis of simian immunodeficiency
virus infection in macaque monkeys. J Neurovirol. 1997 Feb;3(1):1-9.
>Influnza viruses, which are pathogenic, are no retroviruses.
>A basic principle of retroviruses is the introduction of
>their own genome into the genome of the host cells. Therefore
>it makes evolutionarily no sense for them to kill their hosts.
If they can infect multiple new hosts before the original host dies,
then this is not a problem.
>> Continued:
>> "with hundreds of thousands of micrograms"
>>
>> (~ 100's of mg range)
>> That's not out of line for many antibiotic or antiviral treatments.
>> For example, Cipro (an antibiotic) is prescribed at up to 2 grams/day.
>> It's not exceptional in this regard. Other antibiotics are dosed to
>> maintain 10-50 ug/mL concentrations in the blood. Acyclovir, an
>> antiviral used against Herpes simplex and Herpes zoster, is prescribed
>> at rates of about 1 g/day. In most cases, the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> drug is used in great excess over the number of pathogens present.
>> HIV is no exception.
>
>In great excess maybe, but not a difference of 6 orders of magnitude!!!
Well, yes actually. How many micrograms of Herpes simplex and Herpes
zoster are there compared to the grams of antiviral given? How many
bacteria are there in comparison to the antibiotics?
>And normal treatments are only temporary. Body (and immune
>system) can regenerate after the therapy. AIDS therapy continues
>to death.
As does current therapies for the Herpes viruses. HIV, like other
retrovirusues, can avoid the current theraputics because they only
traget replicting viruses, the virus can, by incorporating itself into
the host genome, avoid these anti-virals.
>There is no known predecessor of a pathogen which causes desease
>at such a low concentration. People can get accustomed to hundreds
>of milligram of arsenic. Why should the body not be able to get
>accustomed to a small fraction of microgram of HIV?
As myself and several other people have pointed out, viruses are not
toxins. They are replicating entities, continually infecting (and
causing the destruction of) T-cells until the imune system collapses.
Unlike toxins HIV also mutates, and can change the cell types it
infects during the course of an infection.
>> [Aside: The dosages depend on many factors including uptake
>> efficiency, tissue specificity, turnover time, body mass,
>> activity & etc.]
>>
>> The relative proportion of the masses of the antibiotic (antiviral)
>> used and the masses of the microbes targeted is not as important as
>> whether the infectious agent is present and active, whether it can
>> be stopped by the amounts used, and whether the body can tolerate
>> the dosage. HIV, by virtue of being a retrovirus that can reside
>> forever in cells in proviral form, is something that is both present
>> and active in infected individuals. As long as a pathogen is present
>> and active, you can have serious problems. This argument about
>> relative masses is not directly relevant to the question of whether
>> drug cocktails should be used.
>
>How can you claim that relative masses of pathogens (after the
>onset of antiviral immunity) and drugs are not relevant?
Read the paragraph again, he doesn't claim that it is _not_
important, it's not _directly_ relevant. The important questions are
1) Is the concentration of the drug achieved in the blood and body
fluids suficently high to prevent viral replication. [rates of
absorbtion from the gut and elimination from the blood profoundly
influence this].
2) Is this concentration going to produce significant side effects.
>What's
>about the relation between the harm (supposedly) caused by
>HIV and the very very obvious harm caused by the cocktails.
None, they are independent.
>Do you also think that the relative harm is not directly relevant?
Relative harm is. And many people feel that the reduction in
neutrophils that occurs in some (not all) patients on AZT and the
increased life span is vastly better than the massive destruction of
the immune system and rapid death in full AIDS. Similarly, the
benefits of triple therapy in increased immune function, and
significantly longer life span out weigh the side effects of triple
therapy.
>HIV is not active at all, therefore so many different mechanisms
>have been proposed by which HIV could harm. I do not believe
>in devils and therefore I cannot believe in the devil-like properties
>attributed such a totally incapable virus. The less evidence that a
>supposedly fatal virus has any measurable effects, the more
>astonishing and insidious properties must be ascribed to it.
What do you mean that HIV is not active at all. Direct cell killing by
HIV probably plays a minor role in the destruction of the immune
system. The major cause of immune system destruction is the immune
system destroying itself by attacking infected immune cells. CD8 cells
directed at HIV-infected cells are probably the most important of
these mechanisms.
Pantaleo G. 1999 Nature Medicine, 5, 27-28.
>>
>> Continued:
>> "of very toxic substances having so many side effects that
>> finally the immune system gets exhausted!"
>>
>> Ian Musgrave commented on this previously. I didn't see your reply.
>> The antiviral cocktails appear to have effects which are different
>> from what you claim. That is, they raise CD4+ counts, reduce viral
>> loads and reduce the incidence of the opportunistic infections which
>> are clear signs of immune system impairment.
>
>Here quote from a post to Ian Musgrave:
>
>-------------------------------
>
>According to Harvey Bialy (http://www.duesberg.com/ch12.html)
>such an increase in T cells after treatment with the protease
>inhibitor is also a well known phenomenon called lymphocyte
>trafficking, which occurs in response to many chemical insults.
And has been pointed out, T-cell trafficing (redistribution from other
sites) is _not_ the cause of the persistent (nearly 2 years) rise in
T-cells. T-cell trafficing is transient, lasting only weeks. The
kinetics of T-cell loss, production and repopulation during HIV
infetion and after antiviral therapy have beed directly measured. The
rise in T-cell nubers is due to sustained production of T-cells.
Hellerstein M, et al. Directly measured kinetics of circulating T
lymphocytes in normal and HIV-1-infected humans. Nat Med. 1999
Jan;5(1):83-9.
>One could say that the immune system is in overdrive from the
>onset of the antiviral therapy.
T-cell trafficing is not "the immune system on overdrive".
See also
http://x7.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=460532125
[snip exhaustion metaphor]
>There is a second aspect:
>
>"These studies involved moderately to profoundly immunodeficient
>patients with HIV infection who had received PRIOR therapy with
>NUCLEOSIDE ANALOGUES."
>http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
And the point of this is?
The actual article shows that people on triple therapy progress to
AIDS much more slowly, have better immune responses, better T-cell
levels and much lower viral loads than those on single or dual
theraphy.
>"ACTG-320 was a phase III clinical trial involving almost 1200
>people, roughly half taking two AZT-style drugs, and the rest
>taking a cocktail consisting of those same two nucleoside analogs
>plus a protease inhibitor. The trial was stopped early for reasons
>that are unclear.
>When the records were unblinded, the data showed that only 8
>patients had died in the cocktail group, versus 18 in the group not
>taking the protease inhibitor. Based on these figures, Mellors and
>the rest of the medical establishment are saying that cocktail
>therapy reduces mortality 50% compared to treatment without
>protease inhibitors."
>http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/data/drconf.htm
>
>My conclusion: the new therapies are less toxic than the old.
As these are exactly the cocktails that you have castigated as having
very obvious harm, don't you feel that this contradicts your position.
>-------------------------------
>
>> As for toxicity, well, that's been discussed previously as well.
>> Toxicity is a matter of dosage. Warfarin is a very important
>> anticoagulant drug; and a popular rat poison. Nitroglycerin is
>> an unstable explosive; and a great heart medication. I'll
>> repeat what others have said before: Your point?
>
>0.1 microgram HIV is ridiculous !
HIV is a virus! It _replicates_. Furthermore, it is a virus that
attackes the immune system.
But as also been pointed out, there are toxins such as saitiotoxin,
maitotoxin, bungarotoxin and tetrodotoxin that lethal at 0.1
microgram.
>1 gram of ATZ (or of similar DNA chain terminators) every day
>is murderous!
No, ATZ is not lethal in that quantity.
[snip duesberg to satisfy my server line length quota]
>
>> Continued:
>> http://www.unsw.edu.au/clients/ashm/HIV_JC.1998/January_1998d.html
>>
>> That's not what the URL you provided suggests:
>> "Discussion. This trial demonstrated the clinical superiority of
>> triple combination therapy with indinavir over dual nucleoside
>> therapy in zidovudine experienced patients with CD4 T cell counts
>> less than 200/mL..."
>>
>> The reference you provided discusses the quantity of drugs used
>> in the trial, but the results also suggested that the multidrug
>> therapy actually reversed immune system impairment. I think this
>> appears to run counter to your claims about antiviral drugs
>> causing immune system failure -- at least at the levels used in
>> the trials.
>
>The same apparent contradiction is also valid in the case of stress.
>In the short term stress can increase the amount of T-cells, but in
>the long term persistent stress has a negative effect.
However, these are long term trials (nearly two years), not short term
trials, and the benifit lasts. See also
Egger M, et al. Impact of new antiretroviral combination therapies in
HIV infected patients in Switzerland: prospective multicentre study.
Swiss HIV Cohort Study. BMJ. 1997 Nov 8;315(7117):1194-9.
>The immune system also gets accustomed to a drug or a cocktail.
>The alert phase effect disappears and only different drugs can
>provoke a new alert phase. (That's also the reason, why almost
>all clinical trials on AIDS drugs where stopped in their initial
>phase on a well-known pretext.)
No, there is a clear and consistent rise in T-cells over nearly two
years (along with a reduction in opportunistic infects). The kinetics
of recovery of the T-cells with therapy has been studied in detail as
noted above. This is _not_ an "alert phase".
Also, most clinical trials were stopped because the therapies were
giving clear benifits, and it was unethical to continue with-holding
therapy. In the particular study discussed on the web site, the trial
was unblinded at 52 weeks, well past any "alert phase", and followed
unblinded for anoher 32 weeks.
>> [Aside: There is probably a typo there: "200/mL" should likely
>> read, "200/uL." Wolfgang, you previously criticized Ian Musgrave
>> for performing calculations based on this same typographical error
>> -- The error which you propagated in your posts but did not correct.
>> When you were informed about this error, I didn't see your response.]
>
>-------quote--------------------
>
>And there is also the following dishonesty: the number of HIV
>molecules is normally given per millilitre, whereas the number of
>blood cells is given per cubic millimetre (microlitre).
>
>The following quote is quite representative:
>
>"HIV-1 infected subjects with at least 6 months prior zidovudine
>experience who had plasma viral loads above 20,000 copies/mL
>and CD4 T cells 50-400 /mL were recruited." [3]
It's not representative, and there is no dishonesty involved. There
was an error at the _Web_ site, the original papers say 200/uL, but it
seems that the web page was constructed by importing a word processed
document, and the fonts information was stripped out. m is micro(µ) in
symbol font on most word processors, but most HTML editors including
Adobe pagemill(as I have learned to my chagrin), the one used at the
unsw site, strip out symbol formatting unannounced when you import
Word documents (as my stuff has loads of micro sybols in it, this is
annoying in the extreme).
>20'000 copies/mL = 20'000 copies/millilitre = 20 copies/microlitre
>50-400 /mL = 50-400 /microlitre = 50'000-400'000 /millilitre
>
>-------quote--------------------
>http://members.lol.li/twostone/E/aids3.html
>
>
>> Let's review where the comments stand:
>> RE: "Generally harmless" - Not relevant to specific cases.
>
>Your examples show that is more relevant than you admit.
FeLV and HTLV are both pathogenic, lethal viruses
>> RE: Relative amounts of antibiotic to pathogen - Nothing new or unusual.
>
>Six orders of magnitude is very unusual.
Not particularly.
>> RE: Toxicity of drugs - Nothing new or exceptional.
>
>Side effects of the drugs are much stronger than (supposed)
>harm caused by HIV.
15% of triple therapy patients experience neutropenia, how is this
"stronger" than total immune system collapse and death?
>> RE: Drug causing collapse of immune system - Contradicted by the URL
>> provided.
>
>Why? Long term survivers are certainly not those taking AZT or
>cocktails.
Yes they are, look at the paper again (why not check the original).
The triple therapy group have a 50% reduction in progression to AIDS,
and a larger reduction in death rate. This is confirmed in other
studies, such as the Swiss one quoted above.
>> Conclusion: The evidence does not support the contention that fighting
>> HIV with drugs is necessarily a bad idea. The URL cited suggests that
>> using drug cocktails might actually be a good thing to do to support
>> the immune systems of HIV-infected, immunologically-compromised
>> individuals.
>
>How can so many educated and intelligent persons be so naive !!!
It's not naivity, it's understanding that data.
James G. Acker
Newsgroups: talk.origins
Subject: Re: Phillip Johnson interview (Communiqué, Spring 1999)
Eric von Schrondger wrote:
:I am in Germany most of my life. In Germany we have none of this.
:Therefore I am not so aware. But it seems to me to be uniquely
:an American problem. But hopefully the creationist are
:losing their will, as they are losing in virtually every court case.
:Maybe you are right. Ironically American industry must import
:technical talent from Europe, India and Asia because American
:schools are failing to educate sufficient numbers of technical
:people. And yet it isn't that talent isn't here. It's underdeveloped.
:I think U.S. obsession with "political correctness" deserves
:much of the blame for this failure.
:There are certain political ideologies that take priority
:over education. American education was among the best in
:the world during the earlier part of this century. That was even
:before creation Vs evolution was an issue in American
:education.
***** A couple of quick comments:
1. The Creationists aren't losing their will. They're
changing tactics. "Intelligent design" and home-schooling are two
of the prominent tactics. Leaving aside whether or not ID has any
scientific validity, Johnson and his cohorts describe it as the
"wedge" that can be used to force scientists and science educators
to consider, and teach, alternatives to the standard scientific
theory of evolution in the classroom. Home-schooling is in part
being driven by public school decline and demographics, but another
reason is so that parents can teach science "their" way -- and that
includes Creationism (as well as doing sex education differently).
2. The American research university system is still the
envy of the world, in large part due to the economics-driven
availability of facilities. Judging by my judging of a graduate research
symposium at Ohio State University last weekend, American universities
are educating numerous highly-skilled foreign students. There are
likely two reasons for this: foreign students seek to come to the US
to use the superb facilities and learn from an excellent research
community, and two, American students are less inclined toward
technical/scientific subjects, so there is significant importation of
talent.
Jim Acker
===============================================
| James G. Acker |
| REPLY TO: jga...@neptune.gsfc.nasa.gov |
===============================================
All comments are the personal opinion of the writer
and do not constitute policy and/or opinion of government
or corporate entities.
z@z
Are you in competition with some other posters (e.g. Mut, Wesley,
Del and so on) for the first prize of 'the most arrogant poster' award.
Against your dogmatic faith in QM I can recommend you:
'Constructing Quarks', 'A Sociological History of Particle Physics',
Andrew Pickering, 1984.
Here an extract (page 68):
"Beta decay, the emission of electrons and positrons from unstable
nuclei, was one of the principal themes of radioactivity research in
the early decades of the twentieth century. It was an especially
puzzling phenomenon that electrons were emitted over a range of
energies; their energy spectrum was contiuous, rather than discrete
as expected for transitions ocurring in a quantised system. Amongst
the fathers of quantum mechanics, Bohr, Heisenberg and Pauli
each proposed radical explanations for this observation - Bohr,
that energy was not exactly conserved; Heisenberg, that space-time
was not continuos - but it was Pauli's proposal that won the day."
Cheers
Twostone
Appendix (your collected quotes)
> Since you didn't supply such reasoning, Wesley assummed that you
> had a source which contained the logic... etc...
> No shit sherlock.... But that is already implied by selection and
> mutation. If mutations can't be inherited then selection has no
> effect beyond the life of the individual... and good traits cannot
> be passed on to the progeny...
> That is meaningless gibberish. If you understand that, then You have
> a problem.
> Abiogenesis is the processed by which the first life appeared. Evolution
> is the process through which life changes with time. Doesn't sound
> arbitrary to me.
> How do you define them?
> How do you know it was immense? Please state your maths showing
> the information of the first self-replicating cell. This should be
> especially interesting, since no one really knows what the first proto
> cell was like.
> Well, have you seen the first proto cell lately? Send it my regards...
> ROFTLMAO. You haven't presented a theory yet. You're a troll.
> <snippage>
> Chance? You mean mutation and natural selection... not the same as
> chance sorry...
> ?????
> <retarded gibberish snipped>
> No it is not. Now an ignoramus like you is telling us what evolutionary
> theory is and what quantum is... Your either a dope or a troll. For the
> record aspects of quantum have been tested to a precision of one part
> in 10 billion. Deal with it. And for the umpteenth time, Darwinism has
> an element of chance, but it is not pure chance!
> Uhhh what distinguishes scientific theories from one another is, more
> fundamentally, the different predictions they make.
> Yeah sure... DNA
> <utterly infatuous gibberish snipped>
> But Darwinisn is not based on pure chance. Are you thick or what?
> Good-bye troll...
> Stuart
z@z
Im not sure whether your posts are worth to be answered.
However, as far as I know you and others, my silence
would be interpreted as a sign of defeat.
I don't want to debate like someone who is interested
in fighting, but like somebody interested in truth. I'll try
primarily not to attack you, but to defend myself.
It is my, maybe biased, impression that you misrepresent
my writings. In some respect your method reminds me of
the Hitler-Goebbels-method: an assertion can be made true
by continuously repeating it.
I never intended the "contention that natural selection
cannot add biological information", and as far as I have
checked my posts, I did not even write something
which could suggest such a statement.
I explained this point in my last post.
"Neither Phillip E. Johnson in the original quote ("Can [NS] add
vast amounts of genetic information that weren't there before?")
nor me have denied that pure chance (with or without selection)
can add information. My specific argument is based on the
fact that by pure chance an information increase is certainly not
more probable than an information loss and that the principles
neo-Darwinism is based on necessarily entail an information loss
in the long term."
My original statement:
"That information has been created somehow is a fact, but it
is also a (logical) fact, that this information cannot be
explained by random mutation and selection."
Your trick is an old one. You put this statement in a different
context primarily by renaming the thread from "Phillip Johnson
interview ..." to "Mutation and NS add information ...".
The expression "this information" changed from "vast
amounts of genetic information that weren't there before"
to "information added by mutation and NS".
Therefore, what you write in post #7 is nothing more than an
intentional misrepresentation:
"I don't see any qualifiers about time or anything else in
that claim. If Wolfgang is officially retracting his original
claim in order to make a less reality-challenged one, that
would be fine by me.
I doubt that Wolfgang can produce any more evidence for his
new claim than he has for his old, apparently abandoned, one.
And that would be: Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. None."
And the statement you have repeated six times in your seven
answers to my previous post is based on a lie:
"So far, Wolfgang has continued to fail to support his
contention that mutation and natural selection cannot
add biological information."
> A logical argument also has things like premises and
> conclusions, not just bald assertions. If Wolfgang has a
> logical argument to make, he should go ahead and make it,
> or provide a specific reference to where such can be found.
> Nobody is stopping him.
It is quite difficult to debate with somebody who has
more confidence in complicated formulas and theories he
does not understand than in common sense and simple
logical reasoning.
For me, the assumption that behaviour patterns (e.g.
the sucking instinct of babies, the flight or fight response,
the instinct to build a usable nest at the right time in order
to hibernate) need at least some bytes (several base pairs
of genetic code) is self-evident.
You would only accept it, if there were a generally
accepted theory stating it (the more complicated and
obscure, the better).
A good example is your use of Dembski's formula
as evidence for an information increase by mutation
and NS despite the fact, that this formula has
nothing to do with genetic information (as stored
in the DNA), much less with mutations.
I bet away my life that relativity theory and QM are both
inconsistent. When I studied at university computer
science, I was interested primarily in theoretical
disciplines. I recognized that the more complicated,
'scientific', or obscure theories or even definitions are,
the more questionable, absurd and even inconsistent.
And after having dealt intensively with theoretical
physics I cannot be impressed any more by complicated
formulas and theories. Instead, the nearer to common
sense and the simpler, the more impressive!
Cheers
Wolfgang