Loss of information argument
John Mott
AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
information'
Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA is,
and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
What is their argument?
and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
say in the face of examples of good mutation?
David Sienkiewicz
news:7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to
the
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA
is,
> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> What is their argument?
That is all there is to the argument, John.
Some creationists have used variations of the argument in this newsgroup.
Some of us have asked how this information is quantified so that a loss or
gain of "information" can be measured in some meaningful fashion.
I have NEVER seen a coherent response to that question. More often than
not - as is the case with Tony Pagano and, more recently, sheldon, I don't
see answers at all.
> and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> say in the face of examples of good mutation?
They either ignore the question or simply repeat that all (or most)
mutations are bad.
TomS
<7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>, "John stated..."
How much information is there is ... oh, let's say, a water
molecule. Just to start off with something non-controversial.
How many bits of information? Does the amount of information
depend upon whether this water molecule is in a chunk of ice,
or in a frost pattern, or in a raindrop or as water vapor in the
air? How much information is there in two water molecules?
How much information is there in an acorn, and how much in an
oak tree?
How much information is there in a robin, and how much in a
T. rex?
How much information is there in an adult human, in an infant,
and in an adult gorilla?
Tom S.
johns
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attblockbi.com> wrote in
message news:uwrN8.161978$cQ3.4756@sccrnsc01...
Or they retreat... Lots of flailing, nothing coherent and a quick
exit. Was Shakespeare speaking of Creationists?
"Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
-William Shakespeare
--
JCS
John Mott
: How much information is there is ... oh, let's say, a water
: molecule. Just to start off with something non-controversial.
: How many bits of information? Does the amount of information
: depend upon whether this water molecule is in a chunk of ice,
: or in a frost pattern, or in a raindrop or as water vapor in the
: air? How much information is there in two water molecules?
I would presume they are talking about information in DNA, which is easily
measureable in bits.
well, a lower limit is easily measureable anyway
Dana Tweedy
the
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA
is,
> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> What is their argument?
As soon as they can define what they mean by "information", then perhaps we
will see.
>
> and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> say in the face of examples of good mutation?
Exactly the way the react whenever they are faced with a contradiction.
Either they will ignore it, or they will come up with some ad-hoc
explanation for why it isn't good enough. Please google for Steve A.'s
similar evasions on the recent "Thorns" thread.
DJT
Dave Oldridge
Essentially it is mathematical legerdemain. There is this science called
"information theory" that few people are really familiar with. So they
claim that mutations destroy "information" which they conveniently fail to
define in any quantitative fashion (and even when they do, define only for
an individual genome).
The fact is that any mutation that generates an allele not already in the
population genome is an INCREASE in the information available to natural
selection, no matter how you cut it. Creationist protests are the
information theory equivalent of stating as a mathematical theorem:
There exists in the presence of DNA a special value of 1
Such that N + 1 <= N (for all N).
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
===========================================================================
===================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
steven
I posted about this just a few weeks ago..
below is an edited version of my original post outlining some
mechanisms responsible for an increase in genetic information.
"1. Mutations
A mutation can be a point mutation (change of information at one point
within the genome), a deletion (loss of a nucleotide) or insertion
(increase of information by one nucleotide). Any of these changes will
change the nature of the sequence of the expressed protein, and may
lead to loss of function, change of function or increase in efficiency
of function. Mutations provide the de novo alteration of the genome.
2. Unequal crossing over.
A well documented phenomenon in biology is that of "unequal crossing
over' during meiosis. During recombination,the genome is shuffled with
(ideally) each chromosome getting a new combination of old alleles.
However, in some cases there is unequal recombination, and one
chromosome ends up with both copies of a particular gene, This extra
allele may then be subject to less constraint during subsequent
mitotic/meotic duplication. Further selection
may change the sequence of the gene slightly if the new sequence
confers a slightly altered novel function for the expressed protein.
We see evidence of this in what are called gene families. It is called
"Duplication and Divergence".
3. Polyploidy.
Further, it has long been known that some plants are polyploid ie they
contain entire genome duplications, mots common food crops are
polyploid. The phenomenon is documented also for some frogs. Recent
evidence is showing that major changes in evolution occur as a result
of entire genome duplication. Genome sequencing efforts of a variety
of species have revealed the tell-tale
trail of genome duplication."
The answer to this was that two sets of the same information is not
NEW information or an increase in information. However that argument
fails the moment the duplicated gene starts to diverge. Creationists
seem unwilling to see this.
Regarding the "all mutations bad" mantra. I also pointed out that the
concept of "wild type" is not such a black and white division. We all
contain non-identical copies of genes from each other, with many minor
variations, most of which are selectively neutral. Thus we are all
mutants of each other. Apart from the Celera sequence there isn't
really a "platonic ideal" genome that we all share.
Steven Pirie-Shepherd PhD
Drearash
>From: "David Sienkiewicz" david.si...@attblockbi.com
>Date: 6/11/02 2:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <uwrN8.161978$cQ3.4756@sccrnsc01>
>
>"John Mott" <jm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>news:7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>>
>> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to
>the
>> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
>> information'
>>
>> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA
>is,
>> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
>> What is their argument?
>
>That is all there is to the argument, John.
>
>Some creationists have used variations of the argument in this newsgroup.
>Some of us have asked how this information is quantified so that a loss or
>gain of "information" can be measured in some meaningful fashion.
>
uses it himself very selectively and it isn't really that hot in the first
place.
Max brought him to task for this in an online debate with Spetner. Spetner
claimed that certain evolutionary changes did not entail increases in
information based on a measurement of only one of his criteria (binding
strength to substrate or some such). When Max pointed out that Spetner's use
of his own criteria was inadequate, S merely responded that this was "tedious"
nitpicking.
>I have NEVER seen a coherent response to that question. More often than
>not - as is the case with Tony Pagano and, more recently, sheldon, I don't
>see answers at all.
>
If you're debating a compartively smart and well-read creationist, I would
recommend going to "true origins archive" or looking up "Not By Chance!" and
boning up on Spetner's "information criteria". Some creationist might just
surprise you with this someday rather than just ducking and running, so have
your criticisms and rotten tomatoes ready.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
<snip>
Bobby D. Bryant
[Thinking aloud... and not very expert at information theory, so
don't hesitate to point out any errors in these thoughts.]
Suppose we just want to describe a given string of DNA. How much
"information" is required, in bits? For simplicity let's say that
we know it's a description of DNA, so we don't need any bits to
identify what we're describing. Also for simplicity let's just
describe a single chromosome, so we don't have to worry about
identifying starts and stops. [Biologists: If you listed out a
complete genotype as a continuous string of bases, could you
identify the ends of the different chromosomes based on the patterns
in the string?]
We know that one stand of the DNA is the complement of the other, so
we don't need any bits to represent it. [Biologists: Are there ever
"bobos", where the two strands do not mesh properly somewhere in the
middle?]
We can represent the choice of the four bases with two bits, so the
basic size of our representation in bits is 2l, where l is the
length of the DNA measured in bases.
If certain codons never appear we may be able to reduce the bit
requirement by picking bits to represent codons rather than bases,
but the basic scheme is the same, and the number of bits will be
directly proportional to the length of the DNA.
We can probably also reduce the number of bits required by
compressing our representation, but I'm not aware that nature ever
compresses DNA for storage or transmission, so let's don't compress
it either.
So what's an information increase in this context? Well, a longer
string of DNA would take more bits to represent, so I guess a
mutation that increased the length of the DNA would be an
information increase. But we know that random mutations can
duplicate stretches of DNA, so we have to conclude that either (a)
information increases via random mutation are permissible, or else
(b) this isn't the definition of information that creationists need
for their argument.
Another way of looking at information is "what is the information
gain from an observation?" I.e., treat the observed thing as a
random variable and calculate the "surprise" at what you actually
see; more "surprise" is associated with more information gain.
If the observation only has one possible outcome there's never any
surprise, so the information gain is zero. In all other cases the
information gain is greater than zero.
Let's see if we can stretch this onto biological reproduction. Let's
observe the child's DNA as soon as it is conceived, and let's let
the observer know the parents' DNA in advance. Thus the observer
has some idea of what to expect in the child's DNA, but crossover
and mutation mean the observer will *never* know exactly how it's
going to turn out.
Therefore there is always some element of surprise.
Therefore there is *always* an information gain.
Ooops; that's hardly the result the creationists wanted.
So let's try information transmission. I'm even weaker on this
concept of information than I am on the others, but IIUC the best
you can do is break even by getting an error-free copy of your
message; anything else is a _loss_ of information. How can we apply
this to biology? If the parents' DNA is the source and the child's
DNA is what you get at the other end of the transmission line, you
do infact always get an information loss (because the child will
never have all of both its parents' DNA). But this isn't going to
help creationists either, because the "loss" says nothing about the
nature of the product. Thus the evolution of whales from
landlubbers to their current form would in fact "suffer" a massive
information loss at every single generation, but not the sort of
information loss that contradicts the theory of evolution. Indeed,
evolution by mutation + natural selection _is_ an information loss
under this model, since the mutations reduce the faithfulness of the
child's DNA to its parents'; creationists will have to be careful
not to find themselves arguing for the wrong side!
That's all I can think of. Anone got any other notions of
information we can test drive?
Bobby Bryant
Ausitn, Texas
Bobby D. Bryant
> When Max pointed out that Spetner's use of his own criteria was
> inadequate, S merely responded that this was "tedious" nitpicking.
Ultimately, "tedious nitpicking" is the very essence of science.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
graeme
A quick qoute from AIG:
"For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an
equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring
are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine
(dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean
animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most
seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been
descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know
that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is
likely that they are descended from the same original kind."
I am curious about an 'horses,zebras and donkeys' descending from 'an
equine' kind' and would ask any creationists to give me a name for this
process.
Sounds a little like evolution to me :-)
graeme
John Drayton
Which just goes to show how creationists rush to embrace any argument
which seems to support their cause. Why is a "bad" mutation not
information? Is it because they arbitrarily decide so, because it
suits them? It "feels" right, because it agrees with the truth that
they already know.
I've been wondering recently how creationists can deny the creation
of new "genetic information" if they admit that *any* mutations occur.
So what if it's "bad" ... it's information isn't it?
Perhaps they need to amend their law of information entropy to be
something about no new nice information being created ... :-)
--
John Drayton
Mark VandeWettering
> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to the
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA is,
> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> What is their argument?
It just _can't_.
> and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> say in the face of examples of good mutation?
There are no good mutations. La la la, I can't hear you...
--
"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start
(examining evolution), and then forcing nature into their straitjacket
of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of
science--or of any honest intellectual inquiry." -- S. J. Gould
Bobby D. Bryant
> They either ignore the question or simply repeat that all (or
> most) mutations are bad.
What I'd like to hear from a creationist is a careful description of
the reproductive process, and whenever a point is reached where a
mutation could occur I'd like an explanation of how the strictly
local chemical processes "know" whether a potential mutation would
be good or bad (or would increase or decrease "information" in the
genome), and with that knowledge in hand, what mechanism would be
invoked to prevent the good/informative mutations from actually
happening.
It looks to me like divine/intelligent intervention would be needed
to _prevent_ evolution, not to cause it.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Steven J.
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA is,
> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> What is their argument?
>
they are using an intuitive and vague notion, in which having some
structure or ability represents more information than not having it.
For example, your arm, or a bird's wing, seems to have more
"information" than a crossoptyrigian's lobe-fin. And, of course, it
would seem to follow that *having* an arm is having "more information"
than lacking one.
Note that a lot of research on mutations involves bacteria, whose
structure is unlikely to be impressively changed (especially
considering whom you're trying to impress). Now, mutations that alter
some protein are commonly observed, but it can easily by argued that
this is merely a *change*, not an *increase*, in "information." By
the same token, a mutation which duplicates a gene (and its protein)
simply makes more copies can be dismisses as merely duplicating rather
than "adding" information. Furthermore, with creative redefinitions,
one can argue that any mutation represents a "loss" of some ability.
Thus, evolving resistance to an antibiotic is a "loss of sensitivity
to," or even, for the very bold, "loss of ability to be killed by" the
antibiotic.
Back to the main point: in metazoan organisms, one can observe
mutations that make some structure a bit different in shape, or size,
or color, but they don't produce what your average creationist would
see as fundamentally *different* structures. A mutation with a really
radical effect is more likely to suppress some structure entirely than
cause an extra structure to appear -- and forget about mutations
producing an entire functional organ from scratch. And note that,
even if you *do* get an extra limb or eye, its not likely to make the
organism work better. Thus, for metazoans as for bacteria, one can
present all mutations as either "loss of information (ability or
structure)" or at most a trade of one ability for another.
But note that to go from a single-celled organism to a human, or even
from a lancelet to a human, you need to develop new types of cells,
new organs and structures made of those cells, and so forth. This is
the sort of unarguable "increase in information" one never sees in
laboratory experiments. Note that, viewed in this manner, the "no
increase in information" argument is essentially another version of
"you don't see dogs giving birth to cats" or "no chimps having human
babies" argument. It's based on the assumption that you ought to be
able to observe millions of years of evolution in the time it takes to
spend a typical research grant.
If you point this out, it will be argued that "time is the
evolutionist's magic wand" or some such. If you cite what seem to you
to be clear-cut examples of either "information increasing" (by
whatever measure you can infer from their arguments) or beneficial
mutations, these will be dismissed or ignored by some strategy similar
to those mentioned above.
>
> and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> say in the face of examples of good mutation?
>
They say that all such mutations represent a "loss of information."
Thus the oft-cited mutation that increases human resistance to
cardiovascular disease causes its possessors to lose their ability to
be killed by heart attacks.
-- Steven J.
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
>On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 13:45:14 -0600, John Mott wrote:
>
>
>
>> : How much information is there is ... oh, let's say, a water
>> : molecule. Just to start off with something non-controversial.
>> : How many bits of information? Does the amount of information
>> : depend upon whether this water molecule is in a chunk of ice, or
>> : in a frost pattern, or in a raindrop or as water vapor in the
>> : air? How much information is there in two water molecules?
>>
>>
>> I would presume they are talking about information in DNA, which
>> is easily measureable in bits.
>>
>> well, a lower limit is easily measureable anyway
>
>[Thinking aloud... and not very expert at information theory, so
>don't hesitate to point out any errors in these thoughts.]
>
[SNIP some good examples]
>
>That's all I can think of. Anone got any other notions of
>information we can test drive?
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Ausitn, Texas
>
One notion I've found useful is put them on the defensive early on
with a quick mathematical refutation. It's simple, and even the most
ignorant creationist can usually see the obvious implications of the
simple math. This is the n+1 > n argument (originally proposed--at
least the first I'd seen of it in its simple form--by Dave Oldridge
IIRC).
In a breeding population, there are n alleles. If an individual in that
population winds up with a mutation in any of HIS allotment of those
alleles (that doesn't render him sterile) then there are now n+1 alleles
in the population.
At this point, you will get some handwaving and rhetoric about not being
the same kind of information or some such, so you ask them to provide
a metric for information and show that it is quantifiable and that
it cannot increase (insist that they show the math as you have) in a
scenario as above. Of course they cannot and this usually shuts them
up.
--
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr. KG9ME
Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
College of Arts and Sciences
Dept. of Biological Sciences
wa...@hoxnet.com
http://www.hoxnet.com
PGP Key ID 138BCEE1
Wayne D. Hoxsie Jr.
Doh! I should have read the whole thread before responding.
See my response to Bobby Bryant. I at least remembered to cite you
Dave.
Bobby D. Bryant
> [...] Furthermore, with creative redefinitions, one can argue that
> any mutation represents a "loss" of some ability. Thus, evolving
> resistance to an antibiotic is a "loss of sensitivity to," or
> even, for the very bold, "loss of ability to be killed by" the
> antibiotic.
> [...]
> They say that all such mutations represent a "loss of
> information." Thus the oft-cited mutation that increases human
> resistance to cardiovascular disease causes its possessors to lose
> their ability to be killed by heart attacks.
And we counter with the observation that evolution is just a
continual reduction in the ability to die before reproducing in the
currrent environment.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, texas
Herb Martin
be bad" is just a hidden version of the "random
mutation" argument.
Crypto-randomness is dismissed since everyone
'knows' that no current species could happen by
accident. It is exactly analogous to the mathematical
trick of "hiding a division by zero" within a proof.
Once you accept that "mutations are bad" or "it cannot
happen by chance" then almost anything about
natural selection can be challenged.
The real problem is that evolution -- and the descent
with modification that explains it -- does not operate by
chance alone. No evolutionary scientist from Darwin on,
has ever claimed that chance OR mutations ALONE
can cause or explain evolution.
Mutations are a necessary prerequisite for biological
selection -- mutations provide the raw material on which
selection operates. Information CAN of course be
created by differential selection of those mutations which
have value in some niche or population.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
zosdad
> news:7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to
> the
> > AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> > information'
A few of us have been working up a list of counterexamples in this
thread at Wes Elsberry's experimental UBB board:
The Origin of "Information" via natural causes
Refuting a key ID claim (refs, webpages)
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=3d0723f48c8bffff;act=ST;f=9;t=6
There are endless examples, those interested in adding to the list
might post them (or links to e.g. t.o. threads or whatever) here or on
that UBB.
nic
Tracy P. Hamilton
(Steven J.) wrote:
>"John Mott" <jm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message news:<7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>...
>> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to the
>> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
>> information'
>>
>> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA is,
>> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
>> What is their argument?
>>
>I *think* that, aside from Spetner and those citing his authority,
>they are using an intuitive and vague notion, in which having some
>structure or ability represents more information than not having it.
>For example, your arm, or a bird's wing, seems to have more
>"information" than a crossoptyrigian's lobe-fin.
NO,NO,NO!
The bird has lost "lobe-fin information"! You are blinded by your
secularism.
>And, of course, it
>would seem to follow that *having* an arm is having "more information"
>than lacking one.
Sorry, having arms is lost leg information. People who walk on their
hands are trying to defy the fourth laws of information, by the way.
>Note that a lot of research on mutations involves bacteria, whose
>structure is unlikely to be impressively changed (especially
>considering whom you're trying to impress). Now, mutations that alter
>some protein are commonly observed, but it can easily by argued that
>this is merely a *change*, not an *increase*, in "information." By
>the same token, a mutation which duplicates a gene (and its protein)
>simply makes more copies can be dismisses as merely duplicating rather
>than "adding" information. Furthermore, with creative redefinitions,
>one can argue that any mutation represents a "loss" of some ability.
>Thus, evolving resistance to an antibiotic is a "loss of sensitivity
>to," or even, for the very bold, "loss of ability to be killed by" the
>antibiotic.
By George, I think you've got it!
"The information in DNA falls mainly down the dra-ain"
[snip well reasoned writing]
Tracy P. Hamilton
Mike Goodrich
Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and more,
see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
-mike goodrich
David Sienkiewicz
news:3d076d64...@ediacara.org...
< snip >
Ducking into other threads is not going to help you this time, Mike.
Shall I recap the "evidence for God" issue that erupted between you and me?
You know...step by step?
Are you ever going to provide your evidence for God with full understanding
that, in order to intelligently discuss it, you'll need to present facts and
defend them?
David Sienkiewicz
news:3d076d64...@ediacara.org...
Mike, what are the odds that you'll give us a summary of Spenter's critique,
so that we can all examine it and discuss it?
In lieu of that, here are a couple of very good rebuttals to Spetner:
John Mott
:
:
: Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and more,
: see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
:
seeing as how the title already betrays that the author doesn't understand
how evolution works, it doesn't seem very promising.
he is either ignorant, or dishonest.
: -mike goodrich
:
Bobby D. Bryant
> Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and more,
> see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
Would you mind giving us a 1-2 page summary of his main argument,
to help us decide whether this book is worth reading?
Thanks,
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Sienkiewicz
I'd agree to some extent in that the book title does seem to indicate that
it's not really a book intended for scientifically astute readers.
David Sienkiewicz
news:ae7s7k$mat$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu...
> On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:48:52 -0600, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and
more,
> > see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
>
> Would you mind giving us a 1-2 page summary of his main argument,
> to help us decide whether this book is worth reading?
I'd lay odds that he would mind very much.
GKlein112473633
AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
information'
It seems to me that **any** mutation is "new information"
Gene
My candle burns at both ends; It will not last the night;But ah, my foes, and
oh, my friends--It gives a lovely light!
David Sienkiewicz
news:20020612132121...@mb-cm.aol.com...
> someone said:
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> It seems to me that **any** mutation is "new information"
Seems that way to me, too.
Bobby D. Bryant
> someone said:
> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> information'
>
> It seems to me that **any** mutation is "new information"
Yes, for certain definitions of "information" it is.
The problem is that people who want to use information arguments to
deny evolution very rarely give a definition of what they mean by
"information". They generally take the following tack:
There is something that would increase during the course of
evolution.
There is a law of nature that says that that something can't
increase.
Then they identify that something as "information" or "order"
(without any definition beyond the intuitive), and for the law of
nature they invoke the second law of thermodynamics, or invent their
own new law, or appeal to common sense, or say "just because"... and
then they start peddling their non-argument to the public as if it
refuted evolution.
The problem, of course, arises from the fact that they start with
their conclusion ("evolution is wrong") and then call in the stage
carpenters to construct a facsimile of an argument to support that
a-priori conclusion. Such a parody of science may be sufficient for
an audience that mostly lacks even the most rudimentary concept of
how science works, and/or is predisposed to welcome _any_ arguement
that supports their beliefs, but it will never be accepted as
science among scientists -- which is why it always appears in
newsgroups, on Web pages, or in books, but never in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
Yesterday someone mentioned that in an e-mail exchange with a
creationist leader they were accused of "tedious nitpicking", and I
would like to reiterate what I said then: "tedious nitpicking" is
the basis of science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't a
vague wave of the hands; it's a precisely defined statement about a
precisely defined thing. The No Free Lunch Theorem isn't a vague
dismissal of stochastic search algorithms; it's a precisely defined
statement about some precisely defined things.
If creationists want to play the science game they need to engage in
a bit of "tedious nitpicking" themselves, and come up with the same
sort of definitions and statements that scientists do, so that their
statements will be unambiguous and can be evaluated objectively.
Unfortunately for creationists, every time they descend from
handwaving to concrete statements about well-defined objects they
are shown to be wrong. But that's the risk you run when you want to
play the game of science.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dave Oldridge
> Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and
> more, see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
Yes do. But be careful to sort the math from the rhetoric. When you do,
it's a very instructive lesson in creationist rationalization.
To really study this work, though, one needs a good grounding in the basics
of probability math, as Spetner plays fast and loose with the rules.
At least near as I can tell from the various cites that have been shoved
under my nose he does.
If anyone has a Spetner probability argument that actually deals with
reality, now, in this thread would be a good place to present it. I'm not
going to paw through his book for all the errors.
--
Dave Oldridge
ICQ 1800667
===========================================================================
===================
Paradoxically, nearly all real events are highly improbable
--me, 2000AD
Bobby D. Bryant
> If anyone has a Spetner probability argument that actually deals
> with reality, now, in this thread would be a good place to present
> it.
Seconded. The reason for my a-priori skepticism -- the reason I
want to hear an outline of the argument before I invest the time it
takes to read a book -- is that we see defective creationists
arguments by the score here. If Spetner actually got it right, how
come we haven't been hearing his argument instead of all the
rubbish we actually do hear.
So come on, somebody. What's Spetner got that the others haven't?
Just enough to convince me that the book's worth reading, that's
all I ask.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Sienkiewicz
Mike Goodrich? You there?
Bobby and Dave's comments are a cue for you if ever I saw one.
GKlein112473633
Spetner summarizes his book in these words. "The first several chapters have
shown that random variations cannot lead to the large- scale evolution claimed
by the Neo-Darwinians. The seventh chapter has shown that there is a lot of
evidence for non random variation which could produce some large scale
evolution." In Chapter 8, he proposes his own fit of the evidence and its
connection to the Bible.
If Spetner argument (and I haven't read the book) stands on showing that
random variation cannot lead to evolution (large scale or otherwise) then this
is a problem.
Darwinian Evolution only requires variation to be isotropic wrt adapation.
Again without reading the book I cannot tell if that invalidates everything
that he is saying.
rossum
Judging from the title alone, Lee Spetner agrees with Richard Dawkins
that evolution did not occur by chance alone.
Rather than evidence refuting a straw-man caricature of evolution, can
you refer us to anything refuting natural selection Mike? You know
the sort of thing, evidence that bacteria don't develop resistance to
antibiotics and so on.
rossum
Tracy P. Hamilton
(GKlein112473633) wrote:
>I got this from www.doesgodexist.org
>
>Spetner summarizes his book in these words. "The first several chapters have
>shown that random variations cannot lead to the large- scale evolution claimed
>by the Neo-Darwinians. The seventh chapter has shown that there is a lot of
>evidence for non random variation which could produce some large scale
>evolution." In Chapter 8, he proposes his own fit of the evidence and its
>connection to the Bible.
>
>If Spetner argument (and I haven't read the book) stands on showing that
>random variation cannot lead to evolution (large scale or otherwise) then this
>is a problem.
>Darwinian Evolution only requires variation to be isotropic wrt adapation.
>Again without reading the book I cannot tell if that invalidates everything
>that he is saying.
What Spetner is saying is that mutations lead to evolution, it is just
that they are not random, but "goddidit", or should I say "g_ddidit"?
Tracy P. Hamilton
Cyde Weys
Of course not. He only leaves posts and then quickly abandoms them when he
loses; he never revisits!
Bobby D. Bryant
Loses? We're not even arguing with him -- we'd just like a bit of
information.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
David Sienkiewicz
True.
In this thead, at least, he hasn't made an argument at all - just a vague
reference for which we'd like to see some information.
It seems, though, that all the information provided thus far would indicate
that Spetner's book CANNOT be recommended.
johns
On the contrary! I think we *can* recommend this book to the trash
heap.
--
JCS
David Sienkiewicz
news:ugfjg22...@corp.supernews.com...
Well, yes, there IS that...
>
> --
> JCS
>
>
>
Herb Martin
with that title, if the purpose was to disabuse the
reader of the common misconception that evolution
works by "chance" alone.
Chance mutations are merely the raw material for
evolutionary changes we see. Darwin figured out
the basis of evolutionary mechanisms without even
KNOWING how genetics or the genetic mutations
would or could occur.
The evidence of evolution showed him that modifications
MUST happen and that selection would do the 'choosing'
among various possibilities.
Of course, 'choosing' is a poor choice of words since many
think of this as requiring an animate chooser. Evolution
just doesn't work that way. It works by survival to produce
more successful offspring....
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attblockbi.com> wrote in message
news:QDKN8.16604$R61...@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
Drearash
>From: "Bobby D. Bryant" bdbr...@mail.utexas.edu
>Date: 6/12/02 12:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: <ae7s7k$mat$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>
>
>On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 09:48:52 -0600, Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
>> Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and more,
>> see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
Bobby Bryant wrote:
>
>Would you mind giving us a 1-2 page summary of his main argument,
>to help us decide whether this book is worth reading?
>
>Thanks,
>
>Bobby Bryant
>Austin, Texas
>
And while you're at it, could you explain what evidence he- Oh, wait, that's
right, you don't know what evidence is. Never mind.
Von Smith
Fortuna nimis dat multis, satis nulli.
GKlein112473633
>that they are not random, but "goddidit", or should I say "g_ddidit"?
Lets try gd did it. That works for me. If Spetner is saying this (that
mutations lead to evolution) is he suggesting a saltational theory? (Have you
read the book by the way? How do you know what spetner means?)
Gene
(emailed also)
John Drayton
Yes, but mutations are *bad*. They don't produce any good, honest
God-fearing, bible-believing information.
--
John Drayton
Herb Martin
> God-fearing, bible-believing information.
>
What about the mutations within the current
bible?
All right thinking religionists must realize that
god is in charge of the mutations....<grin>
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"John Drayton" <bitbu...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ce43f6e.02061...@posting.google.com...
> "David Sienkiewicz" <david.si...@attblockbi.com> wrote in message
news:<eyLN8.17908$nZ3.1729@rwcrnsc53>...
> > "GKlein112473633" <gklein1...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20020612132121...@mb-cm.aol.com...
> > > someone said:
> > > AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> > > information'
> > >
> > > It seems to me that **any** mutation is "new information"
> >
> > Seems that way to me, too.
>
> --
> John Drayton
>
eyelessgame
> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to the
> information'
>
> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> What is their argument?
>
> and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> say in the face of examples of good mutation?
Their argument rests on vague notions, as others here have said. The
idea that "information cannot be created" is ludicrous on its face; a
recording of an event is information, and natural processes that
perform recordings are everywhere. (The high tide line on a beach, the
faded areas of a carpet, the brightness curve of the ring around
SN1987A, and the snow line on a mountainside are low-fidelity
information recordings. Just to give some trivial examples.)
I think a lot of the intuitive "hey, yeah, that sounds reasonable"
response that creationists rely on from sympathetic listeners has its
origin in the elementary confusion around *loss of signal*.
Information theory does have a lot to say about the "entropy" of a
signal (though often using other terminology); once a given pattern is
degraded by noise, the original pattern can only be restored if it
contained redundancy. The "information content" of a signal is said
to be reduced as noice is introduced.
But this presupposes that the original signal is all you want. This
circular reasoning is the elementary error the
information-creationists make, and it really is that simple.
The information to produce a trilobite is probably degraded and gone
beyond retrieval from the genome of trilobite descendants. They're
right that far. What they ignore is that it has been replaced by
*other* data with /the same information content/ (or more, or less,
depending on the length of the DNA strands, which trivially change).
Information content is just a matter of counting the bits. More bits,
more data. Copy a strand of DNA -- which happens every time a cell
divides -- and you double the information.
Mutations introduce new data (possibly but not always destroying old
data in the process), and selection continually /filters/ the old and
new data -- filters introduce information, because filtering is an
event, and successful reproduction is a low-fidelity recording of the
filtering (i.e. the selection).
Herb Martin
Two comments on the lines of Johns excellent post:
1) There is information lost AND gained in evolutionary
changes. Our genes contain information for creating an
intelligent human being.
(I am presuming you are human and intelligent if you are
reading this -- if this is not true then please adjust the
analogy to fit YOUR circumstances.)
The information to create an ancient sea creature is mostly
lost in our genes. Were the conditions of the earth return
to deep ocean as the only viable habitat, humans would not
become -- again -- that ancient sea creature but might become
some NEW sea mammal losing information about what we
currently consider mammalian-human and gaining information
about that future mammal. Nor would our descendents ever
become precisely a cetacean or whale, that is now the "road
not taken."
2) If you are going to argue entropy or information loss you
must be absolutely clear about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics
does and does not say.
More importantly the CONTEXT in which it applies. The 2nd
law is ONLY a "law" when the system is CLOSED, if information
OR usuable energy (just another way of saying information) is
ADDED to a seemingly closed system, then the 2nd law doesn't
even apply.
Example: The Earth is constantly receiving energy from that big
yellow white ball of fire in the sky. The Sun is an mass of organized
energy dissipated much of itself into space as light and other
electromagnetic radiation. The amount of energy is so large that
the small fraction which falls on the Earth supplies a GIANT does
of NegEntropy daily (actually 24 hours a day Somewhere on Earth.)
Three laws of Thermodynamics (simple quick explanation):
http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html
Note that even the first law (conservation of energy) would NOT
hold without Einstein's mass-energy equivalence. The 1st law
says that "energy cannot be created or destroyed" -- but this
includes the possibility of converting energy from one form to
another -- the Sun converts MASS to ENERGY but does not
create any 'new' energy.
The 2nd law basically says that although energy cannot be
created or destroyed is CAN be WASTED -- once it is in the
form of "disorganized heat" (heat is just random energy from
molecular motion) you cannot get it back in an organized form
without inputing more energy into the system to provide the
organitation.
This is very simple to explain by analogy if you use an air
conditioner (or heat pump). You can move the heat out of your
home or office if you put more energy in to run the condenser, fan,
and pump.
If the 2nd law were absolute (applied to non-closed systems) then
air conditioning would not work.
Evolution is powered mostly by the sun, with a small assist from
cosmic radiation and perhaps the geological heat of the Earth's
interior.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"eyelessgame" <aa...@oro.net> wrote in message
news:e707421e.02061...@posting.google.com...
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
</delurks>
On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 21:15:35 +0000 (UTC), drea...@aol.com (Drearash)
wrote:
>>Subject: Re: Loss of information argument
>>From: "David Sienkiewicz" david.si...@attblockbi.com
>>Date: 6/11/02 2:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>>Message-id: <uwrN8.161978$cQ3.4756@sccrnsc01>
>>
>>"John Mott" <jm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>>>
>>> Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to
>>the
>>> AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
>>> information'
>>>
>>> Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA is,
>>> and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
>>> What is their argument?
>>
>>That is all there is to the argument, John.
>>
>>Some creationists have used variations of the argument in this newsgroup.
>>Some of us have asked how this information is quantified so that a loss or
>>gain of "information" can be measured in some meaningful fashion.
>>
>Lee Spetner has proposed a list of criteria for measuring information, but he
>uses it himself very selectively and it isn't really that hot in the first
>place.
To amplify this, I will repost (with some slight amendments) a post I
made on this subject some time ago.
Spetner uses two separate metrics of information, one is an
"expectation" measure whereby an ensemble of different strings has
less information that an ensemble of identical strings, this will
surprise people familiar with standard Shannon Weaver information or
Algorithmic information, but is a valid formulation under particular
circumstances.
He also uses an "addressing" measure of information. This is fairly
simple to understand.
"Brisbane" has less information than
"Cannon Hill, Brisbane" which has less information than
"Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane" which has less information than
"666, Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane"
(there is a formal way to do this using binary addresses for matrix
elements in n x n (or n x n x n) matrices which I can't be bothered to
go into now. It's a bit of a stretch mapping this onto substrate
binding, but there is nothing inherently more loony about this than
mapping telegraphy transmission to DNA replication).
He then claims that enzyme/hormone receptor specificity is analogous
to addressing specificity, and that enzymes with many substrates have
less information than enzymes with one substrate. On the face of it
this seems like a reasonable argument. Enzyme-substrate (or
hormone-homone receptor) binding is likened to a "lock and key"
mechanism, where the substrate is the key and the enzyme is the lock.
(important caveat, both the lock and key are "floppy").
Note that there is a subtle shift in the argument. One can easily see
that the address for "666, Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane" takes
more information to specify than "Brisbane", but the claim that
enzymes have more information because they bind only one substrate is
similar to the claim that "666, Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane"
has more information than "Brisbane" because fewer letters are
delivered there than there are to "Brisbane". This is a somewhat
different claim, that the information of the physical object at an
address has the information required to specify that address.
But accepting Spetner's claim, it would seem intuitively obvious that
a
more specific lock accepting only one key has more information a less
specific lock which accepts many keys (this is actually debatable),
and that analogously, an enzyme is more specific because it has more
binding points than an enzyme that is less specific (and there is also
the unstated assumption that single substrate enzymes are more
important than multi substrate enzymes. They are not).
For example we might imagine an active site that uses 4 binding points
has more info than one with two binding points
X--O O--Y X--0 O--Y
\ / \ /
DRUG DRUG
/ \
Z--N N--Y
Where X, Y and Z are amino acids in the enzymes active site.
Unfortunately, biology doesn't work that way. The number of binding
points are important, to a degree. But other physical properties of
the enzyme are important too. For example, take the betalactamases
that break down cephalosporins, one mutant variant can breakdown
extended cephalosporins, where as the normal enzyme can't. The mutant
variant doesn't have fewer binding points than the normal enzyme, but
has a more flexible hinge so that the catalytic group can reach the
lactam ring easier.
Even within a binding site things are tricky. In adrenergic receptors,
the drug propranolol binds to 3 sites in the binding cleft, yet has
far more powerful binding to the enzyme than the natural hormones
noradrenaline and adrenaline, which bind to five sites in the cleft.
(see http://home.mira.net/~reynella/chime/adr_tute.htm and go to the
adrenoceptor tutorial to see what I mean, requires the chime plug-in)
Worse still, you can have substrates which bind at exactly the same
number of points, but which bind more firmly because you have
substituted a chlorine atom for an oxygen atom, and changed the
distribution of electrons on the drug molecule.
Binding specificity is not something simply analogous to "addressing",
it involves physical shape (which is amenable to an addressing
analysis) and physicochemical properties (which is not simply amenable
to an addressing analysis, especially when the properties are those of
the _substrate_) and structural properties of the enzyme, like hinge
flexibility or helix distortion which are also not amenable to an
addressing analysis (does a helix which flexes to the right have more
information than a helix which flexes to the left?)
Simply put, any analysis of the "information" of a protein that
addresses the substrate binding specificity, although superficially
plausible, is naive in the extreme, because substrate specificity is
not amenable to the proposed analysis (especially when some of that
information is in the _substrate_). Also, his analysis deals solely
with single substrate enzymes, how he deals with bi-bi-random two
substrate two product enzymes I don't know, he seems to feel that all
enzymes should be like (some of) the enzymes of the Krebs citric acids
cycle.
Worse still, in his analysis of the ribulose to xylitol mutation he
doesn't consider binding specificity, but a biochemical measure called
specificity. This is a ratio between catalytic efficiency and binding
specificity. Okay, you say now, this is pretty trivial, we can work
with this. Well, no. Catalytic efficiency is something else again. It
is definitely not amenable to an "addressing" measure, and is based on
a range of physicochemical properties such as the charge distribution
in the _substrate_, the free rotation of the catalytic side group
(does a catalytic group that rotates 10 angstroms have more or less
information than one that rotates 15 angstroms?) and so on.
Critically, two substrates can have the same _binding_ specificity,
but different catalytic efficacy which confounds the information
analysis.
Worse yet again. Spetner's argument is related to the number of
substrates acted on. Yet in the ribulose dehydrogenase mutating to
xylitol dehydrogenase, in both cases the enzyme bound 3 substrates, by
his own definition no information change has occurred. The _rate_ of
dehydrogenation has changed, but
a) There is no simple way relative magnitudes can be incorporated into
his calculation. Remember "666, Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane"
has more information that "Brisbane" by simple bit length measures.
How are we to assign a information measure to the fact that "666,
Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane" receives twice as many election
newsletters form the Labour candidate as the Liberal candidate, while
"664, Richmond Road, Cannon Hill, Brisbane" receives the same number
(this situation is a closer analog to enzyme activity)
b) The relative magnitude change may be entirely due to changes in
catalytic efficiency, which has no information content in an
addressing scheme (nor can I see any meaningful way to calculate the
"information" in this with any existing information metric)
It gets worse still. Spetner compared the "specificities" of 3
substrates, because they were the only substrates measured in the
experiment. In reality ribulose dehydrogenase (and xylitol
dehydrogenase) binds a lot more substrates than just those 3 (although
the catalytic efficiency is very low for the majority of substrates
bound. Without assessing the full panel of substrates, any claim about
specificity is meaningless. (But which substrates? if we restrict
ourselves to natural substrates, we exclude xylitol, a synthetic sugar
not found in the natural environment, but developing xylitol
dehydrogenase activity was the whole point of the exercise) if we
include synthetic substrates, we have a potentially infinite number of
substrates to test.
It continues to get worse. Spetner assumed that the point reached in
the experiment (where Ribulose and Xylitol were being broken down at
roughly similar rates by the mutant enzyme), was as good as it gets,
no further improvement was possible. In the experiment he looked at,
the main point was to see if xylitol activity could be developed, not
getting the optimum activity. In fact, in other experiments mutant
enzymes were produced that broke down xylitol 20 times faster than
ribulose (which kind of destroys his thesis see Hartley, B.S. (1984),
Experimental evolution of ribitol dehydrogenase. In R.P. Mortlock
(ed.), "Microorganisms as Model Systems for Studying Evolution" (pp.
23 - 54) Plenum, New York). Furthermore, we have literally hundreds of
enzymes where random mutation results in high substrate specificity
(there has been enormous amounts of work on developing novel and
specific enzyme activities from generalist alpha-beta barrel proteins
eg see Matsumura I, Ellington AD. In vitro evolution of
beta-glucuronidase into a beta-galactosidase proceeds through
non-specific intermediates. J Mol Biol. 2001 Jan 12;305(2):331-9).
And it _still_ get worse. His other example is the case of the
streptomycin resistance mutation of the _rspL_ gene (which codes for
the S12 subunit of the 30S ribosomal particle. The S12 subunit with
the 16S RNA forms part of the proof reading center of the tRNA
acceptor binding site). The actual protein is
_more_ specific, it now only binds tRNA rather than tRNA and
streptomycin. Now, streptomycin isn't a substrate, so you might object
to using binding specificity in this case, but it does have an effect
on the substrate binding accuracy of the ribosome, and streptomycin
binding ribosomes turn out garbage proteins because streptomycin
messes up the proof-reading centre (which is how streptomycin kills
bacteria). The mutant version which doesn't bind streptomycin is
actually MORE accurate, ie more SPECIFIC, than the wild type (the
wild-type proof reading centre makes a few mistakes even in the
absence of streptomycin).
Either way, this is a _clear_ increase in Spetner's binding
specificity (the mutant gene product doesn't bind streptomycin at all
and binds peptidyl tRNA more accurately). Spetner _now_ swaps to the
expectation measure and claims (without evidence) that since there
must be more S12 sequences that don't bind streptomycin than those
that do, information must have decreased (why didn't he do this
analysis on the ribulose
enzyme?).
However, he is dead wrong. The ensemble of all _rsPL_ genes that
produce streptomycin binding S12 is around 10^60. The ensemble of all
_rsPL_ genes that _don't_ bind streptomycin is around 10^60 too (from
an analysis of neutral mutations ala Yockey). So the information
difference is so small as to be non existent. If we only take amino
acid changes in the streptomycin binding site, then there are roughly
the same number of substitutions that will allow binding as those that
don't (10 resistant versus 6 normal see Tolvonen JM et al., Mol.
Micro. 1999, 1735-1746). Also, there is a particular mutation, AAA43
-> AGA43 which doesn't bind streptomycin AND has wild type accuracy
and translation rates. This is the only possible (single) mutation
that does this, so it's ensemble is smaller than the wild type
ensemble
So to summarize, Spetner swaps metrics when one shows inconvenient
changes and he is wrong in the details, these invalidate his analyses.
Although his arguments are superficially plausible, a deeper look with
some knowledge of biochemistry shows massive flaws.
Cheers! Ian
</relurks>
=====================================================
Ian Musgrave Peta O'Donohue,Jack Francis and Michael James Musgrave
reyn...@werple.mira.net.au http://werple.mira.net.au/~reynella/
Southern Sky Watch http://www.abc.net.au/science/space/default.htm
Bobby D. Bryant
wrote:
[snip lots o' good stuff]
> Either way, this is a _clear_ increase in Spetner's binding
> specificity (the mutant gene product doesn't bind streptomycin at
> all and binds peptidyl tRNA more accurately). Spetner _now_ swaps
> to the expectation measure and claims (without evidence) that
> since there must be more S12 sequences that don't bind
> streptomycin than those that do, information must have decreased
> (why didn't he do this analysis on the ribulose enzyme?).
In some ways this is the crux of the matter. There are lots of ways
of defining something to be called 'information'. There are
presumably a number of ways of defining 'information' such that it
would increase over the course of evolution. But all arguments of
this type, no matter how they define 'information', must at some
point invoke some law of nature that forbids such increases for the
quantity defined.
A simple assertion that "it {can't,doesn't} increase" is not
sufficient. If they're going to fall back on unsupported assertions
like that, they've done no better than simply asserting "godidit" to
begin with; the information-assertion argument is not a whit more
compelling, and everything in it beyond the unsupported assertion is
at best irrelevant window dressing, and at worst a distraction to
people trying to honestly evaluate the non-existent argument.
"Tedious nitpicking", O creationists, is the only way to do
science. Handwaving has no utility whatsoever.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Laurence A. Moran
In article <w_QN8.98617$9z5.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com>,
Herb Martin <He...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote:
>Actually a scientific book COULD be written easily
>with that title, if the purpose was to disabuse the
>reader of the common misconception that evolution
>works by "chance" alone.
Exactly right. Dawkins has written several books that make this
very point.
>Chance mutations are merely the raw material for
>evolutionary changes we see. Darwin figured out
>the basis of evolutionary mechanisms without even
>KNOWING how genetics or the genetic mutations
>would or could occur.
>
>The evidence of evolution showed him that modifications
>MUST happen and that selection would do the 'choosing'
>among various possibilities.
>
>Of course, 'choosing' is a poor choice of words since many
>think of this as requiring an animate chooser. Evolution
>just doesn't work that way. It works by survival to produce
>more successful offspring....
On the other hand ....
Several of us recognize that evolution involves several different
mechanisms. Natural selection is the mechanism that selects among
different mutations to cause adaptation. This mechanism requires
both chance (mutation) and necessity (natural selection).
There are some who believe that the key event is mutation so that
the "driving force" of evolution by natural selection is actually
chance mutation. There are other who believe that the "right"
mutations occur so readily that it's really the pressure of
adaptation that drives natural selection. The first group are
called mutationalists and they emphasize the role of chance. The
second group are the adaptionists and they believe that life
is "designed" by natural selection with chance mutations playing
a minor role.
But, in addition to natural selection, evolution can also take
place when alleles are fixed in the population by a completely
random mechanism called random genetic drift. In this case evolution
occurs by chance alone. There is little doubt that this occurs.
The controversy is over the relative frequency of pure chance and
adaptation.
In addition to these mechanims of evolution, the history of life
on Earth is the result of many different events that are not
directly caused by changes in the frequency of alleles in a population.
Some of these events are best explained by luck or accident and
in that sense they are due more to chance than to design. Strictly
speaking, these events aren't really evolution but they do influence
the history of life and are often confused with evolution. Extinctions
fall into this category and so does the chance arrival of a small
flock of finches to the Galapagos.
Biology is the most complicated of all the basic sciences and there
are exceptions to every rule. It's wrong to say that evolution
happens only by chance and it's equally wrong to say that it never
happens by chance alone.
Larry Moran
Bill Jefferys
>More importantly the CONTEXT in which it applies. The 2nd
>law is ONLY a "law" when the system is CLOSED, if information
>OR usuable energy (just another way of saying information) is
>ADDED to a seemingly closed system, then the 2nd law doesn't
>even apply.
From the website you cited
(http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html)
Second Law of Thermodynamics
Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter body.
This is an abbreviated form of (IIRC) Clausius's formulation of the Second
Law: It is impossible for a process to exist, the sole effect of which is to
transfer heat from a colder to a hotter body.
Now, I claim that this form of the Second Law applies to both open and
closed systems. Therefore, I think that your claim that the Second Law is
only a "law" when the system is closed, is incorrect.
Bill
--
Bill Jefferys/Department of Astronomy/University of Texas/Austin, TX 78712
Email: replace 'warthog' with 'clyde' | Homepage: quasar.as.utexas.edu
I report spammers to frau...@psinet.com
Finger for PGP Key: F7 11 FB 82 C6 21 D8 95 2E BD F7 6E 99 89 E1 82
Unlawful to use this email address for unsolicited ads: USC Title 47 Sec 227
Bobby D. Bryant
> At 4:04 AM +0000 6/13/02, Herb Martin wrote:
>
>>More importantly the CONTEXT in which it applies. The 2nd law is
>>ONLY a "law" when the system is CLOSED, if information OR usuable
>>energy (just another way of saying information) is ADDED to a
>>seemingly closed system, then the 2nd law doesn't even apply.
>
> From the website you cited
> (http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html)
>
> Second Law of Thermodynamics
> Heat can never pass spontaneously from a colder to a hotter
> body.
>
> This is an abbreviated form of (IIRC) Clausius's formulation of
> the Second Law: It is impossible for a process to exist, the sole
> effect of which is to transfer heat from a colder to a hotter
> body.
>
> Now, I claim that this form of the Second Law applies to both open
> and closed systems. Therefore, I think that your claim that the
> Second Law is only a "law" when the system is closed, is
> incorrect.
Yes, there's a formulation of the 2LoT that applies to open
systems... which has the interesting property of no longer
forbidding a decrease of entropy. See
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=bryant++dissipative+entropy+group:talk.origins&hl=en&lr=&selm=ab8fa2%24pr7%241%40geraldo.cc.utexas.edu&rnum=1
And of course, moving heat from a colder body to a warmer one isn't
part of the mechanism proposed by the ToE. The 2LoT simply isn't
relevant as a critique of evolution, regardless of which formulation
you use.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Herb Martin
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Bill Jefferys" <bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:bill-7E8A42.1...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...
Ian Musgrave & Peta O'Donohue
Address altered to avoid spam, delete RemoveInsert
On Wed, 12 Jun 2002 20:59:50 +0000 (UTC), gklein1...@aol.com
(GKlein112473633) wrote:
>I got this from www.doesgodexist.org
>
>Spetner summarizes his book in these words. "The first several chapters have
>shown that random variations cannot lead to the large- scale evolution claimed
>by the Neo-Darwinians. The seventh chapter has shown that there is a lot of
>evidence for non random variation which could produce some large scale
>evolution." In Chapter 8, he proposes his own fit of the evidence and its
>connection to the Bible.
>
>If Spetner argument (and I haven't read the book) stands on showing that
>random variation cannot lead to evolution (large scale or otherwise) then this
>is a problem.
He's only talking about large scale organisation, he accepts that
random variation produces evolution (eg bacterial antibiotic
resistance) but claims this kind of variation is actually "loss" of
information, and can't explain evolution of more complicated
structures. To do this he has to use some ingenious (and conflicting)
metrics that have very little to do with real biology. he also
believes "adaptive mutation" is non-random, possibly directed
mutation, when infact it is random mutation due to DNA polymerase IV
proof reading errors.
>Darwinian Evolution only requires variation to be isotropic wrt adapation.
>Again without reading the book I cannot tell if that invalidates everything
>that he is saying.
No, he makes a number of errors, but not that fundamental one.
Cheers! Ian
Richard Clayton
> "John Mott" <jm...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:7jrN8.3291$9b.1...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
> >
> > Seems to be one of the key arguments left for creationists, according to
> the
> > AIG site, is that mutation and natural selection can't create 'new
> > information'
> >
> > Assuming that they ave at least a rduimentary understanding of what DNA
> is,
> > and what mutation and natural selection are, how can they make this claim?
> > What is their argument?
>
> That is all there is to the argument, John.
>
> Some creationists have used variations of the argument in this newsgroup.
> Some of us have asked how this information is quantified so that a loss or
> gain of "information" can be measured in some meaningful fashion.
>
> I have NEVER seen a coherent response to that question. More often than
> not - as is the case with Tony Pagano and, more recently, sheldon, I don't
> see answers at all.
I suspect that is deliberate. By refusing to define terms, you free
your dogma from the possibility of being falsified.
> > and if it involves the argument that "all mutations are bad", what do they
> > say in the face of examples of good mutation?
>
> They either ignore the question or simply repeat that all (or most)
> mutations are bad.
Actually, even Answers in Genesis admits that there ARE beneficial
mutations, although they still insist that no mutation that increases
information has been observed.
I notice that most of the arguments they urge other creationists to
avoid are easily falsifiable; it seems that AiG wants to take the
creationism movement out of the realm of (potentially falsifiable)
science and into pure metaphysics masquerading as science.
--
Richard Clayton (for...@earthlink.net)
"You were unlucky, but not terribly so. Be thankful, because eventually
you'll be very unlucky. In the end, everyone's score is zero." --
Stephen Lea Sheppard
Richard Clayton
> Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and more,
> see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
You still haven't responded to my answer to you in the "I Reiterate:
What is Evidence?" thread, Mike.
David Sienkiewicz
news:3D0A8856...@earthlink.net...
> Mike Goodrich wrote:
>
> > Folks, for a fascinating scientific critque of all these issues and
more,
> > see biophysicist Lee Spetner's "Not By Chance!"
>
> You still haven't responded to my answer to you in the "I Reiterate:
> What is Evidence?" thread, Mike.
He also hasn't produced his evidence for God - not really - he hasn't
explained how the Universe qualifies, and he fled after I presented some
links showing that Spetner was not quite the sterling source Mike claimed he
was.
R. Baldwin
news:3d0677cd$0$11...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> A quick qoute from AIG:
>
> "For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from
an
> equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the
offspring
> are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a
canine
> (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are
clean
> animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at
most
> seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may
have been
> descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes.
We know
> that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers,
so it is
> likely that they are descended from the same original kind."
>
> I am curious about an 'horses,zebras and donkeys' descending from
'an
> equine' kind' and would ask any creationists to give me a name for
this
> process.
>
> Sounds a little like evolution to me :-)
>
> graeme
>
>
>
Indeed, because it is. Except for Aurochs to cattle; that is selection
rather than natural selection. I can attest that cattle are not always
clean, however.
Adam Marczyk
news:USUN8.99149$9z5.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
[snip]
> 2) If you are going to argue entropy or information loss you
> must be absolutely clear about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> does and does not say.
>
> More importantly the CONTEXT in which it applies. The 2nd
> law is ONLY a "law" when the system is CLOSED, if information
> OR usuable energy (just another way of saying information) is
> ADDED to a seemingly closed system, then the 2nd law doesn't
> even apply.
>
> Example: The Earth is constantly receiving energy from that big
> yellow white ball of fire in the sky. The Sun is an mass of organized
> energy dissipated much of itself into space as light and other
> electromagnetic radiation. The amount of energy is so large that
> the small fraction which falls on the Earth supplies a GIANT does
> of NegEntropy daily (actually 24 hours a day Somewhere on Earth.)
>
> Three laws of Thermodynamics (simple quick explanation):
> http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html
You've made a minor error here that creationists love to pounce on, so allow me
to point it out. The 2LoT does apply -- in varying formulations -- to every
system, whether open or closed; it simply does not state that the entropy of an
open system must always increase *within* that system, so you're right as far as
it goes. An open system can import energy to drive non-spontaneous reactions and
export waste heat, so net entropy still does increase as the 2LoT requires; that
increase just happens "somewhere else". Such is the case with the Earth and the
Sun.
[snip]
--
And I want to conquer the world,
give all the idiots a brand new religion,
put an end to poverty, uncleanliness and toil,
promote equality in all of my decisions...
--Bad Religion, "I Want to Conquer the World"
http://www.ebonmusings.org ICQ: 8777843
Herb Martin
allow me
> to point it out. The 2LoT does apply -- in varying formulations -- to
every
> system, whether open or closed; it simply does not state that the entropy
of an
> open system must always increase *within* that system, so you're right as
far as
> it goes. An open system can import energy to drive non-spontaneous
reactions and
> export waste heat, so net entropy still does increase as the 2LoT
requires; that
> increase just happens "somewhere else". Such is the case with the Earth
and the
Well, gosh, that is what I have said originally -- it
may have been lost somewhere above.
I indicated that it was not an inviolable 'law' when
applied to an open system.
That was the whole point of a -- admittedly -- simplified
method of explaining to those challening natural selection
on "2nd LAW" grounds.
Thank you.
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Adam Marczyk" <ebon...@hotmailNOTexcite.com> wrote in message
news:ugs6e2r...@corp.supernews.com...
> Herb Martin <He...@LearnQuick.Com> wrote in message
> news:USUN8.99149$9z5.5...@typhoon.austin.rr.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> > 2) If you are going to argue entropy or information loss you
> > must be absolutely clear about what the 2nd law of thermodynamics
> > does and does not say.
> >
> > More importantly the CONTEXT in which it applies. The 2nd
> > law is ONLY a "law" when the system is CLOSED, if information
> > OR usuable energy (just another way of saying information) is
> > ADDED to a seemingly closed system, then the 2nd law doesn't
> > even apply.
> >
> > Example: The Earth is constantly receiving energy from that big
> > yellow white ball of fire in the sky. The Sun is an mass of organized
> > energy dissipated much of itself into space as light and other
> > electromagnetic radiation. The amount of energy is so large that
> > the small fraction which falls on the Earth supplies a GIANT does
> > of NegEntropy daily (actually 24 hours a day Somewhere on Earth.)
> >
> > Three laws of Thermodynamics (simple quick explanation):
> > http://www.geog.ouc.bc.ca/physgeog/contents/6e.html
>
Bill Jefferys
news:pR2P8.26809$ks6....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> While system plus environment does constitute a closed system, looking
> at the second law this way extends its utility to open systems, and
> makes it a much more useful law. It tells us that a system must
> receive energy to decrease in entropy, and it tells us that
> irreversible processes exist. Thus, while the second law doesn't say
> the same thing about open and closed systems, it is applicable to
> both.
>
> The term "closed system" is often defined either as (a) a system that
> exchanges no matter with its environment, (b) a system that exchanges
> no matter or energy with its environment, or (c) a system that
> exchanges no heat with its environment. Because the literature
> variably uses at least these three definitions for "closed system",
> describing the second law in terms of closed systems leads to
> confusion.
>
> The widely used Halliday and Resnick college textbook _Physics_ gives
> the second law as "A natural process that starts in one equilibrium
> state and ends in another will go in the direction that causes the
> entropy of the system plus environment to increase." Note that this
> describes irreversible processes; for reversible processes the entropy
> of system plus environment remains unchanged.
>
> A problem with stating the second law only applies to closed systems
> is that physicists and chemists write about application of the second
> law to open systems all the time, so creationists can find abundant
> scientific literature with which to refute the statement. They are
> quite fond of saying "See? the evilutionists are making false claims
> about thermodynamics, so evilution really does violate the second
> law."
>
> Furthermore, closed systems are not possible to construct, so the only
> one we have is strictly of interest to cosmology. The second law
> equations for classical thermodynamics and chemical thermodynamics
> work just fine for open systems - they account for the energy fluxes
> between the system and the environment.
>
> Here is an excellent site with another explanation of why we should
> avoid the term "closed system": http://www.entropysimple.com/
With the caveat that it is probably not possible to talk sensibly about the
entropy of the universe or about the universe as a closed system (so that
the "cosmology" comment may be problematic), I agree with everything here.
Herb did not take exception to any of the above when he responded to this
article. May I presume that we all agree with what R. Baldwin wrote here? If
so, then I think we have all made the points we wanted to make and can
reasonably lay down this discussion.
I thank Baldwin for his links to the entropysimple.com site. It makes a very
good case for not using the "closed system" approach and instead talking
about the Second Law as it operates in the real, open world.
Bill Jefferys
>> If the Second Law could not be applied in these situations, then on
>> cosmological scales of distance and time we would be in deep trouble.
>In what way? Please be specific.
I thought I was. It is problematic, at best, to talk about the entropy of
the universe and about the universe as a closed system. I said why. I can't
imagine doing cosmological models if we were restricted to closed systems,
for example.
>> Here's some new content, from the T.O. Archives, that agrees what I have
>> been saying all along. Click on the links and search for "second law".
>> Look at the responses (in green).
>> http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may98.html
<snip>
>I actually appreciate the references because I do
>enjoy learning.
>But the first reference to "thermo" agrees with my
>original statement PRECISELY and the first reference
>in the "green" section agrees PRECISELY with what
>I have been saying. [see quotes below] I will have to
>spend some time reading everything of interest to me
>in this area but...
If the green section agrees with your statement, and it agrees with mine (it
does), then we aren't in disagreement, are we?
>....Don't you find it weird that YOUR REFERENCES are
>confirming MY original statement which you wasted a
>lot of time trying to challenge.
Let's look carefully. First, Alden Streeter (who says he is neither a
physicist nor a chemist), makes suggestions about Steiger's proposed FAQ:
>"1. Maybe actually state the second law verbatim from
>a physics book. Be sure to especially point out its
>requisite closed system....
>The talk.science article completely ignores this, but you
>barely mention it in yours. If you did, the talk.science guy
>would have to throw out his entire article. "
Then Ken Fair (in green) responds to him. Below, you quote Ken's second
point:
>"2. One consequence of the Second Law is that the
>overall entropy of a closed thermodynamic system
>cannot increase. A "closed" system is one that exchanges
>no heat with its surroundings. Entropy can decrease on the
>surface of the Earth for two reasons:
> 1.. The Earth is not a closed thermodynamic system.
> Energy is constantly being received in the form of
> sunlight and being radiated away from the planet.
> So the overall entropy of the Earth can change.
> 2.. Even if the Earth were a closed system, this would
> only mean that the overall entropy of the Earth could
> not decrease. That would not prevent particular parts
> of the Earth (say, individual creatures) from decreasing
> their entropy at the cost of increasing the entropy of
> other parts of the Earth."
>Which parts of you own references do you not understand?
Well, Herb, it says exactly what I have been saying. I agree, ONE
CONSEQUENCE of the Second law is that the overall entropy of a closed
thermodynamic system cannot decrease. I NEVER said that this is wrong. What
I did say is that it is too restrictive. This statement does NOT say that
the Second Law ONLY applies to closed systems. It says HOW it applies to
closed systems, which is something very different.
Now let's look at the part you cut out, Ken Fair's first point in his
response to Streeter:
1. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has no requirement
that a system be closed; it operates for all thermodynamic
systems. Frank Steiger does quote the Second Law of
Thermodynamics in The Second Law of Thermodynamics,
Evolution, and Probability FAQ; it is dS = q/T, where
dS is the change in entropy of the system, q is the
amount of heat absorbed by the system, and T is the
absolute temperature of the system. There are other
equivalent formulations of the Second Law
useful in different physical contexts, but it is
only these mathematical formulas that are the Second
Law. Statements about "order" and "disorder" are
consequences of that Law as applied to specific systems.
This agrees what I have been saying all along. The Second Law has no
requirement that a system be closed. It operates for all thermodynamic
systems. Seems clear to me.
I think that R. Baldwin made a very good point when he said that
Creationists can easily sow confusion in response to the "closed system"
argument, both because they can say that the Second Law is frequently
applied to systems that aren't closed (chemists do it all the time via the
Gibbs free energy), and because closed systems are practically unrealizable.
The website http://www.entropysimple.com/ makes similar points, not in the
context of Creationism, but in the more general pedagogical context. While
there's nothing wrong with your saying that the Sun is the source of the
energy that drives life on the earth, with the sink being the rest of the
universe, it's pedagogically and strategically unwise, as well as
technically wrong, to say things like "the Second Law only applies to closed
systems." That's my opinion, at least.
>(UT professor huh?
>Technically so am I -- an adjunct actually.)
I couldn't find you in the directory, but if you are at UT (that's the
University of Texas at Austin) maybe the easiest thing would be for us to
meet over lunch and hash this out face to face. I don't think we are really
that far apart.
Herb Martin
> >Technically so am I -- an adjunct actually.)
>
> I couldn't find you in the directory, but if you are at UT (that's the
> University of Texas at Austin) maybe the easiest thing would be for us to
> meet over lunch and hash this out face to face. I don't think we are
really
> that far apart.
Doesn't suprise me, I was forever getting my letter
of confirmationl even though they made the appointed
mostly as a courtesy to me (in the Business School)
because I teach seminars in Information Technology.
As I said, 'technically' -- I have a desk supposedly but
have never seen it. <grin> I have never even picked
up my ID card which I really should do. If I get down
there to do that then I will give you a call.
--
Herb Martin
Try ADDS for great Weather too:
http://adds.aviationweather.noaa.gov/projects/adds
"Bill Jefferys" <bi...@warthog.as.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:bill-D15FC9.1...@newshost.cc.utexas.edu...