14 Apr 05
A common creationist/ID claim is that 'information' cannot increase without intelligent intervention. For example:
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new information? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no!
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html
A huge flaw in this claim is that DNA 'information' is not clearly and rigorously defined. I claim that according to any reasonable definition of the word, I can show that it is false that DNA information cannot increase without intelligent intervention. This argument does not provide evidence against the Theory of Evolution, even that part of it called macroevolution.
Does anyone want to defend the claim that there is no way 'information' can increase without intelligent intervention?
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThe terms
A common creationist/ID claim is that 'information' cannot increase without intelligent intervention. For example:
[b][i]Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe t ...[text shortened]... nd the claim that there is no way 'information' can increase without intelligent intervention?
point mutation (SNP)
transposable elements
polyploidation
retrotransposons
all spring to mind as ways in which information increases
the stuff on the website is just plain wrong
14 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIsn't one of the key points of "adaptation" , that the more an organism uses any facility of it's being: an increase in that facility will manifest itself in the coming generations?
A common creationist/ID claim is that 'information' cannot increase without intelligent intervention. For example:
[b][i]Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe t ...[text shortened]... nd the claim that there is no way 'information' can increase without intelligent intervention?
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompLamarckianism is an old an discredited theory.
Isn't one of the key points of "adaptation" , that the more an organism uses any facility of it's being: an increase in that facility will manifest itself in the coming generations?
If a blacksmith works hard, the muscles of his right arm that he uses to hold the hammer will increase. His progeny and born with their right arms slightly more powerful, they follow their parent's trade and their right (hammer) arm becomes stronger ...and the process continues.
Well. thats the theory but observation does not bear it out!
15 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeIts not an immediate thing ,it takes generations . and if you're saying something is discredited , it takes a bit more
Lamarckianism is an old an discredited theory.
If a blacksmith works hard, the muscles of his right arm that he uses to hold the hammer will increase. His progeny and born with their right arms slightly more powerful, they follow th ...[text shortened]... s.
Well. thats the theory but observation does not bear it out!
for instance did the Blacksmiths wife do the same? , was what the blacksmith doing anything that wasnt already in the gene pool?
The human brain is holding more and more information that ever before and thats a species wide trait, whoever says thats its a discredited theory might be in for a surprise a lot sooner then even I think.
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by aardvarkhomeWorking out and having the muscles do what they are designed to
Lamarckianism is an old an discredited theory.
If a blacksmith works hard, the muscles of his right arm that he uses to hold the hammer will increase. His progeny and born with their right arms slightly more powerful, they follow their parent's trade and their right (hammer) arm becomes stronger ...and the process continues.
Well. thats the theory but observation does not bear it out!
do doesn't prove anything one way or another. Now have that
blacksmith grow wings so he can fly or gills so he can live under
water, then we can talk about new information.
Kelly
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHow would you like to define "information"? You don't seem satisfied with Werner Gitt's definition of information. Do you have a better definition?
A common creationist/ID claim is that 'information' cannot increase without intelligent intervention. For example:
Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase informa way 'information' can increase without intelligent intervention?
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompYou're kidding right?
Its not an immediate thing ,it takes generations . and if you're saying something is discredited , it takes a bit more
for instance did the Blacksmiths wife do the same? , was what the blacksmith doing anything that wasnt already in the gene pool?
The human brain is holding more and more information that ever before and thats ...[text shortened]... hats its a discredited theory might be in for a surprise a lot sooner then even I think.
Lamarckian evolution is totally discredited. The DNA in the muscles of a buff arm is the same DNA that is in the muscles of a weak arm with no muscle, which is the same DNA as is in every cell in the body, including sperm and egg cells (except only half). Since this DNA is the only thing communicated from parent's biology to the child's, it's the only thing which will influence the child's hereditary traits. How would the arm getting buff affect the DNA in the sperm in any way?
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerNormally I'd just go to the dictionary. However none of the definitions there seem really appropriate to the issue.
How would you like to define "information"? You don't seem satisfied with Werner Gitt's definition of information. Do you have a better definition?
So, maybe in this case I'd define the information content of a DNA molecule to be equal to the number of base pairs which are actually part of a gene. So for example, if an organism only had 5 genes of lengths 664, 852, 13, 100 codons, you'd add all these.
There are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWould you like to provide the evidence that "new information" can be created without intelligent intervention, so that we have a basis for the debate?
Normally I'd just go to the dictionary. However none of the definitions there seem really appropriate to the issue.
So, maybe in this case I'd define the information content of a DNA molecule to be equal to the number of base pairs which are actually part of a gene. So for example, if an organism only had 5 genes of lengths 664, 852, 13, 100 ...[text shortened]... ll these.
There are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThere are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
Normally I'd just go to the dictionary. However none of the definitions there seem really appropriate to the issue.
So, maybe in this case I'd define the information content of a DNA molecule to be equal to the number of base pairs which are actually part of a gene. So for example, if an organism only had 5 genes of lengths 664, 852, 13, 100 ...[text shortened]... ll these.
There are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
Are you saying that there is no intelligence used in the lab? Or how would you define 'intelligent intervention'?
15 Apr 05
3 edits
Originally posted by dj2beckerIf any laboratory work is considered to involve intelligent intervention, how can any event be observed without intelligent intervention? How does anyone know anything about how any part of the universe acts without human intervention?
[b]There are a number of mechanisms which increase this number quite often in the lab.
Are you saying that there is no intelligence used in the lab? Or how would you define 'intelligent intervention'?[/b]
In the lab, humans expose organisms to the some of the same things they encounter in the wild. No DNA is ever observed without "human intervention". It would be theoretically impossible to observe how anything works without "human intervention" if we can't do experiments to find out without contaminating the results with "intelligent intervention".
If no human can know anything about how things work without 'intelligent intervention' where does anyone get the idea they can know whether information increases or not in the absence of intelligent intervention?
The claim I am attempting to refute assumes humans can do experiments and then expect that in nature things behave pretty much the same.
Human intervention might be defined as intentional addition or deletion of bases to the DNA chain. Some methods use to intervene are effectively identical to phenomena that occurs in the world without human intervention, and would act the same if the human weren't there.
15 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungAre you sure you're not knocking down aaardvarks strawman.
You're kidding right?
Lamarckian evolution is totally discredited. The DNA in the muscles of a buff arm is the same DNA that is in the muscles of a weak arm with no muscle, which is the same DNA as is in every cell in the body, ...[text shortened]... would the arm getting buff affect the DNA in the sperm in any way?
A number of experimental studies seem to indicate that epigenetic inheritance plays a part in the evolution of complex organisms. For example, Tremblay et al. (ref. 3), have shown that methylation differences between maternally and paternally inherited alleles of the mouse H19 gene are preserved. There are also numerous reports of heritable epigenetic marks in plants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_inheritance
It's quite possible that's part of what sucessful organsms need to survive before the DNA adapts to the already changing environment.
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungMind presenting the "evidence"?
If any laboratory work is considered to involve intelligent intervention, how can any event be observed without intelligent intervention? How does anyone know anything about how any part of the universe acts without human intervention?
In the lab, humans expose organisms to the some of the same things they encounter in the wild. No DNA is ever obs ...[text shortened]... urs in the world without human intervention, and would act the same if the human weren't there.