Saturday, May 22, 2010

If This Were Science

The twentieth century's revolution in molecular biology has produced volumes of sequence data which evolutionists have marshaled in defense of their theory. One high-profile example is the molecular similarity between humans and chimpanzees. First proteins and later the genomes of these two species were found to be practically identical. These findings have often been touted as compelling confirmations of evolution. But there are also differences—significant differences. One example is the differences in the Y chromosome, which recent research has elucidated. These differences are explained by evolutionists, of course, as arising from various evolutionary processes. But the differences are significant and the evolutionary scenarios are speculative. In fact a recent paper appealed to several different mechanisms in order to explain the differences. Of course none of this is impossible, but the ease with which evolutionists can explain observations that are at various points in the spectrum (such as high similarity and significant difference) is an example of why some observers view evolution as a tautology. When I pointed this out evolutionists responded with a variety of protectionist maneuvers. Here is an example.

Background

You may recall from your biology class that most mammal species have two sex-determining chromosomes labeled X and Y. A pair of X chromosomes makes for a female whereas an X and Y pair makes for a male. Unlike the other chromosome pairs in which the two chromosomes are highly similar, the X and Y chromosomes are quite different. The most obvious difference is in their sizes—the Y chromosome is quite a bit smaller than the X chromosome. And not surprisingly the Y chromosome contains genes that are male-specific.

Focusing on the Y chromosome, it is comprised of half-a-dozen different types of regions, distinguished both by differences in structure as well as content. For instance, the ampliconic regions contain long, repeated sections, often arranged in molecular palindromes. The X-transposed regions contain genes that are highly similar to counterparts in the X chromosome, and the X-degenerate regions contain gene remnants.

New findings

Recently the chimpanzee Y chromosome was decoded and compared to its human counterpart. Unlike previous DNA comparisons between the two species that revealed high similarity, the two Y chromosomes show substantial differences. The cousin genes present in both chromosomes are highly similar, but about a third of the genes have no cousin in the other chromosome. Also there are no X-transposed regions in the chimp Y chromosome, and overall the chimp has significantly fewer genes. On the other hand, the chimp’s ampliconic regions contain about twice as many long palindromes as the respective human regions. As the paper explained, these chimp and human regions “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content.” The illustration below shows these differences in the chimp and human Y chromosomes.




A tautology?

Prior to these findings evolutionists had thought the pattern of diminished size of Y chromosomes was due to a decaying action that slowed over time. These new findings don’t fit that hypothesis as there is far too much difference between the human and chimp Y chromosomes. Consequently they need another explanation. In fact multiple explanations are required to explain the many differences. So evolutionists say these differences are a consequence of “rapid divergence” driven by various “synergistic factors.” There was, for example, the “brisk kinetics” of ectopic recombination, genetic hitchhiking, and the great competition for mates amongst chimpanzees.

Impossible? Not at all. Indeed, it certainly is true that the Y chromosome is a unique type of chromosome. But the ease with which evolutionists can swap in opposing hypotheses and explain findings from across the spectrum, feeds the view the evolution is a tautology. Whatever is found, some say, evolution has an explanation for it.

Criticism

When I pointed this out one evolutionist responded with harsh criticism. But he seemed more intent on protecting the theory of evolution rather than exploring possible implications of the new findings. His response was notable because he is well known for his intelligence and communication skills. This was not the diatribe of some unknown critic. And that is why his comments are important. Unfortunately, theory protectionism is too often the first response of evolutionists.

He wrote that my article was shameless, shocking and incompetent. He went on to write that “His views on this topic are about the equivalent of some college freshman who wrote an essay on a biological topic without doing the responsible thing and doing the basic background research first. In a student, it would excusable, kind of, but for a Ph.D. presenting himself as an expert, holding forth on a blog, and posting his stuff on other blogs, and generally on a mission to "inform" the public about evolution, it's incredible.”

But what was shameless, shocking or incompetent about pointing out the reaction of evolutionists to these new findings, and the context of their previous claims? In fact, his specific complaints did not back up his criticism.

For instance, he wrote that “there are a lot of standard, well-known population genetics reasons why things like the Y-chromosome should evolve rapidly.” But if it were so obvious then evolutionists would not have been surprised by the new findings. They would not have to replace their decay hypothesis with new mechanisms. Certainly evolution would not have been harmed if substantially greater similarity had been found.

He also wrote that “the subjective ‘amount’ of change is not the most important thing, especially because things like deletions can cause ‘a lot’ of ‘difference’ in sequence, but actually reflect a very few events. Others have already pointed out that the non-deleted sequence maintains quite high similarity.”

True, a single deletion can cause substantial change, but for now we do not even know what degree of the observed differences can be explained by deletions.

He next wrote “the amount of change also isn't the most important thing because common ancestry doesn't predict that everything will evolve at exactly the same rate (which is what Hunter, stunningly and ridiculously, implies), rather it predicts that, whatever the rate of sequence change, humans and chimps will usually be closest to each other, gorillas will be a little farther (but not much), then orangs, then gibbons, then old-word monkeys, then new world monkeys, then lemurs, then other placentals, then marsupials, etc.”

But I implied no such thing. The evolutionist finds my article to be shameless, shocking and incompetent, yet he works from a misreading of it. He next wrote that “There is a massive amount of literature just on the evolution of sex chromosomes, it's a classic example of a highly successful application of population genetics and evolutionary biology, and Hunter is embarrassing and discrediting himself and creationists in general by irresponsibly blathering about a topic like this when he clearly knows jack squat about it.”

While it is true that there is substantial evolutionary literature on the evolution of sex chromosomes, this body of work is based on the presupposition that evolution is true. That is understandable for practical reasons, but it means that heroic assumptions go unquestioned. This body of work is very much a part of evolutionary thought—it is not work done from a theory-neutral perspective.

Finally, he criticizes my article for not presenting its own prediction. Here the protectionism becomes obvious. The evolutionist's heated criticism has long since left the actual article. The article is said to be shameless, but yet it is nowhere to be seen in the criticism.

If this were science, evolutionists would acknowledge that their theory is not a fact as much as is gravity. But instead they make this claim, and they use protectionist moves to avoid criticism.

38 comments:

  1. Dr. Hunter:

    1) In your last post on the Y-chromosome you state:

    "Scientific theories are used to make predictions. And when those predictions are confirmed they make a theory look good....If a successful prediction is compelling proof of a theory, then its failure is a strong falsifier. "

    Here you say:
    "Finally, he criticizes my article for not presenting its own prediction. Here the protectionism becomes obvious."

    So you acknowledge the importance of making predictions, and testing hypothesis, but you resist presenting a prediction, or providing an alternative. Do you, therefore, not view ID as a science, but as a critique of science? Or do you wish to insulate it from actual debate? Pure Monday morning quarterbacking. ID isn't in the game.

    What is ever worst, is you use comparative data that assumes common descent, from papers that do not conclude what you read into them. So it is more like Monday morning quarterbacking after you've rejected the existence of the game of football!

    2) "there are two sides of the prediction coin—the more you gain on the upside, the more you can lose on the downside. If a successful prediction is compelling proof of a theory, then its failure is a strong falsifier. And we now know that the human and chimp Y chromosomes are highly dissimilar."

    So, who made the prediction that human and chimp chromosomes must be a certain percent identical for evolution to be true? Where was the bar set? 70% 50%? (Reference?) Or would we expect to see overall similarity, with key differences? We have whole chromosome fusions and inversions relative to chimps. Six million years on separate paths is a long time.

    And to repeat the data found overall similarities with key differences:
    "As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%). Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa"

    3) To counter the explanation for the differences found, you've presented nothing. Just vague allusions that the mechanisms presented can't account for the change. How so?

    4) "..it is not work done from a theory-neutral perspective.

    Theory neutrality is a funny thing. The natural world is so vast-there are so many experiments that could be done. How do we narrow our focus? How do we determine what should be done? I'd argue theory is a key part of science. We form hypotheses, and try to find data falsifying or supporting them. Repeated confirmations yield theory building. How would this paper have proceeded in theory-neutral fashion?

    For some reason, we looked at X. We found Y. No conclusions. As you state, the entire reason this is a surprise, and of such interest is we might have hypothesized more similarity!

    You seems to partially support this approach-see your quote in part 1, but then turn against it when it is time to present your own hypothesis. Can't do that. How does moderate empiricism work? Can we have science without theory?

    5) "If this were science, evolutionists would acknowledge that their theory is not a fact as much as is gravity."

    Evolution is directly observed. Empirical and historical data supports it. The theory of evolution evolves, just as gravitational theory has had to with the introduction of relativity, quantum mechanics, etc. Physics is still in search of the fundamental unit of gravity-and there is substantial debate and experimentation ongoing. None of this changes the observation that things fall.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I wish I had a dollar for every time I’ve heard the ridiculous creationist claim “new investigation has changed our understanding of one particular small detail of the mechanisms of evolution, so therefore the whole theory must be wrong !!11one!11eleventyone!!” The big strength of evolutionary theory is in the consilience of its evidence. ToE ties together millions of observations from hundreds of scientific disciplines in one coherent explanation . Finding new data that fills in a hole in our previous knowledge doesn’t somehow magically discredit our understanding or the consilience of the other millions of pieces.

    It never ceases to amaze me when creationists trot out this pitiful misunderstanding of how science actually progresses. Having it come from your typical scientifically ignorant creationist is usually pretty funny. Having it come from someone with an advance science degree is sad. Having it come from someone in a position to teach young people is just pathetic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. One high-profile example is the molecular similarity between humans and chimpanzees. First proteins and later the genomes of these two species were found to be practically identical. These findings have often been touted as compelling confirmations of evolution. But there are also differences—significant differences.

    Vive les différences!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me guess your detractor is Nick Matzke?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thorton:

    Hey didn't you just get kicked off Dembski's UD?
    You standard diatribes and inane logic are what is really amazing.

    "It never ceases to amaze me when evolutionists trot out this pitiful misunderstanding of how science actually progresses. Having it come from your typical scientifically ignorant Darweener is usually pretty funny. Having it come from someone with an advance science degree is sad. Having it come from someone in a position to teach young people is just pathetic.

    Such gall and arrogance should only come from one who at least knows what hes talking about.

    Thus far your record on that is null.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Gary: Hey didn't you just get kicked off Dembski's UD?

    LOL! I am just the latest in a long line of scientifically knowledgeable posters who have been banned at UD for the crime of posting rebuttals to the IDiot anti-science stupidity. ATBC keeps a list, over 100 names now I believe. I can supply a link if you'd like. At least Dr. Hunter is honorable enough to not resort to censorship and banning to silence critiques of his ideas, even harsh critiques. The UD clowns should take note.

    Gary: Here the truth admitted by one Darwinist ...

    Oh boy, argument by quote!! Can I play too? Here's one of my favorites:

    "In all of these efforts, [to promote creationism in schools] the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must."
    --William J. Bennetta, from the Textbook Letters, 1996


    So Gary, do you want to defend the idea that this new data about the differences in human-chimp y chromosome somehow negates the other 150+ years of positive evidence for ToE?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Cornelius,

    Keep up the good work! Honest truth seeking people are being convinced by the work you and others do. The number of people who accept evolution is declining while the number of people who are doubting it is increasing.

    By the comments they submit, I can only suspect that many an evolutionist is having a hard time falling asleep at night.

    ReplyDelete

  8. By the comments they submit, I can only suspect that many an evolutionist is having a hard time falling asleep at night.


    It's because we're laughing too hard at the IDer's attempts to sound 'sciency' :)

    BTW Adolfo E, we're still waiting for you to provide your scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms.

    When might we expect that from you?

    ReplyDelete
  9. "... Unfortunately, theory protectionism is too often the first response of evolutionists."

    So far as I've ever seen, it's the first, and last, response of those in thrall to evolutionism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Adolfo E said...

    The number of people who accept evolution is declining while the number of people who are doubting it is increasing.

    GOOD!

    ReplyDelete
  11. By their criticisms, I find it ironic that some evolutionists take the time or even bother to post in a blog like this one. Consider this statement from their hero Dawkins: ‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ If this is so why even bother to criticize the statements of others. If they are so convinced that evolution is true and that there is ‘nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ why not let it be.

    The answer lies in the fact that their belief in evolution is wishful thinking. As such they have to convince themselves, come hell or high water, that evolution is irrefutable no matter how much the scientific evidence points to a Creator / Intelligent Designer. They ‘lunge, flail and mispunch’ in defense of their wishful thinking. The mere possibility that someone might even think they are wrong keeps them awake at night because deep down inside they know, that if this is the case, then they will have lost everything.

    ReplyDelete
  12. BTW Adolfo E, we're still waiting for you to provide your scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms.

    Any other IDer want to take a crack at it? Adolfo seems to be at a loss.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thorton,

    I would like to take your challenge "scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms.", but before I give you the definition, I would like to know if Hubert Yockey's definition would be acceptable to you, or have you found a reason to disregard that as well?

    It will safe me a lot of time and get you to rant along on your own dung heap, even before I say something that you will not like in any event.

    My source would be "Information theory, evolution, and the origin of life" Hubert Yockey CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS

    ReplyDelete
  14. Just a quote to wet your apatite, for Yockey:

    "The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws (Yockey, 1992)."

    (Yockey, Hubert P. (1992). Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.)

    P.S. I would consider Yockey as a very good evolutionist that made it possible to have a constructive argument for and against design / evolution. Unlike the rantings I have encountered from you.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Michael, please provide this scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms if you can.

    Don't forget to give a method to quantify this information too. I'm sure you'll agree that if you can't measure the amount of information, you can't tell if the amount has increased or decreased over time.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Thorton,

    Your problem with the quantification of information makes it very clear that you are probably ignorant of Yockey's work and information theory in general. But before I come to any rush conclusion... Let me ask you right out: Have you read any of Yockey's work on biological information?

    Genetic information has the following necessary characteristics best highlighted by the following quote:
    "The structure of DNA found by Watson (1928– ) and Crick (1916–2004) could have been just that of another large molecule, such as hemoglobin, if it had not been that DNA carries the genetic message that is transferred to the proteome by the genetic code. THEIR WORK COMPLETED THE MODERN VIEW THAT THE MESSAGE IN THE GENETIC INFORMATION SYSTEM IS SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL." www.cambridg e.org /9780521802932

    The rest of Yockey's work that I referenced above expound on the SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL characteristics of genetic information. Read it to gain insight into its workings.

    Unfortunately for you any segregated, linear and digital code is quantifiable by using the calculations pioneered by Claude Shannon. The amount of information stored on any medium like the DNA is unfortunately independent of the meaning or usefulness of that information and I suspect that might be the reason for you to doubt the possibility of measuring the "usefulness" of a particular amount of information.

    The thing is that it is no real problem when you can apply information theory to genetic information because with information theoretic methods you can isolate information bearing media, quantify it based on the code used (syntax quantified) and by inferring meaning you could also quantify the meaningful regions (semantics quantified).

    Then there is the best part of information theory. The degradation or increase of information becomes partly semantically, but completely syntactically measurable.

    This means you cannot go on bashing the DNA without measurably loosing information whether it is syntactically useful or not. In the end you might lose all useful information as well.

    This is as much as I am going to indulge you arrogant insistence that ID proponents has no scientifically based measure for genetic information.

    If you are the least of a scientist you would find a way to use this obviously new insight to open fruitful dialogue with people supporting a different theory of the origin of life.

    P.S. You have to enjoy Yockey's definition of life. I think it is the best there is:

    "An additional criterion for this book is:

    The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physicochemicalworld that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences." www.cambridg e.org /9780521802932

    ReplyDelete
  17. Adolfo:By their criticisms, I find it ironic that some evolutionists take the time or even bother to post in a blog like this one. Consider this statement from their hero Dawkins: ‘The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.’ If this is so why even bother to criticize the statements of others. If they are so convinced that evolution is true and that there is ‘nothing but blind pitiless indifference’ why not let it be.

    The answer lies in the fact that their belief in evolution is wishful thinking. …


    Exactly, Adolfo. Further, their behavior (including Dawkins’) demonstrates that they don’t really believe what they so vociferously assert.

    Also, in the case of Dawkins, his own words prove that he does not believe what he intends to browbeat others into asserting to be true (as see here)

    ReplyDelete
  18. Thus far, there is one and only one theory that specifically predicts the rates of both the X and Y chromosome divergence — the theory of Everything Was Caused By Magic to Be the Way We See It.

    So far, this hypothesis has yet to be falsified — and yet opponents are free to do so, simply by demonstrating one — just one! — infoplexical phenomenon that can be explained without magic.

    Don't ask me to define infoplexical; that would just go to show you don't really have a counterargument.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Michael: " blither blither blither
    excuse excuse excuse
    blither blither blither"


    Exactly as I thought, you can't provide a scientifically rigorous definition of 'information' as it applies to biological organisms. You also can't give a method to quantify this information either. That means your idiotic claim that 'natural processes can't increase information in an organism' is worthless.

    Looks like you're just another empty drum, making lots of noise but completely void of any scientific substance. A poster boy for the ID movement other words.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Thorton,

    You have not answered my question. Have you read Hubert Yockey's work? Now I have to ask, Do you know what Information Theory is? Have you heard about Claude Shannon? Do you know how to measure any form on information?

    At this stage you have disqualified yourself from this discussion because of your lack of insight into the question you ask.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Truth is it is Elsberry, Musgrave, Shallit, Carroll, Coyne, Myers, et al that are scared sh@#$less of ID for precisely the reason that Dembski and Marks are actively working to define information scientifically.

    To be sure, it is ID that acknowledges the intuition (arising from observation) that information exists apart from physics and chemistry. It is ID that is actively seeking to pin down a scientific definition of information based on that intuition.

    Proponents of Neo-darwinism can only stick their fingers in their eyes and ears and babble about information 'just' being a by-product of the interaction of matter and energy and no further inquiry required.

    So Thorton, I think ID is fine with your challenge and fine as well with your taunting.

    What is significant is that Elsberry, Shallit, Carrol, Musgrave, et al are on the defensive and NOT pursuing a scientific definition of information of their own.

    "ID waxing, ND whin..,er waning"

    ReplyDelete
  22. Steve,

    It is clear that Thorton has also pushed his head into the sand regarding the information content of genetics, indicated by his obvious ignorance of the subject. Why he would venture to insist on an answer in this regards can only be smoke an mirrors, trying to divert attention from the implications from the current state of information theory advances.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @Michael: The problem is that you can't use Shannon's definition of information for your argument. Since according to that definition the sand on a beach carries information and that came about by a purely random process. That's why Stephen Meyer in his book “Signature in the Cell” uses “specified information” which is not Shannon inforamtion.

    ReplyDelete
  24. second opinion,

    Can you please give me a quote from Stephen Meyer's book where he states that genetic information is not Shannon information?

    Your "sand on the beach" example show your ignorance of information theory. You can calculate the information contained in any media (including the sand on the beach) if and only if you assign a code system to it. This is because Shannon information is independent of semantic meaning as I already highlighted above. It is possible to assign a binary code to virtually anything and therefore you can calculate information content for almost anything. What you forget is that assigning a code system to anything is not warranted to produce any meaning or usefulness. Shannon information is not an exclusion factor, but rather proof that his method is completely physically measurable regardless of the code carrying medium.

    That however does not count as a disqualification for genetic information being Shannon information. As Yockey points out the code system of the DNA are well defined to be SEGREGATED, LINEAR, AND DIGITAL and very specific, we are in the process of assigning (deciphering) the meaningful reasons, all of which are done according the the principles of Shannon information.

    In any event with your objection there is nothing to be gained by Shannon information in any field of information technologies. Why would you select to use it for IT and communication technologies but not for genetic information, surely your objection should be applicable on these obviously Shannon information.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Typing error above:

    reasons - should be - regions

    ReplyDelete
  26. If genetic information is nothing more than Shannon information then since Shannon information can be created by a purely random process you are basically saying that the theory of evolution can explain the origin of that information.

    ReplyDelete
  27. second opinion,

    You are naive to conclude from what I wrote that genetic information is "nothing more than Shannon information". I went out of my way to explain the reason for the inclusive nature of Shannon information. Assigning a code system to anything is not a natural process at all. What you actually refer to is nothing more than the fact that Shannon's laws can be applied to information captured on almost any physical media.

    Genetic information is at least Shannon information for the purposes of information theory and our ability to quantitatively measuring genetic information.

    If a specified string of code is measured according to Shannon's laws it is possible to assess the effect of signal noise etc. It is envisaged that one day the same accuracy of signal calculations will apply to genetic information as we complete the deciphering of the genetic code.

    It is impossible to assess and "reduce" the signal noise of the forced information calculation of the sand on the beach.

    Again your statement implies Shannon information across the board to be completely useless. The fact is that Shannon's laws managed to reduce signal noise in communication systems, using binary code, to an near optimum.

    This just proofs how incoherent claims of naturally occurring code is.

    ReplyDelete
  28. LOL! Actually Michael, I know quite a bit about information theory, and Shannon information, and Chaitin-Kolmogorov information. I know Crick's definition of information in the human genome. I also know a blustering blowhard like you can't provide a simple, clear definition of information as it applies to biological organisms, or tell how to measure it.

    The IDers love to make up their own vague, undefined terms like 'specified information', then proclaim loudly that natural evolutionary processes can't create new information. All I've done is ask how you determined that. If you can't measure the information content of an object, then you can't claim its information content didn't increase. Please tell me - how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?

    Any individual human carries only a small subset of the total number of different genes present in the overall population. You can't even tell me if you are referring to the information content of a single individual, or of the entire species' gene pool.

    Bottom line is - you regurgitate without understanding the same meaningless buzzwords as the Dembskis and Behes of the world, and the scientific community just laughs at your antics.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Michael: "Genetic information is at least Shannon information for the purposes of information theory and our ability to quantitatively measuring genetic information."

    By this definition then natural processes (like gene duplication with point mutations) can and do increase the information content of the genome.

    That's all you had to admit. Save the rest of your word salad and bluster for your next IDer group grope.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thorton,

    Have you read Hubert Yockey's work? Can you talk intelligently about it? Can you highlight the central thesis of his work?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Thorton said:

    "By this definition then natural processes (like gene duplication with point mutations) can and do increase the information content of the genome."

    I do understand that duplication of genetic information makes you happy. To me it is far more interesting that Shannon's signal noise reduction principles are flawlessly executed to ensuring close to zero noise during gene duplication. But signal noise (mutation) is the friend of Darwinists not so?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thorton asked:

    "how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?"

    It is sad to see this question still alive in your mind. I am going to use simple language to help you.

    In practice Shannon's laws are nothing more than pattern descriptions helping us to accurately send messages, compress them etc. Apart from that, it shows any pattern change in a message... Since you are the expert I am going to leave you with a question to ponder. If you have a method to flawlessly track pattern changes, how close to identifying new information are you? The cherry on top of this is; What if you know the the complete syntactical and semantic range of that code?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Michael, try to focus!

    The topic is new information in the genome

    The claim by IDers is that natural evolutionary processes can't produce new information in the genome.

    My questions was "how would you recognize 'new information' if you saw it?" in the genome

    Since you've admitted that the original IDer claim was wrong, and that natural evolutionary processes can produce new information in the genome, the rest of your babble is pointless.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Er, actually no. If the 'scientific community' were so busy laughing, they wouldn't be spending half the time they do 'trying' to refute 'the Dembskis, Behes, and Myers of this world'.

    Moreover, it is getting harder and harder to rebut ID with every passing day.

    To boot, the bio-complexity website is going a long way into putting paid to the notion that ID is not science, and IDists do no science, blah, blah, blah.

    Thorton, we like you just the way you are. Oh, and don't let up on that spit-balling either. We need a spitball champ in the ranks.

    Thumpin' Thorton. Yeah, I like that.



    Thorton: "Bottom line is - you regurgitate without understanding the same meaningless buzzwords as the Dembskis and Behes of the world, and the scientific community just laughs at your antics.""

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Claims ID hasn't been able to pin down a definition of information so that means that Neo-Darwinism doesn't need to pin it down either.

    So you see, all Thumpin' has to do is claim that gene duplication increases information in the genome without having to back it up with a definition of information of his own. But he KNOWS that information does in fact increase in the genome and that's a fact. See how nice that was? Smooth and seamless.

    Talk about hat tricks.
    "

    Or, more bluntly: 'modern evolutionary theorists' constantly employ fallacious reasoning because they tend to be intellectually dishonest (i.e. hypocrites with respect to reason).

    ReplyDelete
  37. Steve: ""Claims ID hasn't been able to pin down a definition of information so that means that Neo-Darwinism doesn't need to pin it down either.

    So you see, all Thumpin' has to do is claim that gene duplication increases information in the genome without having to back it up with a definition of information of his own. But he KNOWS that information does in fact increase in the genome and that's a fact. See how nice that was? Smooth and seamless."


    Actually Steve, like most of the scientific community I am quite happy to use Francis Crick's definition of information in biological organisms as the determination of genome sequence:

    Crick: " “By information I mean the specification of the amino acid sequence in protein. . . Information means here the precise determination of sequence, either of bases in the nucleic acid or on amino acid residues in the protein”

    ...which means it's trivially easy to show natural evolutionary processes increasing information content.

    You guys are the ones claiming that natural processes can't increase information. But every time we ask for your definition or how you quantify your measurements, you run for the door.

    Funny how that works.

    ReplyDelete