[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Understand, every favorable mutation is a mistake in transcription, and although most mistakes do little (and a few are harmful), some of them do turn out to be favorable as you suggest. And those tend to persist, because they give the recipient a leg up on surviving long enough to leave offspring.

Statistically speaking, random changes must be 99.999...% harmful.

Sounds interesting. Let's see your numbers as they relate to mutations. Here's a heads-up, Stipe; almost all of us have a few mutations. Few of them have any perceptible affect on fitness. One amino acid in a protein of hundreds of amino acids is unlikely to do very much, unless it's in a critical spot. Remember when I suggested you learn about it before you told us about it? This is why.

The ones that do nothing are most likely harmful without immediately noticeable consequences.

So let's see your evidence for that. Should be interesting.

If a random change is not harmful (immediately or otherwise) then that is good evidence the change was intended and not a mistake.

And your evidence for that is...?

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

You keep asserting this after I provide evidence to the contrary. Are you going to address the instance of the light and dark colored mice or not? Or are you going to keep pretending it doesn't exist or that it isn't important or isn't information?

One at a time, mate.

Are you going to tell me that the breeding of dogs isn't "advance" as far as a shepherd or a pet owner is concerned?

It might be. But it's at a greater cost to the information as designed originally.

EXACTLY the same way? Without different nuances or connotations being involved? There are millions of ways of encoding the exact same protein (an average few thousand amino acid one) in DNA. How many ways can you say "the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog"?

No, not exactly the same way. It's a matter of degree. Thus we can make an analogy that holds water by using a language example to explain a DNA example.

You always accuse me of lying when you have no answer. You refuse to talk about actual DNA when I bring it up, you simply make your assertions over and over again. Assertions are not evidence Stripe, or did you forget that again?

I talk about DNA. You're lying.

This is absolutely not true in the case of DNA. Did you forget the random changes you made to the gene a in a post while back that made no change at all at the amino acid level?

And have you, since that time, come to understand every mechanism at work in an organism to be able to say that a change has no effect?

If not, you're lying again.

You have no idea what you're talking about, Stripe.

And you have no imagination.

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

Evolution diversifies life by introducing new variants into the gene pool.

Evolution is a joke.

If the process I described is not “Shannon”, then I don’t see what Shannon information has to do with evolution.

Nothing has anything to do with evolution, unless you're a science fiction writer. Shannon equations can be used to analyse any set of data. If you've got data, Shannon can tell you how much information it can carry. Shannon can do nothing to tell you what that information is or how useful, correct or complete it is.

It sounds like a nice theoretical, or even practical, way of talking about the fidelity of a message, but as I was asking, isn’t the final outcome the important thing, even if it involves a corrupted message?

Yes, but that final outcome will never be better than the original if it is effected by a random change.

If we are going to discuss “non-Shannon information”, then we need a clear mutually agreed-to understanding of what that is so we will know exactly how to recognize it when we see it.

Sure. That's what we've tried to do in this thread. Unfortunately atheists love to hide what has been clearly explained to them. So you've probably missed that part of the discussion. It's back a couple of pages.

Didn’t require that in my scenario.

That's true. But your scenario will never happen.

If it was an “intended” change, then it was not random.

Exactly.

How did you get that? If a military commander achieves an unexpected advantage via a mistake, don’t you think he might consider keeping his new-found tactic as a resource? Why wouldn't an organism that benefited from a DNA "information" accident be more likely to survive and pass its new advantage on to its offspring?

It might. But how many millions have to degrade to produce this advance? Do you think that the one advance will offset the millions of retreats?

Unless you can show me that this academic “information” thing is more important than the end results, I think he has carried his point

If it is true that all creatures were designed then random changes to them would always be bad for them. The end results would only ever be worse than the original design. It's perfectly reasonable to assume design for information bearing entities. There is no example of information arising in an undesigned entity, unless one assumes it happened in the evolution of animals.

But evolutionists try to disguise this fact by insisting that every piece of data is non-Shannon information with meaning and intent.

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

I don't think that's going to cover for your behavior, Stipe. You won't post a testable definition of "information" for biological systems because you have no idea what it is, and because if you commit yourself, you suspect that we'll nail you with it.

I've already posted it this thread, you monumental moron.

You've made it up as you've gone along.

And even were that true it'd be no form of argument against it.

Atheists love to make useless comments as if they are scientifically relevant.

But you'll never do that, for reasons that are quite clear.

I can very easily restate honestly my definition that I provided in this thread.

You feel free to continue proving how dense you are.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

One at a time, mate.

We were discussing something else when?

It might be. But it's at a greater cost to the information as designed originally.

Evidence? Are you going to say that dogs are somehow worse off than wolves? We know that dogs are BETTER at understanding human communication than wolves, perhaps smarter in these areas.

Here's a demonstration of some of their abilities

No, not exactly the same way. It's a matter of degree. Thus we can make an analogy that holds water by using a language example to explain a DNA example.

No we can't because you can easily make random changes to an English sentence that turns it into gibberish. You can't do that with DNA that codes for protein in the same way. Coding DNA is really very simple, using analogies merely confuses the issue.

DNA consists of four bases, A,T,G and C. They're converted to RNA before being translated into protein. The only difference is T is replaced by U.

The Genetic code

There are 64 possible combinations of 3 bases (the "words" of coding DNA) but only 21 possible meanings. EVERY combination has a meaning.

Do you want to play "lets see if we can break the DNA"? You already played it once, failed and forgot already.

I talk about DNA. You're lying.

In this thread, you've refused to discuss the examples I've given.

And have you, since that time, come to understand every mechanism at work in an organism to be able to say that a change has no effect?

If not, you're lying again.

I know that every person born has around 70-100 NEW mutations unique to them. They aren't all suffering from horrible genetic abnormalities.

I know that most DNA doesn't code for anything at all (and is not regulatory sequence either) and that mutations there generally don't do anything.

I know enough about DNA that DOES code to be able to tell if any one particular change is going to "break" the protein. I know that far, far less than your 99+% are going to be broken.

Any way you look at it, you're wrong and are talking about things you do not understand. But that's normal with you Stripe.

And you have no imagination.

Its not about imagination, this is DNA.

[DavisBJ]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Evolution is a joke.

Nothing has anything to do with evolution, unless you're a science fiction writer.

I had hoped that you would offer something more substantial than your own trivial dismissals of evolution. You think it is a joke. I think it sound quite credible. You aren’t going to get far with changing my mind if I see you rely on one-liners instead of thoughtful answers.

Shannon equations can be used to analyse any set of data. If you've got data, Shannon can tell you how much information it can carry. Shannon can do nothing to tell you what that information is or how useful, correct or complete it is.

Don’t see any evolution in that.

Yes, but that final outcome will never be better than the original if it is effected by a random change.

But my scenario was explicitly that – a wartime situation, or a biological situation, where a random change did confer an advantage. Show me why those are not possible, since you say the final outcome will never be better than the original.

That's true. But your scenario will never happen.

Are you saying that a misplaced military effort has never had unexpected benefits? Are you serious?

In biology, I read a report several months ago about 2 groups of small animals living in an area. The animals were essentially identical, except one group had a genetic difference which permitted it to blend in much more successfully than the other group. The exact genetic difference was isolated in the genome, and then a study was done to see at what rate mutations occurred in the area of the DNA where the difference was found. From that study, knowing the population of animals, and their longevity, it was determined that if every one of the group that had the beneficial genetic difference were killed, it was likely the mutation would reoccur and establish itself in about one millennium.

Exactly

Then why did you use contradictory words in the sentence you authored?

It might. But how many millions have to degrade to produce this advance? Do you think that the one advance will offset the millions of retreats?

It would be preferable if you wouldn’t toss around big numbers just for effect – “millions of retreats” to “one advance”. If you can establish that these are realistic ratios, I would appreciate it. But to the core of your question, why do you think the “retreats” are even kept around? If a military command message gets garbled, and the bombs that are dropped all miss their targets, does the commander keep that as a tactic along with the successful ones? In biology, when animals have to compete for limited resources, do those that have debilitating genetic problems stay in the population and have as many offspring as the the ones without the problem?

If it is true that all creatures were designed then random changes to them would always be bad for them.

Not true. If there are brown rabbits living close to a snow field, and they do not have the genes for white fur, is something going to forbid them from ever developing white fur? (As a high school student several times I attended a biology open house at a local university. I was always fascinated by the specimens (usually in jars) where some completely abnormal characteristics could be seen. Including fur coloration that was abberant as compared to the normal animals.

The end results would only ever be worse than the original design.

You haven't shown this, you just say it.

It's perfectly reasonable to assume design for information bearing entities. There is no example of information arising in an undesigned entity, unless one assumes it happened in the evolution of animals.

I am going to put aside your use of the word “information”, since I still contend it is the end result that counts, not whether it came via accurate “information”. White fur on dark rabbits. No design involved.

[Stuu]

DavisBJ if you want to make Stripe your friend just report your blood pressure readings to him every half hour or so. He likes the spike that happens when people read his stuff.

Stuart

[Selaphiel]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Yes, but that final outcome will never be better than the original if it is effected by a random change.

Sigh...Got any more strawmen you want to attack? Who said:

1) Evolution is random?
2) That evolution makes better outcomes?

Evolution is not random at all given that the population size is not dangerously low. Can't you see that the very concept of natural SELECTION and randomness are pretty close to being an oxymoron? The mutations are random. The selection part only selects genes that give an advantage within the environment the species live in.
Mouse that live on black lava rock evolve black fur, while those who live in the normal sand keeps their light fur. That is not random, that is selection by environmental pressure since a light colored mouse living on black rock is far more likely to be spotted by a predator.

Second, what do you mean by saying that evolution is supposed to make something better? Are a chimpanzee better than a white shark? By what standard do you measure that? The white shark is a successful killing machine and has been for 25-30 million years, it does what it does very well despite some of its fairly non-complex structures, so does a tape worm or bacteria.
Random change can improve something if there is a factor that selects what is a good change within a specific environment. Then unsuccessful change is weeded out, while the beneficial changes remain. And you know very well that evolution has this selection mechanism.

Random mutations are demonstrable and it has been demonstrated that mutations can cause changes that are demonstrable within an environment that can select through the pressure of limited survival rate.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

Sigh...Got any more strawmen you want to attack? Who said:

1) Evolution is random?
2) That evolution makes better outcomes?

Random mutations are random.
If you do not think a person is more well designed than a toadstool then I doubt you have much to contribute...

[Stuu]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Random mutations are random.
If you do not think a person is more well designed than a toadstool then I doubt you have much to contribute...

What does anyone have to contribute if he believes that any living species was designed?

Behe is a laughing stock and he was the best advocate such people had.

Stuart

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

We were discussing something else when?

You tell me.

Evidence? Are you going to say that dogs are somehow worse off than wolves? We know that dogs are BETTER at understanding human communication than wolves, perhaps smarter in these areas.

Pointless example. All creatures are far too well designed for us to be able to make anything but elementary guesses at the intention of the author by looking at the genetic code. And looking at behaviour is no means to determining what the code is.

No we can't because you can easily make random changes to an English sentence that turns it into gibberish. You can't do that with DNA that codes for protein in the same way.

Uh, yes you can.

Coding DNA is really very simple, using analogies merely confuses the issue.

We're not talking DNA. We're talking information and meaning.

Originally Posted by DavisBJ

But my scenario was explicitly that – a wartime situation, or a biological situation, where a random change did confer an advantage. Show me why those are not possible, since you say the final outcome will never be better than the original.

Because errors have consequences and those consequences will lead to extinction for armies and organisms.

Are you saying that a misplaced military effort has never had unexpected benefits? Are you serious?

No. A single communication error might lead to a one-off advantage. But that's ignoring the full picture.

Then why did you use contradictory words in the sentence you authored?

I didn't. Read it again.

It would be preferable if you wouldn’t toss around big numbers just for effect – “millions of retreats” to “one advance”.

Ten to one. Sound more realistic?

Why do you think the “retreats” are even kept around? If a military command message gets garbled, and the bombs that are dropped all miss their targets, does the commander keep that as a tactic along with the successful ones? In biology, when animals have to compete for limited resources, do those that have debilitating genetic problems stay in the population and have as many offspring as the the ones without the problem?

Yes. Every organism that reproduces contributes to the gene pool. Every error that survives gets added to the burden. One miraculous advance will not offset that.

Not true. If there are brown rabbits living close to a snow field, and they do not have the genes for white fur, is something going to forbid them from ever developing white fur?

This isn't exactly what I was saying, but even the change to white fur will not make them better than they were originally designed.

You haven't shown this, you just say it.

That's because I think it is self evident. If you can't agree that random changes are bad for information then I don't know what else to say.

I am going to put aside your use of the word “information”, since I still contend it is the end result that counts, not whether it came via accurate “information”. White fur on dark rabbits. No design involved.

Fair enough. Let's see if we can advance this in future discussions.

Originally Posted by Stuu

DavisBJ if you want to make Stripe your friend just report your blood pressure readings to him every half hour or so. He likes the spike that happens when people read his stuff.

Stuart

Sounds like my Standard 2 report card.

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I don't think that's going to cover for your behavior, Stipe. You won't post a testable definition of "information" for biological systems because you have no idea what it is, and because if you commit yourself, you suspect that we'll nail you with it.

I've already posted it this thread, you monumental moron.

No, you haven't. You've carefully avoided any definition that could actually be tested in a biological system. For the reasons above.

Barbarian on Stipe's evolving claims about "information":
You've made it up as you've gone along.

And even were that true it'd be no form of argument against it.

It merely means that you don't know what you're talking about as usual.

Atheists love to make useless comments as if they are scientifically relevant.

So now you want us to believe you're an atheist?

I can very easily restate honestly my definition that I provided in this thread.

Which one? Give us one testable one.

You feel free to continue proving how dense you are.

I don't think calling names is going to do you any good, Stipe.

[Selaphiel]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Random mutations are random.
If you do not think a person is more well designed than a toadstool then I doubt you have much to contribute...

You were not talking about mutations, you claimed that the final outcome was random. The final outcome are not completely random even though random mutation is a part of it, you forgot to mention the natural selection part which destroys your entire argument.

By what criteria do you judge that a toad or a frog is worse than a human being in terms of evolution? Sure, humans are more complex in that we have more complex structures and functions, but the frogs have been around far longer than we have and they are optimized for survival and reproduction in their environment (continuing process) just like we are.
By your understanding of evolution, there should have only been humans alive since we are better than everything else. This is of course ridiculous, we are more complex, but not necessarily better than other species alive today.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Pointless example. All creatures are far too well designed for us to be able to make anything but elementary guesses at the intention of the author by looking at the genetic code. And looking at behaviour is no means to determining what the code is.

Huh? Perhaps you don't understand the state of the science. We KNOW what many parts of DNA do, certainly not all. But we aren't making "elementary guesses" by a long shot. Very specific experiments have been done to understand particular gene functions. Plus genes that do similar things are close enough that we can discover and study entire gene families that have slightly different functions. All of this enables us, when we find a new gene to not simply scratch our heads, but to classify it and know something about it from the get-go. And our knowledge is consistently improving over time.

Behavior is in large part encoded in DNA, it can be selected. The video I showed used only Border collies because they have been selected for following the commands of humans very closely. You can't just take any dog breed and expect it to have the same abilities through training. Each breed was originally selected for being "better" at certain tasks, both in shape and size as well as behavior. If humans can do this without understanding the underlying mechanisms for any of it, why is it impossible for natural processes to function in the same way?

Uh, yes you can.

Okay Mr. DNA know it all, you tell me. Give me an example. I know you can't possibly know this since you don't even understand coding DNA. You're blowing smoke again as usual.

We're not talking DNA. We're talking information and meaning.

The ORIGINAL point of this post was saying that random mutations could not possibly "improve" information in the context of evolution. That means DNA.

Continuing to argue information theory is ignoring the actual issue. DNA is not like other types of "information". The question is can you improve DNA through mutation and natural selection. I've offered to go through the steps of mutating DNA randomly and then seeing what comes out. But you don't want to talk about that because you know everyone will see how ignorant you are of the subject and your 99+% number will be blown out of the water.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian

No, you haven't. You've carefully avoided any definition that could actually be tested in a biological system.

Liar.

I don't think calling names is going to do you any good, Stipe.

Luckily I'm not trying to do myself any good by calling you names.

Originally Posted by Selaphiel

You were not talking about mutations, you claimed that the final outcome was random.

The final outcome? I think you have me confused with someone else. Please go back and read something I wrote if you want to critique my ideas.

The final outcome are not completely random even though random mutation is a part of it, you forgot to mention the natural selection part which destroys your entire argument.

You can naturally select the best of the mistakes all you want. Nothing is ever going to improve upon the original design unless you sneak intelligence into the selection process.

By what criteria do you judge that a toad or a frog is worse than a human being in terms of evolution?

I don't judge anything in terms of evolution.

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Huh? Perhaps you don't understand the state of the science. We KNOW what many parts of DNA do, certainly not all.

You have hardly even scratched the surface. You don't even know how to make the simplest of living things out of raw materials. And don't try to insist you have, nothing you make can reproduce after its kind.

But we aren't making "elementary guesses" by a long shot.

Yeah? How do you make a living organism? You can start with the simplest one we have. How is that made?

Very specific experiments have been done to understand particular gene functions. Plus genes that do similar things are close enough that we can discover and study entire gene families that have slightly different functions. All of this enables us, when we find a new gene to not simply scratch our heads, but to classify it and know something about it from the get-go.

And I know how to close the door on an airplane. Or at least I think I could manage given the right situation.

And our knowledge is consistently improving over time.

GREAT! Let me know when you've figured out when a new human being is created.

Behavior is in large part encoded in DNA, it can be selected. The video I showed used only Border collies because they have been selected for following the commands of humans very closely. You can't just take any dog breed and expect it to have the same abilities through training. Each breed was originally selected for being "better" at certain tasks, both in shape and size as well as behavior. If humans can do this without understanding the underlying mechanisms for any of it, why is it impossible for natural processes to function in the same way?

Because people are intelligent.

Okay Mr. DNA know it all, you tell me. Give me an example. I know you can't possibly know this since you don't even understand coding DNA. You're blowing smoke again as usual.

CCCC -> AAAA.

The ORIGINAL point of this post was saying that random mutations could not possibly "improve" information in the context of evolution. That means DNA.

That's right. And not just in the context of evolution. In any context. Unless there is an intelligent agent manipulating the data, the information will never improve.

Continuing to argue information theory is ignoring the actual issue.

Uh, dude, read the OP again.

DNA is not like other types of "information".

Yes it is. It's just too complex to be easily understood. You should know this.

The question is can you improve DNA through mutation and natural selection.

And the answer is, "No".

I've offered to go through the steps of mutating DNA randomly and then seeing what comes out. But you don't want to talk about that because you know everyone will see how ignorant you are of the subject and your 99+% number will be blown out of the water.

I could and have talked about this with you. You could show some intellectual honesty by recounting exactly where we will wind up if we rehash that discussion.

[Selaphiel]

Originally Posted by Stripe

The final outcome? I think you have me confused with someone else. Please go back and read something I wrote if you want to critique my ideas.

Here is what you wrote:

Originally Posted by Stripe

Yes, but that final outcome will never be better than the original if it is effected by a random change.

Natural selection/mutation is not a random process. Mutations themselves are random, but the mutations that prove beneficial in a given environment are selected. If something is selected for based on a criteria (environment/ecosystem), it is NOT random.

You can naturally select the best of the mistakes all you want. Nothing is ever going to improve upon the original design unless you sneak intelligence into the selection process.

Absolute non-sense drivel as ususal. You assume there is an original design, where is the evidence for this? Besides, there is no need for intelligence, natural selection is sufficient. What makes an intelligence more qualified to select than natural selection? Just like dog breeders selected dogs with certain traits to breed all kinds of dogs, natural selection selects (unconsciously of course) emerging traits that are beneficial within an environment, these traits are then spread through reproduction.

This has been demonstrated in lab experiments with E.Coli bacteria. 12 separate tribes of bacteria grown separately each generation, they all change but not all change in the same way. Some mutations were so beneficial that if you put the tribe with that trait together with a tribe without it, the tribe without would was far less successful, smaller population and lower growth rate. One tribe being able to use another part of the growth medium (citrate) as nutrition being such mutation.

http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/citrat..._Intraday.html

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

You have hardly even scratched the surface. You don't even know how to make the simplest of living things out of raw materials. And don't try to insist you have, nothing you make can reproduce after its kind.

What does that have to do with understanding evolution or how DNA works? We know quite well how living cells incorporate non-living molecules into themselves, how they reproduce and quite a bit about development.

Ever seen a chart of the biochemical pathways? No I didn't think so. And yes we know and can identify nearly every gene involved, how it is regulated in most cases, etc.

You act like living things are a total black box, but then you never had a biology or biochemistry class either so you really haven't a clue.

Because people are intelligent.

But they haven't know what they're working towards, only "this is good I will breed these together". When natural conditions allow some organisms to survive over others, its doing the same thing without a mind involved.

CCCC -> AAAA.

That isn't nonsense Stripe. Instead of saying Proline now you said Lysine. Though, I don't know what the other amino acids would be since you stopped at 4 though I can make a number of guesses even from one base. But it isn't meaningless in terms of coding DNA, altered but not nonsense.

Notebook -> Wexrkuq is an example of producing nonsense in the context of English.

That's right. And not just in the context of evolution. In any context. Unless there is an intelligent agent manipulating the data, the information will never improve.

You just keep asserting without evidence. When are YOU ever going to improve your statements into an actual argument?

Yes it is. It's just too complex to be easily understood. You should know this.

You haven't proved this in any way since you don't have ANY level of understanding of it. Coding DNA is relatively simple at the most basic level, as I already demonstrated to you.

I've explained it to you already, there are no analogies that have been brought up that have the same properties as DNA. Do you want to talk about DNA or continue arguing semantics that have no bearing on the situation? You don't have enough understanding to show they DO have bearing on the discussion.

And the answer is, "No".

Evidence Stripe? What about those mice? Isn't being able to survive an "improvement"?

I could and have talked about this with you. You could show some intellectual honesty by recounting exactly where we will wind up if we rehash that discussion.

The discussion goes, you pretend that whenever DNA changes are beneficial you assert mutation fairies to change DNA.