Total Posts:66|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Information theory and genetic degredation

Smithereens
Posts: 5,512
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious. The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional. According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information. Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool, however the 'sample size' so to speak, of number of creatures available for mutative selection is not great enough to produce large enough amounts of new genetic material without accelerating the decay process, from a probability perspective. Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

I would post this in the science forum if anyone existed there, but I figured that quite a few evolutionary theorists can be found in the religion forum. So that's the question.
Music composition contest: http://www.debate.org...
dee-em
Posts: 6,473
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:28:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious. The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional. According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information. Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool, however the 'sample size' so to speak, of number of creatures available for mutative selection is not great enough to produce large enough amounts of new genetic material without accelerating the decay process, from a probability perspective. Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

I would post this in the science forum if anyone existed there, but I figured that quite a few evolutionary theorists can be found in the religion forum. So that's the question.

I am not an evolutionary biologist but you seem to be making a lot of assumptions. The vast majority of mutations are lethal to an organism and they don't get passed on because no reproduction occurs. Occasionally a rare mutation will provide some usually small but measurable advantage and the gene affected will prosper and spread in a population because of the slight advantage it bestows - making the bearer slightly fitter for survival. Does this answer your question?

I don't know where you get this "genetic degradation" you talk about. There are species such as crocodiles and sharks which have been around for tens of millions of years. They haven't had their DNA degrade. Humans are babies in comparison, at only 200,000 years as a species.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:36:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious.

No. The majority of mutations are deleterious or neutral. A few are advantageous.

For the rest:
http://www.talkorigins.org...
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:42:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious.

Incorrect.

The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional.

Not always, no.

According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information.

Very incorrect. Which is more information rich:

jektliicbn
ababababab

The former was typed at random, the latter deliberately as a pattern. Randomisation of parts of a system are prone to make it more information-rich, not less.

Also, it isn't simply a case of a mutation replacing an existing bit of genetic code; there are duplication errors as well, for example. Then the parts of the duplicated code can themselves mutate.

Basically, intelligent design COMPLETELY misuses and misunderstands what 'information' is, how it comes about and what process are involved on a genetic level for this to happen.

Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool

Why? Unless there is some handicap to having 'defunct' genes - and one that is greater than the clear benefit of having them on hand for changes in environmental factors - there is no selective pressure of the type you propose.

Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

No, we don't. There's a selection process, remember? People who get genes that are in some way 'unusuable' dont' get to be people because they're never born in the first place. Which is, generally speaking, a handicap to reproducing.
Paleophyte
Posts: 57
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:52:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Long story short, you have three types of mutations:

- Positive, not a problem but rare.
- Neutral, also not a problem, more common but not the majority.
- Negative, the majority of mutations.

(OK, strictly speaking the majority are silent but that's another matter)

If a negative mutation is expressed then it's very quickly selected against. The mutation is weeded out of the gene pool very rapidly.

If a negative mutation is not expressed then it can hang out in the gene pool longer. Simple recessives typically take much longer to weed out but since they aren't common and you have to get two copies, one from each parent, probabilities are low that any individual will be affected.

That's actually useful to the species. The whole positive/neutral/negative business is based on the organism's interaction with its environment. When the environment changes so does the definition of which mutations are which. Negatives can become positives. Having a diverse gene pool is vital to a species survival as it means they are more adaptable. Species that have gene through genetic bottlenecks are less adaptable and more prone to extinction.

The scenario that you're suggesting, gross genetic deterioration, typically only happens in extreme cases like high-rad environments or when an organism suffers a failure in DNA replication or repair.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 8:15:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
What most of you overlooked is where the mutations occur.

"Mutations which occur in normal body cells (somatic cells) do not affect offspring (at least not directly). Only mutations in gametes (egg or sperm) are inherited.
Mutations are rare because DNA is a very stable molecule for several reasons:

Because DNA is normally made of 2 complementary strands (double helix) repairs can be made when one side or the other is damaged, but not if both sides are damaged.
All the potentially reactive side groups of the sugar molecules making up the backbone of each DNA strand are already covalently bonded
The nucleotide bases lie protected inside the sugar-phosphate backbone, their potentially reactive side groups out of harms way secured by hydrogen bonds.
Finally DNA's helix and nucleosome coils provide a geometric tightness which deters most chemical reactions from taking place at normal temperatures.

Although DNA is very resistant to change -- change it must if organisms are to adapt to fluctuations in their environment. Natural Selection must have something to select. Thus mutation is a necessary and important part of evolution."
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 8:18:00 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I don"t think it was so much it was missed by anyone, more that it was obviously irrelevant.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 8:27:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious. The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional. According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information. Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool, however the 'sample size' so to speak, of number of creatures available for mutative selection is not great enough to produce large enough amounts of new genetic material without accelerating the decay process, from a probability perspective. Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

I would post this in the science forum if anyone existed there, but I figured that quite a few evolutionary theorists can be found in the religion forum. So that's the question.

You can look at the "entropy" of the genome and compare it to other information processes, the results are quite interesting. DNA generally has a high level of entropy (a high level of disorder) when compared with syntaxual language and much higher than an ordered sequence and close to a random string.

Human language has a middle-level of entropy. It has an intermediate level of order, for if it was perfectly ordered then there would be no differences (which leads to function).

I have a problem with your saying of "meaningful information", as this is entirely arbitary and useless concept in genetics. IF you meant "functional information", i.e. it "does something" then your statement is flat-out false. The vast majority of mutations do not do very much, which makes sense since the protein structure is very large (say, ~300 amino acids), yet only a small portion of it will be immediately relevant to it's biological function (such as the "active site" inc atalysts".

Thus it is much like making tweeks on the bodywork of a car. It is not going to affect performance much either way. The big changes occur when the environment changes, which is where previously insignificant changes (such as to the bodywork of a car) becomes much more relevant.

Virtually everything within DNA will "do something", it's a molecule after all, it has it's own chemistry, and it will affect encoding one way or another no matter which bases you substitute in, but to say mutations are inherently dysfunctional is both irrelevant and false.

Let's make the assumption that most mutations are indeed deleterous, and this really did have long term consequences. IF this was true then we would expect bacteria to quickly go extinct, since they have tiny genomes (only 10,000 bp) and reproduce at much faster rates than vertebrates do. Their genomes would essentially become useless unless there was another factor involved, which is indeed the case (natural selection).
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:03:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 8:18:00 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
I don"t think it was so much it was missed by anyone, more that it was obviously irrelevant.

What we have here is a gene pool of Bible raised faith indoctrinated diehards who have based their faith in the bible as their ultimate source to shape their worldview about the nature of things . Unfortunately the lack of math and science in the Bible to even meet the minimum requirements of a grade 6 schooler leaves most Christians unqualified to engage in discussions as advanced as evolutionary biology.
The knowledge Christians are limited to is only possible through direct divine revelations as instructed in their bible. Even here they are handicapped because many are called but only a few are chosen by their God of the bible to receive such revelations.
Assuming the few privileged Christians are all congregated here to debate with their divine revelations all in sync. It still falls short of the math and science requirements to to meet a grade 6 curriculum, far short for a discussion on evolutionary biology.
You cannot see the relevance because you are not qualified to see beyond your faith which limits you to your bible.
Envisage
Posts: 3,646
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:03:35 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

The difference is that screwing the software's code affect's it's ability to reproduce. And it is it's ability to reproduce which determines whether it will remain extant. Thus the issue I raised to him, if there was no pruning mechanism, then we would indeed expect bacteria to go extinct very quickly. Yet they do not.

Simple fact is that a lower capacity to reproduce leads to the cropping out of those crap mutations. There is a reason why harmful genetic disorders are generally quite rare in the wild, they simply die and remove themselves form the equation.

Moreover your statement that scientists are dissenting is quite frankly frivilous, only a minority of a minority do so, and invariably due to religious commitments.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:13:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious. The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional. According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information. Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool, however the 'sample size' so to speak, of number of creatures available for mutative selection is not great enough to produce large enough amounts of new genetic material without accelerating the decay process, from a probability perspective. Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

I would post this in the science forum if anyone existed there, but I figured that quite a few evolutionary theorists can be found in the religion forum. So that's the question.

Your first statement is false. Some genetic variations are beneficial and are generally passed on since they make the organism more fit to survive. One example would be the bacteria that developed the means to break down and consume some components of nylon. These chemicals are long chain polymers that do not exist in nature but this bacteria developed this ability in less than 50 years. When the genetic structure was studied it was determined that both a deletion and a frame shift mutation gave it that ability. If you wish more details, go ahead and google nylon eating bacteria and you can get the actual study information.

In point of fact we only use a small part of the total amount of DNA in our systems. Much of it is non-coding and, as far as we know, serves no purpose. Some of this so-called 'junk' DNA has been found to perform other functions so it is impossible to say that any of our DNA is useless.

Natural selection has no volition, no will, no intelligent agent in charge so it cannot 'decide' to eliminate DNA except as it makes a portion of the species less suitable to survive so it gradually dies off. Your concept of losing usable information is somewhat flawed since the human race has been around in its present form for a long time and our genetic code goes way back before that. Speak to an actual geneticist or evolutionary biologist for the best information on this subject. The best most of us can do is provide general information and it's always advisable to go to the source.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 9:37:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
The sure evidence that very little mutation is taking place or have occurred in the past can be found in the study of religious fanaticism. Religious fanaticism traced from the beginning of time to the modern day Christian and islamic fanatics show very little mutation in their gene pool. They still cling on to religion and God as reverently as they ever did. Lodged in their DNA is a God gene that has remained unchanged.
Prison studies also show Christians make up 75% of the convict population in prisons suggesting criminality is in their genes and so is mental illness.
Kathleen Taylor, Neuroscientist, Says Religious Fundamentalism Could Be Treated As A Mental Illness.
Quote:
An Oxford University researcher and author specializing in neuroscience has suggested that one day religious fundamentalism may be treated as a curable mental illness.

The need for social engineering should be seriously considered. With almost 4 billion religious fanatics (Christians and Muslims) evidently suffering from arrested development mostly caused by genetic degradation. It is time to stop denying the science and start accepting their genetic anomaly.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post

http://www.discovery.org...
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 12:12:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

OK. A small percentage of the total number of scientists in the world, but ok. Now, show me one peer reviewed, published study that any of them did to support their assertion that natural selection is not responsible for the development of the diversity of life on the planet. Oh, and any study from any religious organization is not valid since those organizations require that their members disregard any evidence that does not support their viewpoint, e.g. ICR or Creation.com.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 12:17:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Having a PhD in philosophy doesn't make someone a 'scientist'. I'm not sure one in animal nutrition does, either. On top of that, having one in geology or computer science doesn't make you qualified to have an informed opinion on genetics.

So they've heavily padded a list that is STILL only a tiny fraction of the global total, even when you count the duds.

Now why would they do that, I wonder?
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 12:58:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The list of scientists dissenting from Darwinism are Christians who looked for the God of the bible in science and came out disappointed. Only a few of them are actually evolutionists which reduces the list of scientist qualified to comment on Darwinism.
These might be the same scientists dissenting from global warming/climate change.
This just proves even higher education does not reduce belief in the supernatural or superstitions. God is hard wired in them.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:06:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Christians have come up with their own evolution flavour. Because it lacks any scientific objectivity it cannot even be considered a scientific theory.

Theistic evolution is not a scientific theory, but a range of views about how the science of evolution relates to religious beliefs.

So Christian scientists are not against evolution as long as it can be wrapped with a God or a God at its core.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:09:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

OK, show me what your side has had peer reviewed and published that shows modern evolutionary theory wrong and creationism or theistic evolution correct? It's really very simple, just provide us with some evidence.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:12:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:09:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

OK, show me what your side has had peer reviewed and published that shows modern evolutionary theory wrong and creationism or theistic evolution correct? It's really very simple, just provide us with some evidence.
All they have is a list of dissenting sign offs.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 3:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

You post a link to the Discovery institute, and then respond to my counter evidence with that? WTF? Anyway, I see you didn't even read the link. The point is that the number of scientists in related fields named Steve who are willing to sign a declaration that they accept evolution is at least twice as long as the list you posted of scientists, in both related and unrelated fields, who have said they don't accept evolution. So, yes, it is a big deal. Your attempt to make it look as though there is some significant doubt of evolution within the scientific community is actually a tiny drop in a river of acceptance.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:24:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:09:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

OK, show me what your side has had peer reviewed and published that shows modern evolutionary theory wrong and creationism or theistic evolution correct? It's really very simple, just provide us with some evidence.

William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, "The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search," Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

Michael J. Behe, "Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and "The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,"" The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, "Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models," Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211"228 (2006).

There's many more.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:26:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 3:55:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

You post a link to the Discovery institute, and then respond to my counter evidence with that? WTF? Anyway, I see you didn't even read the link. The point is that the number of scientists in related fields named Steve who are willing to sign a declaration that they accept evolution is at least twice as long as the list you posted of scientists, in both related and unrelated fields, who have said they don't accept evolution. So, yes, it is a big deal. Your attempt to make it look as though there is some significant doubt of evolution within the scientific community is actually a tiny drop in a river of acceptance.

I'm referring to the content of the source. There wasn't any content in your source. The source I provided had a list of over 100 respondents.
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 5:51:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 5:26:38 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 3:55:29 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 2:58:55 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 1:44:48 PM, Burzmali wrote:
At 1/22/2015 12:02:39 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 1/22/2015 9:15:28 AM, dhardage wrote:
At 1/22/2015 8:28:49 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
This is actually a very good question and one that many will fail to understand.

What you're asking for is perfectly valid. On balance, mutations are harmful or neutral ~99% of the time. By probability alone, passing on genes that increase genetic information (useful structures for a species) is impossibly small for the maximum allotted timeframe. Most people don't see that adding genetic information is like screwing with software code. You'll see many scientists dissenting from Darwin's theory of the origin of species just on this basis alone.

Go ahead and name some of them, please?

There's too many to name in one post


http://www.discovery.org...

Are you familiar with Project Steve?

http://ncse.com...

A website that self proclaims to "defend the teaching of evolution" doesn't think that people are doubting evolution. Big deal.

You post a link to the Discovery institute, and then respond to my counter evidence with that? WTF? Anyway, I see you didn't even read the link. The point is that the number of scientists in related fields named Steve who are willing to sign a declaration that they accept evolution is at least twice as long as the list you posted of scientists, in both related and unrelated fields, who have said they don't accept evolution. So, yes, it is a big deal. Your attempt to make it look as though there is some significant doubt of evolution within the scientific community is actually a tiny drop in a river of acceptance.

I'm referring to the content of the source. There wasn't any content in your source. The source I provided had a list of over 100 respondents.

My source lists over 1300 scientists, just named Steve, who have signed a statement affirming their acceptance of evolution. It dwarfs your list of alleged dissenters. You couldn't take a minute to read the explanation on the main page and then click to see the list of "Steves" on the left hand navigation? Here's the direct URL for the list, for those who are left-navigation-challenged: http://ncse.com...
wsmunit7
Posts: 1,318
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 6:26:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:36:59 AM, Paleophyte wrote:
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious.

No. The majority of mutations are deleterious or neutral. A few are advantageous.

For the rest:
http://www.talkorigins.org...

A quote from your reference source :

"Science is based on an open and honest look at the data. Much of creationism is built on dishonest debating techniques and special pleading for a case the data does not support. Science belongs in science classes. Evolution is science. Creationism is not. It's that simple."

I think that says it all.
SirCrona
Posts: 139
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2015 7:21:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 1/22/2015 7:11:10 AM, Smithereens wrote:
I need to clarify something I am trying to understand. In evolutionary theory, mutations are inherently deleterious. The more mutations that occur, the more genetic information that becomes dysfunctional. According to information theory, random processes do not create new meaning information. Natural selection should seem to provide a context in which defunct genetic codes are selected out of the gene pool, however the 'sample size' so to speak, of number of creatures available for mutative selection is not great enough to produce large enough amounts of new genetic material without accelerating the decay process, from a probability perspective. Humans have a limited amount of time as a species before 100% of our genetic information is unusable in transcription. I need to know what model best explains this data.

I would post this in the science forum if anyone existed there, but I figured that quite a few evolutionary theorists can be found in the religion forum. So that's the question.

A mutation is anything that changes when it isn't normally supposed to in chromosomes/DNA at all, not degradation.