Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,553
Reaction score
13,575
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity and precision, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?


I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,937
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
It's the nutritional science department. Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food. GMO foods are not that.

We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat. Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
914
Points
210
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.

As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,553
Reaction score
13,575
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.

As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?
As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?

I heard it somewhere around here recently.......


Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

(17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
 

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,553
Reaction score
13,575
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
I have no idea, because i don't pay any attention to that. I don't have an irrational fear of GMO foods that was created by lying bloggers. That's your department.
It's the nutritional science department. Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

In the Bible, God told Adam and Eve (and us) that every plant and tree yielding seed was to be their and our food. GMO foods are not that.

We also know from the Bible that Jesus ate meat. Thus, I had a nice lunch today and am greatly satisfied.
Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.

Where did you learn that? Was it the voices in your head telling you that? LOL!
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,211
Reaction score
7,067
Points
1,870
Slowly, we are learning that GMO foods are bad and likely causes early death and tumors.
Lie. I would say you made that up, but we both know you grifted it from a charlatan's blog you never fully read or understood.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,359
Reaction score
4,899
Points
1,130
It matters not a whit what you believe about evolution,

It matters not a whit what you think about common design. God laughs at you. I laugh at you. I open my mouth and haha comes out. I laugh and laugh and laugh at you. See Ringtone laugh. Laugh, Ringtone, laugh.

View attachment 461928
laughing as your attempt at argument comes crashing to the ground.

It’s embarrassing to everyone but you that you’re reduced to cutting and pasting your usual cartoons.
 

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,359
Reaction score
4,899
Points
1,130
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.

As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?
As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?

I heard it somewhere around here recently.......


Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

(17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
81,552
Reaction score
7,924
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection. It's always been genetic mutations. So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.

The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils. The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our k value being very close to zero ...

Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your k value up and down ...

ETA: What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...
Nothing. It's just that gradual changes are seldom seen in the fossil record.

I don't believe I am pointing out the cases where this doesn't happen. I believe I am questioning natural selection as the driver for speciation based upon stasis (i.e. no gradual changes) and lack of transitional fossils (i.e. fast changes in speciation).
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
914
Points
210
(1) Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral.

(2) Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
I'm sorry. I thought you read my post in the above. Please note the realities per a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above. Note the emboldened. Note that the terms observed, deletions, and preexisting are emphasized. (Statement 1) Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated. (Statement 2) Then explain why one should necessarily believe that which is hypothesized to occur when it has never been observed to occur? Then define what you mean by new information.

Thanks.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
Again, that's the theory.​
Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.​
P.S. Be careful to not talk out your ass as one who has not studied the models of gene duplication of evolutionary theory. Thanks again.
 
Last edited:

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,211
Reaction score
7,067
Points
1,870
In the context of speciation, my point is that it's not natural selection. It's always been genetic mutations. So I don't think any selections are responsible for speciation.

The examples are stasis when no mutations occur or are unsuccessful in creating a new species and all of the speciations which have no transitional fossils. The same "examples" that led to the theories of punctuated equilibrium and saltation.
A genetic mutation is the cause, natural selection is the effect ... this is easy to demonstrate in the lab with fruit flies ... sounds like you're pointing out a few cases where this doesn't happen, like in the shark family ... they've changed very little over the past 200 millions year, but it's a good design, maybe improvements aren't needed ... and there's absolutely noting in the math that says species must change over time ... our k value being very close to zero ...

Natural selection allows for both punctuated equilibrium and saltation ... just change your k value up and down ...

ETA: What is there about punctuated equilibrium and saltation that doesn't allow "in between" pathways? ...
Nothing. It's just that gradual changes are seldom seen in the fossil record.

I don't believe I am pointing out the cases where this doesn't happen. I believe I am questioning natural selection as the driver for speciation based upon stasis (i.e. no gradual changes) and lack of transitional fossils (i.e. fast changes in speciation).
You should be looking at what happens with isolated populations. Evolutionary change occurs more rapidly in smaller populations (mathematics). So, when a population becomes isolated from a large, centralized population, speciation can occur via a still relatively gradual process (not one generation, still may be a million years). If this new species then thrives, we are more likely to find its fossils. Just as we are more likely to find the fossils of the species of the larger, parent population. What we are less likely to find are the fossils of the isolated population while it was small and changing relatively quickly, compared to the larger, centralized population from which it was separated.

This is Gould's model for punctuated equilibrium. It still relies on natural selection, and on all the other known drivers of evolution.
 
Last edited:

Toddsterpatriot

Diamond Member
Joined
May 3, 2011
Messages
65,553
Reaction score
13,575
Points
2,180
Location
Chicago
(1) Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral.

(2) Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.
I'm sorry. I thought you read my post in the above. Please note the realities per a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above. Note the emboldened. Note that the terms observed, deletions, and preexisting are emphasized. (Statement 1) Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated. (Statement 2) Then explain why one should necessarily believe that which is hypothesized to occur when it has never been observed to occur? Then define what you mean by new information.

Thanks.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.
Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?
Again, that's the theory.​
Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.​

Please note that upon a deeper analysis of the meanings of the two statements in the above
I'm sorry. I thought you read my post in the above.

Don't be sorry, I did.

Was either of those proof for your claim?

Then explain how new information is added when preexisting information is either deleted, altered or duplicated.

So now new information can be added?
As long as old information is deleted, altered or duplicated?

So your original claim was wrong?

Then define what you mean by new information.

You made the claim....you define "new information".

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information,

If you change a page of text by fliping the first and second letters, the third and fourth letters, the fifth and sixth letters, etc. etc., you don't have a different text?

Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes,

Technically speaking, your original claim was wrong. Cool!
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,211
Reaction score
7,067
Points
1,870
"What should the fossil record include if most evolution occurs by speciation in peripheral isolates? Species should be static through their range because our fossils are the remains of large central populations. In any local area inhabited by ancestors, a descendent species should appear suddenly by migration from the peripheral region in which it evolved. In the peripheral region itself, we might find direct evidence of speciation, but such good fortune would be rare indeed because the event occurs so rapidly in such a small population. Thus, the fossil record is a faithful rendering of what evolutionary theory predicts, not a pitiful vestige of a once bountiful tale.

"Eldredge and I refer to this scheme as the model of punctuated equilibria. “ SJ Gould
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,046
Reaction score
454
Points
140
" Universal Gardeners Theories "

* A New Knock Key *

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusionhis interpretation of the available evidencein his metaphysical premise. His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
Hocus Pocus
We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
The theorists of intelligent design , raving about a god within the gaps of evolution , beg a question of whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .

 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,211
Reaction score
7,067
Points
1,870
" Universal Gardeners Theories "

* A New Knock Key *

The essence of the evolutionary hypothesis is that the entirety of biological history is necessarily an unbroken chain of natural cause-and-effect speciation entailing a common ancestry over geological time. The hypothesis is actually predicated on the metaphysical presupposition of naturalism, which, of course, is not subject to scientific falsification.
The evolutionist begs the question; that is to say, he assumes his conclusionhis interpretation of the available evidencein his metaphysical premise. His conclusion does not axiomatically follow from the empirical evidence; it axiomatically follows from his premise. While some scientists of the evolutionary hypothesis grasp this reality, the typical laymen does not. The apriority of his belief flies right over his head.
Hocus Pocus
We do not and cannot actually observe the speciation of a common ancestry. All the pertinent evidence really shows is that species of generally increasing complexity have appeared and that some have gone extinct over geological time. This in no way, shape or form precludes the potentiality that biological history is actually a series of creative events—entailing a speciation of a genetically limited range of adaptive radiation per the mechanisms of genetic mutation, gene flow, genetic drift and natural selection—ultimately predicated on a shared and systematically altered genetic motif of common design over geological time.
The theory of intelligent design raving about the god within the gaps begs the question whether those same intelligent design theists are willing to worship extraterrestrial beings as gawd should it be established that they setup this terrarium garden .

What really fails about the whole "ID" scam is that the proponents are proposing that God is intelligent and capable enough to have designed and created everything, including all species. Yet, somehow, suggesting God was smart and capable enough to do this via deterministic evolution is just off the table for them.

This is what puts the lie to these charlatans and their silly rebranding effort..
 

Fort Fun Indiana

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2017
Messages
48,211
Reaction score
7,067
Points
1,870
Yet, somehow, suggesting God was smart and capable enough to do this via deterministic evolution is just off the table for them.
Yeah, God is a college student cramming for finals instead of building a giant Rube Goldberg device.
And it has nothing to do with theism. It has only to do with clinging to one myth from one religion. The same people have no problem whatsoever looking at scientific pursuit as "studying God's creation", the rest of the time. Quantum Mechanics? Sweet, thanks for the computer and cell phone. Relativity? Sweet thanks for the satellites. Electromagnetic theory? Sweet, thanks for the heat and light.

Using every scientific field known to man to show evolution is a fact? No way, Jose.
 

james bond

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 17, 2015
Messages
9,937
Reaction score
1,143
Points
170
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.

As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?
As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?

I heard it somewhere around here recently.......


Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

(17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
Lol on the poetry. I think he only writes it to you.

I was hopin' you pop in on this thread because it's good that people naturally are against big corporations with their secret GMO ingredients or feed. It's practically like China to them. Remember I told you who has the power of death? That's right. It is another reason GMO foods are bad for you, but it's practically everywhere.

What am I gonna say? Don't eat it b/c of the boogeyman haha?
 
OP
Ringtone

Ringtone

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
3,040
Reaction score
914
Points
210
Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
Now for the special treatment that must be given to your claim that someone, unnamed, but alluded to as "some joker talking out his ass". . . . :cul2:

Who could that be? :eusa_think:

I know someone who said that "mutations are not able to add new information to the genome", namely, Ringtone. I don't know of anyone but you, Toddsterpatriot, who said that "mutations can never add new information".

Huh. Those two statements do not appear to be the same. Maybe they don't have the same meaning. I wonder what the possible difference in meaning could be. :eusa_think:

Just kidding. As one who is versed in the pertinent potentialities of the genome, as one who knows that the term gene is used in two different ways (to denote a piece of DNA that codes for a protein or codes for a trait), and as one who has studied the models of gene duplication per evolutionary theory: I understand that previously nonexistent expressions (or traits) can arise in populations due to preexisting, albeit, latently embedded information.

Is this new information? Well, it's new information as expressively realized in any given population and is likely to be preserved if it's significantly adaptive.

Which brings us to the other half of my post in the above that someone disregarded . . . or did someone who talks out of his ass fail to grasp the ramifications? :eusa_think:

There's that catch 22 again. It depends how one defines new information.​
In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.​
I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? :wink:
Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .​
Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.​
 
Last edited:

Hollie

Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2012
Messages
39,359
Reaction score
4,899
Points
1,130
Well, it depends on what you mean by new information.

What do you mean by, "Mutations entail a loss of information"?
I started answering posts in my notifications box yesterday and forgot all about our discussion. LOL! Sorry. Nothing personal. Just a brain fart. Clarification: I was thinking about the degenerative, point mutations (deletions) that produce the optimal pathways on the DDC model in that instance. That's what I'd really like to get at, as it's more interesting. and I'm eager to pick your brain. A couple of days ago, I was mostly speaking from the point of view of the evolutionist. Today, I'll get into what I think.

So let's get back to it.

Earlier, I asked the following:

Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory? Also, generally, on this model, it has been thought that because most mutations are deleterious, one of the duplicates will become non-functional (a superfluous copy or a pseudogene) until the adaptive mutations arise?​

(You might notice that I revised the questions as the original were informationally inadequate and poorly expressed.)

You didn't answer them. Perhaps you missed them or for some reason thought them to be gotcha thingies. They weren't. They were intended to establish a baseline of mutual understanding. Also, for the sake of clarity, the increased complexity to which I allude in the above is the increased complexity and variety of species over geological time. I'll just cut to the chase. The above is in fact the gist of the classical model of gene duplication relative to the predictions/expectations of evolutionary theory. The more interesting and, to my mind, more evolutionarily plausible duplication-degeneration-complementation (DDC) model is bottomed on it.

Below I will get more precise with my language regarding genetic mutations.

On the classic model, some duplicated genes (uninherited pseudogenes) are held to be preserved long enough to mutatively acquire new, adaptively useful functions. That's the theory. In the meantime, mutations are observed to entail deletions of information, translocations of preexisting information, inversions of preexisting information, and duplications of preexisting information.

Do degenerative genes, altered genes or duplicated genes constitute or produce new information?

Again, that's the theory.

Strictly speaking, the answer seems to be no, given that observed mutations do not actually entail the addition of new information, but changes in preexisting information, the overwhelming majority of which cause deleterious or neutral outcomes. Technically speaking, however, I suppose the answer is yes, albeit, depending on how one defines new information.

There's that catch 22 again.

In this wise, evolutionists point to some previously unexpressed traits as signs of new information, but our understanding of genomes is still in its infancy. A growing body of evidence shows that inherently original genetic algorithms in genomes cause changes in genetic information or even create information de novo, and shows that inherently original information in a compressed form within genomes can become decompressed and be seen as new. In fact, it seems to me that the changes induced by the latter are not mutations at all, but built-in or preprogrammed alterations of adaptability.

I sense the presence of an intelligent designer in the background. How about you? ;)

Also, the built-in alternatives of homologous recombination effected by crossover events can produce existentially new traits, and these nonrandom events would be indistinguishable from mutations sans the sequencing of the pertinent pieces of DNA .

Evolutionists point to adaptive immunity as an example of new genes (or traits) created by mutation, but this actually entails a mechanism that scrambles DNA modules to generate antibodies for antigens only. These changes occur in a controlled manner, affecting a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only a part of the immune system. These changes are not heritable.

On the DDC model of gene duplication, do the point mutations thereof constitute new information or produce new functions?
Do you agree that the classical model of gene duplication and the adaptive mutations of copies give rise to increased complexity due to the accumulation of the new functions thereof according to evolutionary theory?

I've never looked at the classical model. Or any other model.
I'm just fascinated by the claim that mutations can never add new information.
And the additional claim, not by you, that I've seen, that somehow new information
or new complexity would violate the 2nd law.
Well, I don't what the assertion that "new information or new complexity would violate the 2nd law" even means, so I can't help with that one.

As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?
As for your fascination with the claim that mutations can never add new information, who told you that?

I heard it somewhere around here recently.......


Mutations are not able to add new information to the genome, and are mostly fatal or neutral. Not a single mutation has been observed to cause an increase in the amount of information in a genome.

(17) Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution | Page 15 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


Probably just some joker talking out of his ass.......
When you identify his gaffes, errors and false claims, he adds you to his creepy poetry list.
Lol on the poetry. I think he only writes it to you.

I was hopin' you pop in on this thread because it's good that people naturally are against big corporations with their secret GMO ingredients or feed. It's practically like China to them. Remember I told you who has the power of death? That's right. It is another reason GMO foods are bad for you, but it's practically everywhere.

What am I gonna say? Don't eat it b/c of the boogeyman haha?
LOL on the poetry, yes. I think the boy’s advances toward William Lane Craig have been rejected so he’s on a rebound of sorts.

Who has the power of death? An invented character?
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top