Real Science Radio CRSQ (Vol 43, Num 1)

[Bob Enyart]

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

Johnny, if you think you've exonerated yourself with your defense, then there's no more I can do here.

I'm done for now. Also, I'll be leaving my signature as is for now.

Please feel free to call into the show. I'm thankful you tried today, and sorry that the show was pre-produced.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart

 

[Johnny]

Johnny, if you think you've exonerated yourself with your defense, then there's no more I can do here.

You could respond to it stating why I am wrong. Do you deny that evolution, based on natural selection, is all about reproductive success? Just answer that one question for me.

If yes, then you are redefining the theory, contradicting repeatable observation, and being outright illogical.

If no, then evolution is not about increasing information, its about reproductive success. That may include increasing information. It may not.

It's really that simple.

 

[Stratnerd]

Johnny is obviously talking about the evolution in "real time" and BobE is obviously referring to evolution as a historical observation going from bacterium to babe ruth.

In these senses both are right.

Organisms are evoling regardless of net changes in information however, in the history of the planet there has been an increase in information.

I get and I think most people do (they should) .

 

[Johnny]

Organisms are evoling regardless of net changes in information however, in the history of the planet there has been an increase in energy.

Indeed, and Bob should note that I am not saying that there hasn't been a trend towards increasing complexity or increasing organization (both of which might be defined as increases in information)--because there has been a strong trend in that direction as organisms "invent" (please note that I use the word retrospectively) new adaptations. I am speaking of evolution as a process that each population on the planet goes through. In this sense, there is no arrow defining which way is evolution. Both the increase and decrease of complexity or organization of a population is defined as evolution because both changes can and are the result of natural selection. This is true by definition.

My point and the original reason I brought this up was because the creationist terms "uphill" and "downhill" are irrelevant when discussing the evolution of a population because either way is defined as evolution. So it doens't matter if Bob B or Bob E assert that sickle-trait is "downhill" or "deterioration" (though I emphatically disagree). It's evolution no matter which supposed direction it goes in. That was the whole point: increasing or decreasing the information content is not and has never been a criteria in determining whether or not a population is evolving.

 

[bob b]

Indeed, and Bob should note that I am not saying that there hasn't been a trend towards increasing complexity or increasing organization (both of which might be defined as increases in information)--because there has been a strong trend in that direction as organisms "invent" (please note that I use the word retrospectively) new adaptations. I am speaking of evolution as a process that each population on the planet goes through. In this sense, there is no arrow defining which way is evolution. Both the increase and decrease of complexity or organization of a population is defined as evolution because both changes can and are the result of natural selection. This is true by definition.

My point and the original reason I brought this up was because the creationist terms "uphill" and "downhill" are irrelevant when discussing the evolution of a population because either way is defined as evolution. So it doens't matter if Bob B or Bob E assert that sickle-trait is "downhill" or "deterioration" (though I emphatically disagree). It's evolution no matter which supposed direction it goes in. That was the whole point: increasing or decreasing the information content is not and has never been a criteria in determining whether or not a population is evolving.

Whether or not something fits one of the many "definitions" of evolution is somewhat of a moot point if the critical disagreement is whether "bacterium to Babe Ruth" is true or not.

If this latter thesis is true then there should be a continuous geneology from that first bacterium (or whatever it was) to a human being.

If that first bacterium had less information in its presumed genome than that of a human being then it follows logically that the additional information must have accumulated over time in the genomes of the presumed ancestors of that human being, going all the way back to that first bacterium.

So far this point has been studiously ignored. I wonder why that is?

 

[Stratnerd]

BobB,

What are you talking about? Both Johnny and I have acknowledged the fact that there's increasing inforrmation in the bacteria-to-babe scenario!

 

[Stratnerd]

BobE,

Again I'll ask, what is your definition of information, how do you measure it, etc and what would be an acceptle example of increasing biological information?

Are you saying that increasing information can't happen? Based on what?

 

[bob b]

BobB,

What are you talking about? Both Johnny and I have acknowledged the fact that there's increasing inforrmation in the bacteria-to-babe scenario!

Good for you two, but fool hasn't conceded yet.

 

[Stratnerd]

Neat. What does that have to do with anything other than a really LAME excuse not to engage in some meaningful debate!?

 

[Morphy]

Dear Bob,

One more question about the sickle cell anemia:
You used to work for Mc Donnel Douglas so it is an excellent example:

F-15 as a regular hemoglobine

F-117 Stealth as a hemoglobine S

There are no doubts:

F-117 is slower than F-15, carries less weapon, will loose a direct dogfight, is much more difficult to flight and costs muuuuuch more.

Regular hemoglobine is better than hemoglobine S (sickle cell anemia).

There is only one improvement of F-117 in comparison to F-15: it is a stealth "invisible" airplane. All other specifics are either worse or much worse than F-15.

There is just one improvement of Hb S in comparison to regular hemoglobine: it is "invisible" to malaria.

According to Bob Enyart, Hb S is broken. Sir, do you also think F-117 is broken and doesn't work? Maybe USAF shouldn't buy any more F-117s and turn to F-15s again?



BTW: you didn't respond to my argument:
It is the very nature (or God if you wish) which decided wheter Hbs is an improvement or not: if it wasn't an improvement it would be as rare as it is in Europe. Since it is relatively common in Africa it gives some advantage thus IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT. Just like F-117 is an improvement in comparison to F-15, although all specifics are worse instead of "invisibility" to the enemy (BTW: HbS is also invisible to the enemy - plasmodium).

In this list, Morphy, I don't believe you have distinguished between existing resistance, and *gained* resistance.

Obviously I did: that's why I didn't say that, for example, bacteria without cell wall are resistant to antibiotics damaging it.

I listed only possible ways of getting resistance. At least some of them - nobody knows if bacteria are not evolving a new way of cheating us at this very moment. Unfortunately, probably they do since evolution works 24/7... it doesn't have any lunch breaks, bed rests and it doesn't relax on 7th day...

Also, when bacteria rapidly gain resistance, that is an indication that they are implementing a pre-programmed defense mechanism.

True, the defense mechanisms are mutation and evolution.

Pay attention: it is possible to create an organism where virtually all mutations are repaired, but we haven't found even one. It proves us mutations on a small scale are positive: they are responsible for progress and improvements, wheter you like it or not.

A defense of evolution is that it works so slowly that we cannot see it.

False. The bigger the organism the slower the evolution. The smaller the organism the faster the evolution. Look at HIV evolution - it is so rapid since the virus commits plenty of mistakes during replication. That's why we keep isolating more and more new strains of viruses, some of them quite remote to the original HIV...

I bet you before we die scientists will discover brand new species of bacteria and viruses which evolved during our lives.

There's a million species in the world. So even if significant evolution took 100,000 years within a single species,

False thesis. See above.

since we're watching a million species worldwide, that should produce constant, dramatic, visible evolutionary changes in mammals, reptiles, birds, plants, etc., such that ten times every year, we should see new functioning organs, limbs, senses, etc., developing in species that had lacked such functionality.

We would but there is one problem: there are plenty of living organisms today and it is very difficult to find new food or shelter. When a major disaster happens (like 65 millions years ago) and 80-90% species will die out you will see HUGE eruption of new species.

Evolution always thrives after massive catastrophes since it leaves vast areas to inhabit (Latin: natura horret vacuum )

But back to bacteria, when they consistently gain rapid resistance (especially in similar ways in separate populations), that is evidence not of random chance over a thousand generations, but of preprogrammed response to a threat, similar to how our immune system is programmed to adapt to never-before-seen pathogens.

False again.

Immunologic system can destroy new pathogens NOT because of spontanic mutations. It can because it is programmed to destroy every cell which doesn't have right peptides (a specific 'ID') exposed on a cell membrane. It has nothing to do with mutations.

Gaining resistance of bacteria has a lot to do with mutations, thus your comparison may seem right to a layman, but it is far, far from the truth.

Same answer as above. Also, Morphy, again, I suggest Spetner's book, which answers many of your questions with a biophysicist's expertise. (My copy of his book has disappeared, but if you'd like to read it, I'll buy two and send you one.) Remember, he was with the Applied Physics Laboratory at John Hopkins University and reading his book enable you to understand the details of the creationist argument as presented by an undisputed expert.

Bob, with all the respect, it is not Spetner who is responsible for Bob Enyart Live, it is you, thus you should be able to defend your own position. I'm asking you personally why you attack evolution with false arguments and theses and I like to hear a defence from you.

Thanks, -Bob Enyart

No, the pleasure is mine. Really

 

[Morphy]

Indeed, and Bob should note that I am not saying that there hasn't been a trend towards increasing complexity or increasing organization (both of which might be defined as increases in information)--because there has been a strong trend in that direction as organisms "invent" (please note that I use the word retrospectively) new adaptations. I am speaking of evolution as a process that each population on the planet goes through. In this sense, there is no arrow defining which way is evolution. Both the increase and decrease of complexity or organization of a population is defined as evolution because both changes can and are the result of natural selection. This is true by definition.

My point and the original reason I brought this up was because the creationist terms "uphill" and "downhill" are irrelevant when discussing the evolution of a population because either way is defined as evolution. So it doens't matter if Bob B or Bob E assert that sickle-trait is "downhill" or "deterioration" (though I emphatically disagree). It's evolution no matter which supposed direction it goes in. That was the whole point: increasing or decreasing the information content is not and has never been a criteria in determining whether or not a population is evolving.

There is one more thing Bob seems to forget about: nothing in this world comes for free (I don't know if heaven is diffrent )

If there is a bigger organism it needs more food and wastes more resorces, thus it's functionality may seem worse. That is why Bob denies some obviously positive mutations to be improvements. Problem is every improvement comes at a price: just like you can have a faster car, but it will take money, time and more gasoline.

You may have sickle cell anemia resistant to malaria, but it comes with a price to pay.

 

[Johnny]

If that first bacterium had less information in its presumed genome than that of a human being then it follows logically that the additional information must have accumulated over time in the genomes of the presumed ancestors of that human being, going all the way back to that first bacterium.

So far this point has been studiously ignored. I wonder why that is?

Could you state that another way? I am not sure what you mean.

 

[Bob Enyart]

I can't evolve Why not? It's about size... it's about space.... it's about time I

I can't evolve Why not? It's about size... it's about space.... it's about time I

Morphy, you quoted me saying: “There's a million species in the world. So even if significant evolution took 100,000 years within a single species,”

And then you in mid sentence, you interrupted and Morphy declared: “False thesis.”

Okaaay.

And your reason was: “See above.” Which I think referred to your immediately preceding comment that: “The bigger the organism the slower the evolution.”

But surely there is some time frame in which evolution claims that larger organisms experience significant evolution. Human beings are larger than (what? I’m guessing) 99% of non-tree species. And yet, we supposedly evolved from Australopithecus to sapiens in just a few million years. A few percent genetic variation equals millions of base pair changes (the known genetic variation from primate has grown since a decade ago). So, the apostles of evolution have this massive tension that they seem to ignore, that evolution happens s-o s-l-o-w-l-y that we can’t see it (especially for big species like us), yet in only a few million years, millions of genetic changes occurred, with the vast majority of them propagated through virtually the entire population. So, significant evolution cannot happen slower that the 100,000 years I graciously allotted it, even for a relatively huge species like us. And thus, since we’re monitoring a million species a year, we should see frequent examples of significant evolution, across the kingdoms.

I think I’ve sufficiently refuted your claim that we cannot see evolution happening annually anywhere but in microorganisms because of the size of the other organisms, I’ll now address your other, even less tenable excuse.

Morphy: “We would [see annual examples of significant evolution throughout nature] but there is one problem: there are plenty of living organisms today and it is very difficult to find new food or shelter. When a major disaster happens (like 65 millions years ago) and 80-90% species will die out you will see HUGE eruption of new species. Evolution always thrives after massive catastrophes since it leaves vast areas to inhabit (Latin: natura horret vacuum )”

I know you’ve flown in airplanes. Have you observed the terrain beneath you? Have you ever flown over the Atlantic? The Pacific? Butterflies in the Amazon are not prevented from enjoying the glory of evolving new capabilities, let’s say, chameleon camouflage, just because there are too many lizards out to get them. And I thought that mankind was destroying the ecosystem at an unprecedented rate. Gone are the buffalo, the dodo birds, the condor, deforestation, and the loss of over a thousand species a day. Gee, you’d think mother nature would be begging for mutated offspring to jumpstart the next diversification wave.

Size isn’t the reason we don’t see many significant examples of evolution every year among plants and animals, since huge humans supposedly evolved very rapidly over just the last few million years (and we’re only one species among a million). And lack of opportunity is not the reason those millions of species don’t evolve new abilities (as though overcrowding discourages the mushrooms in a meadow in Yellowstone from developing a new method of seed distribution). Morphy, these are not scientific explanations. Have you ever rigorously challenged these excuses you’ve heard? Because now, you repeat them without ever having attempted to falsify them, and that is not science, but public relations spin.

Morphy, I have NOT done justice to your posts, because I don’t have the time to deal with all your interesting points. But I’ll address this next one, which you’ve confused. Perhaps it’s because English is not your first language (although your mastery of it is better than many in Colorado ), but you misunderstood my point, turning it backwards. I did not mistakenly think that our immune system adjusts to varying threats by mutation. Rather, our system is designed to meet and adjust to varying threats, even ones never before seen. I am arguing that in various cases, pathogens seem to behave the same way, responding not by chance fortuitous mutation, but in a pre-programmed way to meet a new threat to its own existence.

So you wrote, “False again. Immunologic system can destroy new pathogens NOT because of spontanic mutations. It can because it is programmed to destroy every cell which doesn't have right peptides (a specific 'ID') exposed on a cell membrane. It has nothing to do with mutations.”

So my point still stands, unrefuted:

But back to bacteria, when they consistently gain rapid resistance (especially in similar ways in separate populations), that is evidence not of random chance over a thousand generations, but of preprogrammed response to a threat, similar to how our immune system is programmed to adapt to never-before-seen pathogens.

Morphy, if I use a wrong term, etc., I’d be thrilled if you corrected the term, but then still considered the argument. I’m not a scientist, nor a doctor, but just the pastor of a Bible church.

Thanks,

-Bob Enyart

 

[Johnny]

But back to bacteria, when they consistently gain rapid resistance (especially in similar ways in separate populations), that is evidence not of random chance over a thousand generations, but of preprogrammed response to a threat

If it's a preprogrammed response then we should see all bacterial cells developing resistant offspring. Instead, in a population of a few billion cells, we often find that the resistant strain originates from a single cell that happened to be resistant. What kind of pre-programmed response only works once out of every few billion attempts?

 

[Johnny]

And thus, since we’re monitoring a million species a year, we should see frequent examples of significant evolution, across the kingdoms.

What?? Consider a population of one million growing teenage boys--all growing at different rates. Let's assume the boys grow for 10 years. We are allotted 0.0001% (I took 100 years of monitoring / 1 million years of evolution--generous figure for the divergence of apes and man) of those 10 years to watch them grow. That's a 52 minute snapshot of one million teenage boys. How many boys will we visibly see growing [based on simple observation]?

 

[Stratnerd]

Great point! Certainly we can get an estimate of mutation rate, and see if it changes during the experimental period. I'm sure it's been done.

Preprogrammed also suggests that bacteria know what's coming and just hand on to different genes. And what if they're challenged by something novel? Could they premeditate a change in genotype? Good examples are bacteria that are used to degrade toxic chemicals. Hard to imagine bacteria holding on to paint-thinner degrading genes for thousands of years knowing the navy would have some spillage.

Then again, maybe metachlorions are bacteria and are real!

May the farce be with you!

 

[Johnny]

Great point! Certainly we can get an estimate of mutation rate, and see if it changes during the experimental period. I'm sure it's been done.

It has been done many times. In the mid to late 90s there was a lot of debate and intense research surrounding the concept of bacteria hypermutating under stress. What was happening was bacterial cells were becoming resistant faster than classical mutation rates could account for. In one form of quinolone [antibacterial] resistance, P. aeruginosa bacteria co-mutated both topoisomerase and MDR genes. Statistically speaking, there weren't enough bacteria in a single human host that could account for the mutation occuring. Research published in '96 showed that this seemed to occur often. Scientists had a problem. However, in '98 there was a publication [see below for reference] that demonstrated the existence of a sub-population of hypermutable cells with high genome-wide mutation rates. There is still some residual debate over the topic. Certainly the idea that bacteria specifically hypermutate in specific regions of the genome that code for the antibiotics targets is no longer considered viable. Research has shown that the hypermutability is nonspecific and a challenging substrate is not even necessary to induce it. Further, many authors argue that there is simply a pre-existing subset of hypermutable mutants in any given bacterial population and these are most likely to produce viable offspring. Thus, as a population grows on a plate coated with an antibacterial agent, the hypermutable population increases its numbers exponentially as a function of time, while the normal population begins to die off. This gives the appearance of stress-induced hypermutation, but in reality its just an entirely expected consequence of natural selection. It's all very interesting and there's sill a lot of different opinions on the matter.

Torkelson, J., Harris, R. S., Lombardo, M. J., Nagendran, J., Thulin, C. & Rosenberg, S. M. (1997). Genome-wide hypermutation in a subpopulation of stationary-phase cells underlies recombination-dependent adaptive mutation. EMBO J 16, 3303-3311

 

[Bob Enyart]

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

Johnny: "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

Johnny, I realized you've tried, with help from your friends, to finesse yourself out of your unscientific statement that "Evolution is not about 'an increase in information.'"

But if you will go further, and actually retract that statement (which is what you should do since it is indefensible) then I will be able to remove your quote from my signature, and end my own personal embargo against your posts .

-Bob Enyart

 

[Stratnerd]

:doh: His statement was conditional on the context of evolution and admitted that information increased in the sense that you were talking about.

What don't you understand????????

 

[Johnny]

I'm not trying to finesse out of anything. I don't play that game. If I've said something that is later shown to be wrong, then I retract what I have said. I have gone to some length to explain my position, but I don't feel like you've given me the same courtesy. Why on this forum is it always the evolutionist trying to clearly deliniate their ideas and expose their line of thinking as clearly as possible? I laid it all out. Why do creationists offer no debate and no rebuttals? You simply insist that I am wrong completely ignoring what I have said. You have not challenged me. You have not asked me any questions. You have not asked for me to clarify my reasoning. You did not ask for an explanation. But I gave you all of the above, and yet you ignore my direct request for your position and reasoning.