Does anyone believe in Evolution anymore?

[Stripe]

Sure you can . . .
Hybridization and duplication of three very similar grasses gave us . . .

1. That was an informed, intentional change. Random changes never improve data.

2. There was a benefit, but that almost certainly came at a cost to the plant population that far outweighed the slight benefit it gave people. To figure this out: Take only the changed genome and try to remake what you got it from.

 

[Stripe]

Gene duplication and subsequent mutation is one of the most common ways that organisms produce new genes with new information.

Nope. As you learned, the information you refer to is Shannon's, which has no relationship to meaning.

Random changes are always bad for the integrity of a message, no matter what minor benefits you imagine.

 

[chair]

The example was clear that she forgot about milk. The message was improved by the added noise, in this example: "and milk".


Why must a message be preserved? Almost all messages could be improved in some way.

True. I was trying to point out why the shopping list example wasn't good. But it is. Especially if you consider a million men with 'noisy' shopping lists. Some of those lists will be improved over the original.

I sometimes think that recipes can get improved by noise. If 1,000 people bake a cake, and misread or forget or add an ingredients, in some cases you will get a different tasty cake.

 

[Stripe]

Some of those lists will be improved over the original.

None of them.

Random changes always degrade information.

 

[Stripe]

I sometimes think that recipes can get improved by noise. If 1,000 people bake a cake, and misread or forget or add an ingredients, in some cases you will get a different tasty cake.

Take the recipe of the best cakes created in such a way. Put them through the same process again. And again.

The recipe will never go from chocolate cake to carrot (let alone apple crumble, quiche, roast beef or Coca-Cola).

All that will happen is that it will lose ingredients and processes to the point where tasters are judging which raw eggs taste best.

 

[chair]

None of them.

Random changes always degrade information.

Of course they will. Some will include items that the wife forgot to list, or items that would be really nice to have, or she forgot that you already had in the house, or whatever. Of course many lists will be "degraded", and somebody will have to run out again and get a carton of milk. But some will be better lists.

If you use the term "information" to mean "how close is it to an exact copy", then errors will always degrade the list. But let's not use that "information" word at all: will some of the husbands with errors in their list come home with an improved shopping bag? "Improved" meaning that it includes more of the things needed in the house, and less of those not needed- not meaning "matching the list".

Yes, or no?

 

[Stripe]

Of course they will.

You can talk about lists being subjectively improved because the housewife forgot to put milk on it and a mistake put it there, but you cannot improve the meaning of what was communicated by making random changes.

The conflation of these two concepts is a critical part of the Darwinist's argument.

Some will include items that the wife forgot to list, or items that would be really nice to have, or she forgot that you already had in the house, or whatever. Of course many lists will be "degraded", and somebody will have to run out again and get a carton of milk. But some will be better lists.

No information can ever be improved by adding random changes to it.

If you use the term "information" to mean "how close is it to an exact copy", then errors will always degrade the list.

I haven't changed my definition of information since I presented it in this thread and Barbarian demanded that it had to be something else. Information is the a message that has meaning conveyed by a sender to be understood by a receiver.

Under this definition, the housewife can't send an erroneous message and have it improved by random changes to what she actually meant; that would just be the happy coincidence that the intended meaning was conveyed, not that it was improved.

But let's not use that "information" word at all.

That's the whole challenge. Evolution relies on random mutations improving the genome. Random changes can never improve information.

You don't avoid the challenge by refusing to talk about it.

Will some of the husbands with errors in their list come home with an improved shopping bag?

The housewife might be happier in some circumstances than others.

"Improved" meaning that it includes more of the things needed in the house, and less of those not needed- not meaning "matching the list".

Yes, or no?

It's possible, even certain.

But that's not an answer to the challenge.

What is missing from the shopping list analogy is the reproduction process. Say we have a woman tapping on a smartphone (which has autocorrect). Which family is more likely to "survive"? The one that makes more mistakes, or the one that makes fewer?

 

[Stripe]

The word information, in this theory, is used in a special sense that must not be confused with its ordinary usage. In particular, [Shannon] information must not be confused with meaning.

The challenge to evolution is from information in the sense that it conveys meaning.

Darwinists must attempt to define challenges out of existence. They cannot face them head on.

 

[chair]

I haven't changed my definition of information since I presented it in this thread and Barbarian demanded that it had to be something else. Information is the a message that has meaning conveyed by a sender to be understood by a receiver.

Under this definition, the housewife can't send an erroneous message and have it improved by random changes to what she actually meant; that would just be the happy coincidence that the intended meaning was conveyed, not that it was improved.

Which is why I specifically avoided using the term "information in my previous post.
Can an error in a shopping list result in a more accurate shopping list? No, it can't. That is what you keep repeating. And of course I agree with you.
Can an error in a shopping list result in a better shopping result? Yes. It can. Do you agree with this?

 

[Stripe]

Which is why I specifically avoided using the term "information in my previous post.

You can't address the challenge by refusing to talk about it.

Can an error in a shopping list result in a better shopping result? Yes. It can. Do you agree with this?

No.

Can an error in a genome result in a better genome? No. Errors don't make things better, they make them worse.

Darwinists can create thought experiments in which a mistake can be convenient or beneficial in contrived and rare circumstances, but that is not addressing the challenge.

The No. 1 challenge to evolution is that information — the structure of the supposed universal genome in this case — would always be degraded by random changes.

There is no pathway from goo, rocks and electricity — and whatever else they imagine was around — to people posting on TOL via mistakes to the code that built us.

Random changes are always bad for information. No exceptions.

The problem with the shopping list analogy is that it doesn't address the issue of reproduction. That's where the errors have to be inserted. Typically with these examples, Darwinists say that there are random changes going on, but they aren't at the structural level. They're to some tacked-on side process. For example, Barbarian loves to talk about genetic algorithms as if there were no code being designed and ignoring the fact that for a correct analogy to evolution, the programmers would be allowing random changes to it.

 

[chair]

You can't address the challenge by refusing to talk about it.



No.

Can an error in a genome result in a better genome? No. Errors don't make things better, they make them worse.

Darwinists can create thought experiments in which a mistake can be convenient or beneficial in contrived and rare circumstances, but that is not addressing the challenge.

The No. 1 challenge to evolution is that information — the structure of the supposed universal genome in this case — would always be degraded by random changes.

There is no pathway from goo, rocks and electricity — and whatever else they imagine was around — to people posting on TOL via mistakes to the code that built us.

Random changes are always bad for information. No exceptions.

The problem with the shopping list analogy is that it doesn't address the issue of reproduction. That's where the errors have to be inserted. Typically with these examples, Darwinists say that there are random changes going on, but they aren't at the structural level. They're to some tacked-on side process. For example, Barbarian loves to talk about genetic algorithms as if there were no code being designed and ignoring the fact that for a correct analogy to evolution, the programmers would be allowing random changes to it.

Slow down. Just think about the shopping list example- we'll get to whether it is a decent analogy later.
You sincerely think think that there is no situations where an error in transmitting the shopping list will result in a better shopping result, even though the message got garbled?

 

[The Barbarian]

Since there are numerous examples of favorable mutations, there's really no point in denying that they happen.

It must be very sad and discouraging to be a YE creationist. No wonder they're crabby all the time.

 

[The Barbarian]

(Claim that a shopping list analogy is that it doesn't address the issue of reproduction, assuming that's where the errors have to be inserted.)

That's also wrong. For example,"identical twins" aren't completely identical. Mutations in the fertilized egg still happen, after reproduction, and they can make important changes.

(claim that favorable changes aren't "structural")

I'd say a new digestive organ would be "structural." And we've seen that evolve in a population of lizards left in a new environment. Surely larger and stronger muscles are structural,and we have seen that appear in humans due to mutations involving the myostatin gene.

(claim that they are only in "tacked-on side processes)

I never thought of digestion as a "tacked-on side process." For most animals, eating is not an optional feature.

(complaint that genetic algorithms have code that doesn't change)

Which would be like saying, "sure, evolution works, but what if God hadn't created the universe to be constant and unchanging in its basic laws?"

(insists that the code, which is like nature's physical constants, has to change)

What would happen if physical constants changed randomly? Would evolution still work then?

"If the laws of nature kept changing, then you wouldn't have evolution." Not a very good argument, is it?

Genetic algorithms copy nature, which is why the rules have to remain constant and not change randomly.

It would be possible to write a genetic algorithm in LISP, and let the program itself mutate into different versions, keeping only the survivors that produced output.

Which would then be simulating cosmology. How well, I can't say. My thought is that God did it the way He wanted, the first time. But then, I'm not a YE creationist.

 

[The Barbarian]

Cultivated strawberries are octoploid (have eight copies of their entire genome!).

Along the Mississippi, in Iowa and Illinois, you can find wild strawberries on the bluffs along the river. They are intensely sweet with a very good strawberry flavor, but they are small and softer than commercial strawberries, to the point that few people go out picking them. For a 12-year-old kid, it was worth remembering where they could be found. So I guess they must be diploid.

 

[Stripe]

There are numerous examples of favorable mutations.

And yet random changes can never improve information.

Darwinists will do everything they can to conflate these two radically different ideas.

Even to the point where they will say that everything is viable.

There's really no point in denying that they happen.

Of course there is.

1. It sends Darwinists into a rage. :up:
2. It focuses the discussion on the actual challenge that was issued.

It must be very sad and discouraging to be a Darwinist. No wonder they're crabby all the time.

 

[Right Divider]

Even to the point where they will say that everything is viable.

Remember when they used to say "With enough time anything is possible"? :chuckle:

 

[Stripe]

For example,"identical twins" aren't completely identical. Mutations in the fertilized egg still happen, after reproduction, and they can make important changes.

No, that's also wrong.

I'd say a new digestive organ would be "structural." And we've seen that evolve in a population of lizards left in a new environment. Surely larger and stronger muscles are structural,and we have seen that appear in humans due to mutations involving the myostatin gene.

No, that's also wrong.

I never thought of digestion as a "tacked-on side process." For most animals, eating is not an optional feature.

No, that's also wrong.

Which would be like saying, "sure, evolution works, but what if God hadn't created the universe to be constant and unchanging in its basic laws?"

No, that's also wrong.

What would happen if physical constants changed randomly? Would evolution still work then?"If the laws of nature kept changing, then you wouldn't have evolution." Not a very good argument, is it?Genetic algorithms copy nature, which is why the rules have to remain constant and not change randomly.

No, that's also wrong.

It would be possible to write a genetic algorithm in LISP, and let the program itself mutate into different versions, keeping only the survivors that produced output.

Exactly. This is what Darwinists say happened to the genome. Obviously, that would produce nonsense from a well-designed genome and produce nothing from the rocks, goo and electricity Darwinists say preceded life.

It's not often that evolutionists so utterly destroy their own worldview, but Barbarian has a knack for wandering head-first into complete self-contradiction.

Which would then be simulating cosmology. How well, I can't say. My thought is that God did it the way He wanted, the first time. But then, I'm not a YE creationist.

No, that's also wrong.

You're not even trying anymore, are you?

 

[Yorzhik]

True. I was trying to point out why the shopping list example wasn't good. But it is. Especially if you consider a million men with 'noisy' shopping lists. Some of those lists will be improved over the original.

I sometimes think that recipes can get improved by noise. If 1,000 people bake a cake, and misread or forget or add an ingredients, in some cases you will get a different tasty cake.

Great. Then let's try this in practice. Let's take a population of messages, add random mutation, and see what improves.

Since we cannot review the volume of texts a computer could generate, let's use the world to review them for us. This proposal would rely on google ads. We'll take text ads and add random mutation, and then see what ads improve conversion from the original. We could even purposefully create poor ads to give them obvious room for improvement. We could even create ads with 1 or two typos already in them to see how quickly they go back to the original no-typo version.

Does that sound like a reasonable experiment? Can you think of any better ways to do it?

 

[The Barbarian]

Remember when they used to say "With enough time anything is possible"? :chuckle:

YE creationists used to say that. It's another one of those misconceptions they have about science. That's why you won't see it in the literature; it's just a story YE creationists tell each other.

But they got burned so often using it, that most of them are smart enough to avoid it when talking to scientists.

Edit: I think your confusion here is dealing with infinity in probability. If you can get your head around the fact that 1/infinity is equal to 100,000,000/infinity, your problem would go away.

 

[The Barbarian]

Great. Then let's try this in practice. Let's take a population of messages, add random mutation, and see what improves.

Since we cannot review the volume of texts a computer could generate, let's use the world to review them for us. This proposal would rely on google ads. We'll take text ads and add random mutation, and then see what ads improve conversion from the original. We could even purposefully create poor ads to give them obvious room for improvement. We could even create ads with 1 or two typos already in them to see how quickly they go back to the original no-typo version.

Does that sound like a reasonable experiment? Can you think of any better ways to do it?

Sort of like the first guy to say, "hey, maybe if we put some of these pepper things that make your mouth hurt, into the stew, it would taste better."

Genetic algorithms do exactly what you're proposing. So did guys constructing steam engines back when they were first introduced. They were just fiddling around, trying to find the best way. Sometimes, they blew up. Sometimes they functioned poorly. If one worked better than before, everyone incorporated the change into their models. People just tried various things to make them work. It was over a hundred years later that Sadi Carnot figured out the theory to explain how to maximize efficiency of a heat engine.

Ironically, one of the first uses of genetic algorithms was to optimize diesel engines. And random changes with natural selection turned out to work better than design.

Because turbulence is a lot harder to understand than heat.