Information and Entropy

[bob b]

I realize that the author of this short article is only a poor electrical engineer and not a real scientist like many here, but I still think it is a pretty good layman's description of things like information and entropy.

http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v10i11f.htm

 

[Dr. Hfuhruhurr]

Unfortunately, and typical of the uninformed creationist, right off the bat Do-While Jones jumps to an absurd conclusion: "Information may be discovered, but it can’t be created. Since it exists now, and can’t be created now, it must have existed since “the beginning.” This is enough to stop me from reading any further, which it did. I'll let others plow through whatever other garbage he may have come up with. It isn't worth my time.

 

[bob b]

Unfortunately, and typical of the uninformed creationist, right off the bat Do-While Jones jumps to an absurd conclusion: "Information may be discovered, but it can’t be created. Since it exists now, and can’t be created now, it must have existed since “the beginning.” This is enough to stop me from reading any further, which it did. I'll let others plow through whatever other garbage he may have come up with. It isn't worth my time.

Good point. Humans seem to be able to create information.

Perhaps others might like to take a shot at pointing out any other errors. After all, that is how science works, isn't it?

 

[Johnny]

Perhaps others might like to take a shot at pointing out any other errors. After all, that is how science works, isn't it?

I always feel that articles such as these are deliberately ambiguous. They seem to be tailored to a) draw big conclusions and b) avoid scrutiny. Maybe I'm just picky, but if you read a scientific paper you'll find that every concept important to the paper's conclusion is carefully described. Definitions are given when necessary, clarifications, etc. I just don't get that feel from a lot of creationist websites.

Genetic mutations cause information to be lost, which generally results in disease or death.​

I skimmed the article quickly, but I didn't see a definition of information on the genetic level. What is new information? What is losing information? Genetic mutations can also add functions. Is that a loss of information? He needs to be more specific here.

Where did the first living things get their information? Evolutionists have to believe (despite all scientific evidence to the contrary) that somehow information naturally collected in a cell, and that information caused the cell to use energy in metabolic and reproductive processes. And then, somehow, information for making cardio-vascular systems just accidentally appeared. Random, unguided processes somehow produced a brain, complete with nerves capable of sensing the environment, and algorithms capable of reacting favorably to that environment. The information for building many different kinds of eyes just happened to flow into the DNA molecule.​

The author implies that the information problem exists beyond abiogenesis, when in reality his argument is really only applicable to it. Replicating protocells have already overcome the informational and thermodynamical hurdle. Also, the author implies that information for making the cardiovascular system just seeped into the cell one day. Not the case, and no evolutionist believes that.

For life to arise naturally, these laws would have to run in reverse. It is difficult (in fact, it is impossible) for a scientist to reconcile the theory of evolution with the laws of thermodynamics and information theory. Remember,​

That's interesting, because the arising of life and the theory of evolution are two different ideas. Darwin did not propose an answer to the ultimate genesis of life, merely the origin of species. An elementary mistake.

 

[aharvey]

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Johnny again."

 

[Yorzhik]

Johnny, have you ever considered a Battle Royal? Would you like to take on Do-While Jones on this topic?

 

[Johnny]

I would love to do a battle royal, but it'd have to be planned around my schedule as it is very demanding while I am in school. (Not to sound selfish, but that's the only way I'd ever have time to take part).

 

[jobeth]

Genetic mutations cause information to be lost, which generally results in disease or death.

I agree. Genetic mutations are ALWAYS detrimental to the organism who has them. People with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people.

Being protected from Malaria does not make you "well" any more than wearing a seat-belt on the way to work does not "save your life" if a twin-tower falls on you while working in your office. One thing has really nothing to do with the other.

 

[Johnny]

Genetic mutations are ALWAYS detrimental to the organism who has them.

That's not true at all.

Being protected from Malaria does not make you "well" any more than wearing a seat-belt on the way to work does not "save your life" if a twin-tower falls on you while working in your office. One thing has really nothing to do with the other.

No one claims having sickle-cell disease makes you "well" or is advantageous.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

I've seen several of you morons offer sickle-cell anemia as an example of a "beneficial" mutation.

 

[Johnny]

I've seen several of you morons offer sickle-cell anemia as an example of a "beneficial" mutation.

And if you had read more carefully, you'd see that what has been argued is that the mutation is beneficial on a populational level, but it comes at the cost of some individuals. No one here will argue that someone with sickle-cell disease is at an advantage. It is unlikely that a child born with sickle-cell disease will survive until the age of reproduction without medical intervention. Nonetheless, on a populational level, the allele is beneficial.

His reasoning was flawed because he was considering a diseased individual rather than a population in which the allele exists. The maximum populational penetrance of the disease is 25% assuming everyone was a heterozygote. However, at this level of penetrance of sickle-cell disease, 75% of the population would be virtually immune to malaria and would show no effects. In this scenario, if malaria kills more than 25% of children before they can reproduce, then the allele is beneficial--even at the cost of sickle-cell individuals.

 

[jobeth]

How come when the skeletons of small humans, like those Hobbits, were found it's talked about and celebrated by Evolutionists, but when skeletons of giant humans are found, they are hidden and never spoken of?

Genetic change is occurring, no doubt. But could it be that those changes are making humans less tall, less strong, shorter-lived,and less intelligent than our forebears, rather than the other way round.

Could it be that people in long ages past actually lived to much greater age, were more agile, both stronger and faster, could see and hear better, and were more intelligent than people are today?

Children are maturing faster than they did in the past. Faster maturation rates are not a good thing.

Isn't it at least possible that the Mutations that we see occurring in human populations are detrimental rather than beneficial to our species?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

And if you had read more carefully, you'd see that what has been argued is that the mutation is beneficial on a populational level, but it comes at the cost of some individuals.

Ah, I see -- now you speak for every argument I've ever read, huh?

No one here will argue that someone with sickle-cell disease is at an advantage.

I've seen it done, Johnny.

It is unlikely that a child born with sickle-cell disease will survive until the age of reproduction without medical intervention. Nonetheless, on a populational level, the allele is beneficial.

I disagree. It's much easier to avoid a malaria-infested area than it is to avoid one's genetic inheritance.

His reasoning was flawed because he was considering a diseased individual rather than a population in which the allele exists.

Whose reasoning? I thought you said nobody was making this argument?

The maximum populational penetrance of the disease is 25% assuming everyone was a heterozygote. However, at this level of penetrance of sickle-cell disease, 75% of the population would be virtually immune to malaria and would show no effects. In this scenario, if malaria kills more than 25% of children before they can reproduce, then the allele is beneficial--even at the cost of sickle-cell individuals.

You don't think it'd be even more beneficial to simply move to another area? I mean, if the local environment is killing 1/4 of the population, then it's time to go somewhere else.

 

[bob b]

The mutation which causes some cave fish to be born blind is also considered to be "beneficial". However it is clearly a loss of information.

In the supposed "march" from bacteria-like organisms to human beings, one would think that "beneficial" mutations like that would not do the job.

That is unless one wishes to argue that human genomes contain less information than those of that hypothetical bacterium-like creature.

On the other hand if one likes the "population" argument I suppose one could argue that since the biomass of all bacteria greatly exceeds the total biomass of all humans, then the sum total of information in the bacterium population could possibly exceed the sum total of information in the human population. Makes one humble don't you think?

 

[One Eyed Jack]

The mutation which causes some cave fish to be born blind is also considered to be "beneficial".

It is -- to a fish that lives its entire life in a lightless environment.

However it is clearly a loss of information.

True. The information for making eyes is either gone, or it isn't being expressed for some reason.

In the supposed "march" from bacteria-like organisms to human beings, one would think that "beneficial" mutations like that would not do the job.

I would think that, but who knows what an evolutionist might think? Maybe Johnny can fill us in.

 

[Ohnos]

The mutation which causes some cave fish to be born blind is also considered to be "beneficial". However it is clearly a loss of information.

No it's not, having eyes actually requires less energy. This also isn't really evolution, and was one of the things that perplexed Dawrin.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

No it's not, having eyes actually requires less energy.

Yes, it does require less energy, but it's still a loss of information.

This also isn't really evolution

If evolution is nothing more than a change in the genes of a population over time (as evolutionists love to claim), then it most certainly is evolution.

 

[Johnny]

Ah, I see -- now you speak for every argument I've ever read, huh?

I've seen it done, Johnny.

Fair enough, I shouldn't generalize for everyone. However, from the other threads here I can't say that I've seen it argued that the diseased individual is better off. As you rightly point out, my experience is limited and there is probably some person out there pushing this idea. However, they do not represent the argument correctly. If someone posts a comment about a common argument, then is it not reasonable to assume that they refer to the correct and accurate version of the argument unless they are specifically quoting someone.

I disagree. It's much easier to avoid a malaria-infested area than it is to avoid one's genetic inheritance.

This is a really poorly constructed argument. First, the population would have to move far away given the widespread incidence of malaria. Second, prior to modern medical though, populations weren't always aware of the causitive agent of disease. Certainly some put 2 and 2 together, but there are plenty of examples where populations simply know no other way of life and were unaware of the cause of the illness. Third, populations can't always pick up and move. Look at any deep african or south american population which deals with high incidence of transmitted infections. Fourth, the allele wouldn't have evolved if there wasn't significant selectional pressure.

Whose reasoning? I thought you said nobody was making this argument?

Jobeth's reasoning. Jobeth wrongly assumed that people claimed that sickle-cell diseased individuals had an advantage. Since he was representing the mainline argument, it is fair to demand that he accurately address the argument.

You don't think it'd be even more beneficial to simply move to another area? I mean, if the local environment is killing 1/4 of the population, then it's time to go somewhere else.

Undboutedly. But you're thinking with a western mindset which makes several assumptions: a) causative agent is identified, b) awareness of other regions which do not have high incidence of disease, c) the ability and desire to move, etc. This is not always the case. We can still (in modern times) find populations which deal with high incidence of transmitted infections and still for whatever reason remain in the area.

 

[Johnny]

No it's not, having eyes actually requires less energy. This also isn't really evolution, and was one of the things that perplexed Dawrin.

It is still evolution.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Fair enough, I shouldn't generalize for everyone. However, from the other threads here I can't say that I've seen it argued that the diseased individual is better off.

I have, but since I realize you don't make arguments like that, I'm willing to drop it.

This is a really poorly constructed argument.

It's simple truth -- you can move away from where you live, but you're stuck with your genes.

First, the population would have to move far away given the widespread incidence of malaria. Second, prior to modern medical though, populations weren't always aware of the causitive agent of disease. Certainly some put 2 and 2 together, but there are plenty of examples where populations simply know no other way of life and were unaware of the cause of the illness. Third, populations can't always pick up and move. Look at any deep african or south american population which deals with high incidence of transmitted infections.

All true.

Fourth, the allele wouldn't have evolved if there wasn't significant selectional pressure.

Natural selection selects, Johnny -- it doesn't create.

Jobeth's reasoning. Jobeth wrongly assumed that people claimed that sickle-cell diseased individuals had an advantage. Since he was representing the mainline argument, it is fair to demand that he accurately address the argument.

How many guys you know named "Jobeth?" I thought you might be talking about Morphy.

Undboutedly. But you're thinking with a western mindset which makes several assumptions: a) causative agent is identified, b) awareness of other regions which do not have high incidence of disease, c) the ability and desire to move, etc. This is not always the case. We can still (in modern times) find populations which deal with high incidence of transmitted infections and still for whatever reason remain in the area.

Kinda like that family in The Hills Have Eyes, huh?