Can DNA information increase w/o intelligence?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
'Complexity' is another of those undefined terms used in this claim. That doesn't help me. Note the definition I gave is in terms of something physical and quantifiable - something one can do experiments to examine (base pairs and genes).
'Complexity', 'information', 'de-evolution' vs 'evolution'...these things can't be examined experi ...[text shortened]... devise an objective test which would show whether an event is 'evolution' or 'de-evolution'?

If evolution or TOE is a movement towards complexity and new
information, what is de-evolution something heading the other
way? We see loss of information; we see decay that is something
that is clearly shown throughout the entire universe. If one can be
shown and the other not, why is the one that is not shown is the
one that is believed in?
Kelly

Originally posted by frogstomp
thie is one piece of the puzzle

"A number of experimental studies seem to indicate that epigenetic inheritance plays a part in the evolution of complex organisms. For example, Tremblay et al. (ref. 3), have shown that methylation differences between maternally and paternally inherited alleles of the mouse H19 gene are preserved. There are also nume ...[text shortened]... but it allows for EISs to play direct evolutionary roles."

and that's NOT speculation

Excuse me, you said, "...and that's NOT speculation" ,but what you
had talked about was filled with terms like "seems to indicate",
"seems to exist", "can be explained by", "allowing for minor" all of
those words seem to me that there is indeed quite a bit of speculation
going on with your point.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If evolution or TOE is a movement towards complexity and new
information, what is de-evolution something heading the other
way? We see loss of information; we see decay that is something
that is clearly shown throughout the entire unive ...[text shortened]... the one that is not shown is the
one that is believed in?
Kelly

Kelly...I've been spending this entire thread asking someone to define 'complexity' and 'information' - describing 'evolution' vs 'de-evolution' in terms of these words does not clear anything up. We're going around in circles.

I don't necessarily agree that the TOE describes movement towards 'complexity' and 'new information' unless you define these terms. I don't see 'loss of information' or 'decay' necessarily; I am aware that there is a net increase in entropy in any closed system. 'Entropy' and 'closed system' are rigorously defined words in physics.

If one can be shown and the other not, why is the one that is not shown is the one that is believed in?

What exactly can be shown, and what exactly cannot be shown? I think you're saying it can be shown that entropy increases in any closed system. That's the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and the 2nd Law is not in conflict with the Theory of Evolution.

EDIT - Here's an article that should explain why in detail if anyone wants to know more. I haven't read this article entirely, but I've found this site to be a reliable source in general. I can also talk about why the TOE and the 2nd Law are not incompatible, if anyone doesn't want to bother reading the article and doesn't believe me.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Kelly...I've been spending this entire thread asking someone to define 'complexity' and 'information' - describing 'evolution' vs 'de-evolution' in terms of these words does not clear anything up. We're going around in cir ...[text shortened]... things to break down in the universe. There is no conflict there.

I show them a mechanism that causes passing new "information" to the next generation and they play word games.

Their entrophy argument is really a 4 term fallacy: i.e. the entropy of "applied Physics" is not the same thing as entrophy in "theoretical physics", but that's not entirely their fault, some blame has to fall on science for the invention of the "Vacuum Force" to explain "Inflation" . Whereas it seems more logical an explaination is simply that closer proximity to the singularity of the universe's gravitation field creates a greater decelerating force ,add that factor to differences in total time the field has been exerted on the observed and the observer and you see quite easily that "inflation" is merely an illusion.

On earth the force of gravity is outside the system..in the Cosmos however gravitation is inside. and vt will always be overtaken by gt^2

at least in my humble opinion

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Kelly...I've been spending this entire thread asking someone to define 'complexity' and 'information' - describing 'evolution' vs 'de-evolution' in terms of these words does not clear anything up. We're going around in cir ...[text shortened]...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html

I think you are discovering the difficulty of arguing for the Theory of Evolution. It is because the TOE is so broadly and vaguely defined that one can not look at the so called details and really say they support the theory. It's one of the major flaws of TOE.

Look a physics and chemistry, and you can examine theories in detail, because they are very clear and precise. They are falsifiable, observable, testable. That is not really the case with TOE. All the test and observations purported as support of TOE only do so because the definition of TOE is so vague. And because it is so vague, the same data can be used to dispute it.

Few people look at the TOE with any critical thought. Most people believe it on face value and take the word of other believers in TOE as authority. But if one looks critically at the concept of the TOE, one can immediately see that it is a terrible theory on the principles of science. Had it not had the political and popular support it does, it would have been thrown out a long time ago.

There is too much good scientific research going on in biology for it to be polluted with this vague concept. I think it hinders the work of science - and makes it less objective. It's a useless distraction - so much so they practically everyone in the field of biology has given up in really attempting to prove it. They don't care. There are better things to do.

Originally posted by Coletti
I think you are discovering the difficulty of arguing for the Theory of Evolution. It is because the TOE is so broadly and vaguely defined that one can not look at the so called details and really say they support the theory. It's one of ...[text shortened]... ng to prove it. They don't care. There are better things to do.

I think you are changing the subject.

I am saying that the claim that 'information cannot increase without intelligent intervention' is false. This claim can be false, and the TOE also false for a different reason. I am trying to show only why this one argument that the TOE is not possible is not a valid argument. This does not mean the TOE is true.

There have been a number of threads in which the TOE as a whole is challenged or defended; this is not one of them, except indirectly.

Coletti, do you accept that this argument (about the possibility of information increase) against the TOE is invalid without further clarification of terms?

Originally posted by Coletti
I think you are discovering the difficulty of arguing for the Theory of Evolution. It is because the TOE is so broadly and vaguely defined that one can not look at the so called details and really say the support the theory. It's one of the major flaws of TOE.

Look a physics and chemistry, and you can examine theories in detail, because they are very c ...[text shortened]... as given up in really attempting to prove it. They don't care. There are better things to do.

what I posted to you about epigenetics is ongoing work in the field you seem to think science has given up investigating.

The history of the TOE is one of science looking for the mechanism of change, all the while being subjected to an intense propaganda campaign by religion.
Radiation wasn't the first explaination proposed as the cause of mutation , but since radition does cause mutation it's still a likely factor in evolution, a combination of radiation and epigeneticly rearranged "markers" is possibly where the TOE is heading.


"Nowadays, the idea of passing on to offspring characteristics that were acquired during an organism's lifetime is called Lamarckian. This view was, until very recently, thought to be completely inconsistent with modern genetics, but recent discoveries, as discussed in the article on epigenetic inheritance, show that this is not quite the case. So there may be room for some sort of Lamarckian evolution after all...."

"Darwin not only praised Lamarck in the third edition of The Origin of Species for supporting the concept of evolution and bringing it to the attention of others, but also accepted the idea of use and disuse, and developed his theory of pangenesis partially to explain its apparent occurrence. Darwin and many contemporaries also believed in the inheritance of acquired characteristics, an idea that was much more plausible before the discovery of the cellular mechanisms for genetic transmission. (Darwin, incidentally, acknowledged his theory would remain somewhat incomplete if the mechanism for inheritance could not be discovered.)"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarck

doesnt "until very recently" indicate that science really does care?

Originally posted by Coletti
I think you are discovering the difficulty of arguing for the Theory of Evolution. It is because the TOE is so broadly and vaguely defined that one can not look at the so called details and really say they support the theory. It's one of ...[text shortened]... ng to prove it. They don't care. There are better things to do.

By the way, I am looking at the TOE critically by examining carefully this claim that the TOE cannot possibly be true. If I weren't critical, I would just make fun of creationists and chuckle with other smug, uncritical evolutionists. If this claim can be made more solid, clear and definite, and I cannot refute it, then this will be very strong evidence - possibly overwhelming evidence - that the TOE cannot be true. However no one seems able or willing to do so, and the argument now is meaningless though it sounds kind of impressive to the uncritical ear.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Coletti, do you accept that this argument (about the possibility of information increase) against the TOE is invalid without further clarification of terms?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do I accept that information can increase without intelligent interventions?

1) yes if you mean information that is caused by mutations that may add data (or may subtract data) and is not an clear indication of the vague theory of evolution.

2) no if information means a clear indication or proof of the theory of evolution.

Are you taking information in the first sense? Then you have to disregard the intent of the author - who means information in the second sense.

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do I accept that information can increase without intelligent interventions?

1) yes if you mean information that is caused by mutations that may add data (or may subtract data) and is not an clear indication of the vague theory of evolution.

2) no if information means a clear indication or proof of the theory ...[text shortened]... Then you have to disregard the intent of the author - who means information in the second sense.

So you think the author meant by the word 'information':

clear indication or proof of the theory of evolution.'

Here is the claim I dispute:

Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new information for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new information? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no!

So, let's insert your definition into the claim.

Life is built on [clear indications or proof of the theory of evolution], contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase [clear indications or proof of the theory of evolution], natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that mutations somehow provide the new [clear indication or proof of the theory of evolution] for natural selection to act upon. Can mutations produce new [clear indications or proof of the theory of evolution]? Actually, it is now clear that the answer is no!

I don't think that was the definition the original author had in mind. Do you still think that was his definition after looking again at the original use of the word 'information'?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[i]Life is built on information, contained in that molecule of heredity, DNA...Without a way to increase information, natural selection will not work as a mechanism for evolution. Evolutionists agree with this, but they believe that ...[text shortened]... r looking again at the original use of the word 'information'?

😳 I guess I did not get spot on.

But a mutation itself could be called added information depending on how you define new information. Clearly that is not the intent of the author. He is saying the experiments show that mutations lead to a loss of information. So information must me more than added pairs.

So what does the author mean if his clear intention is to dispute TOE. You can define new information so that it has no connection to TOE and defeat the argument - but that would not help. You must argue using the authors intentions, not by redefining the terms the author uses.

So maybe we need to understand what does he mean by "new information." Is new information merely added pairs? If so, the author's argument may have failed.

Originally posted by Coletti
😳 I guess I did not get spot on.

But a mutation itself could be called added information depending on how you define new information. Clearly that is not the intent of the author. He is saying the experiments show that mutations lead to a loss of information. So information must me more than added pairs.

So what does the author mean if his clea ...[text shortened]... n." Is new information merely added pairs? If so, the author's argument may have failed.

So maybe we need to understand what does he mean by "new information."

Absolutely. If anyone can help me with this, please join in the conversation!

Originally posted by Coletti
I'm not sure I understand the question.

Do I accept that information can increase without intelligent interventions?

1) yes if you mean information that is caused by mutations that may add data (or may subtract data) and is not an cl ...[text shortened]... intent of the author - who means information in the second sense.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

Please notice that my question was: "Do you accept that this argument is invalid without further clarification of terms?"

Your immediate response came in two parts, because you were unsure what I meant by a particular term. You thought you knew what the author meant, but you were mistaken.

Let me ask you again.

Do you accept that this argument is invalid without further clarification of terms?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Do you accept that this argument is invalid without further clarification of terms?

I can only say the argument is inconclusive.

Originally posted by Coletti
I can only say the argument is inconclusive.

I'm not sure what you mean. If this argument is correct, then the TOE is impossible. If the TOE is not impossible, then it's possible - at least it hasn't been shown to be impossible. Unless the claimant defines his terms, he's shown nothing whatsoever, and this statement of his is meaningless and gives zero evidence against the TOE.

I mean, I could say creationism is impossible because of logical ridiculosity...and I can disagree with any definition of logical ridiculosity you come up with...but I've shown nothing unless I tell you what logical ridiculosity is. In this specific context the terms 'information', 'complexity', etc are similar.

Correct?