Support NeoGAF

[Lesath]

Why did Humans stop evolving or why did we stop we stop at this state? If that makes sense.

Realize that the purpose of evolution, since the dawn of life, is not future perfection, but rather immediate reproductive success.

I advise you to reread the OP and his definition of evolution, then its main drivers. They are all still very much relevant to us as a species. We will all continue to evolve, just not in the way we'd all like.

 

[teh_pwn]

But that's the thing, we don't live in tribes.

Yeah, I forgot we were talking about the modern world.

The selection is still very much there because vitamin D is crucial to bone formation, immune function. Not just avoiding cancer. With vitamin D deficiency, you are much more likely to get sick and develop autoimmune conditions that aren't attractive to the opposite sex.

However, people move a lot, so the selection is skewed.

 

[Vizion28]

After more than 10 years of studying Evolution in my spare time. I have concluded that it is complete bunk. This I am 100% certain. I approached this long term study like an impartial judge weighing the evidence and counter evidence on both sides. I have read perhaps at least 40 books in regards to the Evolutionism and Creationism and I have learned Evolutionists tell half truths, withhold information that contradicts the Evolutionary paradigm, or straight out lies. I recommend reading Jonathan Wells Icon of Evolution that exposes the lies of Evolutionists. What's interesting about the book is he quotes Evolutionists that openly admit of the many lies of Evolutionary theory.

In my years of study I have specifically focused on Evolutionists' claim that random mutations (coupled with natural selection) can turn a primordial cell to an ape in a few billion years. This is not scientifically supported, in fact science contradicts such a claim. For the sake of brevity I will just focus on this aspect of Evolutionary theory.

Most mutations are almost always deleterious or neutral to the organisms. That is why it is unbelievably silly to think mutations can be one of the mechanisms to get a primordial cell to an ape. Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases.

Yes, there are some genetic mutations that may be beneficial for survival but still deleterious to the organism. For instance, the mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. It can in no way be regarded as an improvement in our species, even though its preservation is enhanced in malaria-endemic parts of central Africa by natural selection. But the mutation is nonetheless a loss of information. The hemoglobin's normal function is impaired, not improved, and the protection from malaria is simply an incidental side benefit — the pathogen happens to be destroyed along with the person's own defective cells. This mutation does not introduce a new level of complexity; there is no new functional information or novel structural feature for evolution to build on. Considered in itself, this mutation is destructive and harmful, as are so many others. It is difficult to see how any genetic change of this sort could lead to a true evolutionary advance.

As in the famous case of Theodosius Dobzhansky where he was bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Random mutations are equivalent to noise, and noise only destroys information and degrades functionality. Ask any communications engineer - in the world of digital communication there is no example anywhere of adding noise to a signal and getting a better signal that contains more information and more functionality.

In Claude Shannon's information theory, noise is mathematically identical to entropy. Its damage to a signal is irreversible.

In other words mutations are a cause of degeneration not "upward evolution". In fact, we are "devolving". Genetic fitness is being reduced (entropy) every generation as mutations accumulate in the genome.

Scientists say it themselves:

"Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, p. 102.

". . I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance."—*George Wald, in *Paul S. Moorehead and *Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 18-19.


"The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration."—*Sewall Wright, in Julian Huxley, "The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in relation to Speciation," The New Systematics, p. 174.

"Like radiation-induced mutations, nearly all spontaneous mutations with detectable effects are harmful."—Arthur Custance, Longevity in Antiquity, p. 1160.

"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities, and mutations seem to be destructive rather than a constructive process."—*Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. 10, p. 742.

"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiments has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system, or organ."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, pp. 67-68.

"Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . that gene mutations are the raw material for an evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth."—*John N. Moore, On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, p. 5.

"This is really the theory that [says] if you start with fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better."—*C.H. Waddington [a geneticist], "Evolution," in Science Today, p. 38.

"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations."—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung [Synthetic Speciation], p. 1157.

"As a generation principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding."—*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, p. 349.

‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.’ - Dr. John Sanford, Plant Geneticist, Cornell University.

"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.

" `Creatures with shriveled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionary progress.' "—*E.W. Macbride, Quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 75.

" `It must be admitted that the direct and complete proof of the utilization of mutation in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.' "—*Julian Huxley, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 78.

"As a generation principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding."—*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, p. 349.

"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.

"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, p. 205.

"It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, p. 94

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity

"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried

"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong

"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.

"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man

Michigan State University evolutionary biologists Richard Lenski and his colleagues searched for signs of evolution in bacteria for 20 years, tracking 40,000 generations. In the end, the species that they started with was hobbled by accumulated mutations, and the only changes that had occurred were degenerative. University of Bristol emeritus professor of bacteriology Alan Linton summarized the situation:

But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms.

In a recent study, also published in Nature, University of California Irvine researcher Molly Burke led research into the genetic changes that occurred over the course of 600 fruit fly generations. The UCI lab had been breeding fruit flies since 1991, separating fast growers with short life spans from slow growers with longer life spans.

The UCI scientists compared the DNA sequences affecting fruit fly growth and longevity between the two groups. After the equivalent of 12,000 years of human evolution, the fruit flies showed surprisingly few differences.

One requirement for Darwin's theory is that the mutational changes that supposedly fuel evolution somehow have to be "fixed" into the population. Otherwise, the DNA changes quickly drift right back out of the population. The researchers found no evidence that mutational changes relevant to longevity had been fixed into the fruit fly populations.

The study's authors wrote, "In our sexual populations, adaptation is not associated with 'classic' sweeps whereby newly arising, unconditionally advantageous mutations become fixed."

They suggested that perhaps there has not been enough time for the relevant mutations to have become fixed. They also suggested an alternative—that natural selection could be acting on already existing variations. But this is not evolution, and it is actually what creation studies have been demonstrating for many years.

Evolution was not observed in fruit fly genetic manipulations in 1980, nor has it been observed in decades-long multigenerational studies of bacteria and fruit flies. The experiments only showed that these creatures have practical limits to the amount of genetic change they can tolerate. When those limits are breached, the creatures don't evolve—they just die.

Although the experimental results from these studies were given titles with an evolutionary "spin," the actual experiments demonstrate undoubtedly that bacteria and fruit flies were created, not evolved.

http://www.icr.org/article/5779/

One example I come across on the internet of random mutations adding a new function of an organism is Lenski’s supposed “evolution” of the citrate ability for the E-Coli bacteria after 20,000 generations of the E-Coli:

Multiple Mutations Needed for E. Coli – Michael Behe
Excerpt: As Lenski put it, “The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions.” (1) Other workers (cited by Lenski) in the past several decades have also identified mutant E. coli that could use citrate as a food source. In one instance the mutation wasn’t tracked down. (2) In another instance a protein coded by a gene called citT, which normally transports citrate in the absence of oxygen, was overexpressed. (3) The overexpressed protein allowed E. coli to grow on citrate in the presence of oxygen. It seems likely that Lenski’s mutant will turn out to be either this gene or another of the bacterium’s citrate-using genes, tweaked a bit to allow it to transport citrate in the presence of oxygen. (He hasn’t yet tracked down the mutation.),,, If Lenski’s results are about the best we’ve seen evolution do, then there’s no reason to believe evolution could produce many of the complex biological features we see in the cell.

http://behe.uncommondescent.com/page/3/

Lenski’s e-coli – Analysis of Genetic Entropy
Excerpt: Mutants of E. coli obtained after 20,000 generations at 37°C were less “fit” than the wild-type strain when cultivated at either 20°C or 42°C. Other E. coli mutants obtained after 20,000 generations in medium where glucose was their sole catabolite tended to lose the ability to catabolize other carbohydrates. Such a reduction can be beneficially selected only as long as the organism remains in that constant environment. Ultimately, the genetic effect of these mutations is a loss of a function useful for one type of environment as a trade-off for adaptation to a different environment.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v4/n1/beneficial-mutation s-in-bacteria


New Work by Richard Lenski:
Excerpt: Interestingly, in this paper they report that the E. coli strain became a “mutator.” That means it lost at least some of its ability to repair its DNA, so mutations are accumulating now at a rate about seventy times faster than normal.

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/10/new_work_by_richard_lenski027101. html

In reality there is no "evolution". The mutant E. coli had reduced fitness. How can a mutation which results in reduced fitness be held as an example of random mutations involved in "upward evolution"?

Another example used by evolutionists as "evolution" caused by random mutations are microorganisms attaining resistance to antibioitics.

Dr. Lee Spetner, author of Not By Chance:

Some microorganisms are endowed with genes that grant resistance to these antibiotics. This resistance can take the form of degrading the antibiotic molecule or of ejecting it from the cell... [T]he organisms having these genes can transfer them to other bacteria making them resistant as well. Although the resistance mechanisms are specific to a particular antibiotic, most pathogenic bacteria have... succeeded in accumulating several sets of genes granting them resistance to a variety of antibiotics.

The acquisition of antibiotic resistance in this manner... is not the kind that can serve as a prototype for the mutations needed to account for Evolution… The genetic changes that could illustrate the theory must not only add information to the bacterium's genome, they must add new information to the biocosm. The horizontal transfer of genes only spreads around genes that are already in some species

... [A] microorganism can sometimes acquire resistance to an antibiotic through a random substitution of a single nucleotide... Streptomycin, which was discovered by Selman Waksman and Albert Schatz and first reported in 1944, is an antibiotic against which bacteria can acquire resistance in this way. But although the mutation they undergo in the process is beneficial to the microorganism in the presence of streptomycin, it cannot serve as a prototype for the kind of mutations needed by NDT [Neo-Darwinian Theory]. The type of mutation that grants resistance to streptomycin is manifest in the ribosome and degrades its molecular match with the antibiotic molecule.

This change in the surface of the microorganism's ribosome prevents the streptomycin molecule from attaching and carrying out its antibiotic function. It turns out that this degradation is a loss of specificity and therefore a loss of information. The main point is that Evolution… cannot be achieved by mutations of this sort, no matter how many of them there are. Evolution cannot be built by accumulating mutations that only degrade specificity.

"To sum up, a mutation impinging on a bacterium's ribosome makes that bacterium resistant to streptomycin. The reason for this is the "decomposition" of the ribosome by mutation. That is, no new genetic information is added to the bacterium. On the contrary, the structure of the ribosome is decomposed, that is to say, the bacterium becomes "disabled." (Also, it has been discovered that the ribosome of the mutated bacterium is less functional than that of a normal bacterium.) Since this "disability" prevents the antibiotic from attaching onto the ribosome, "antibiotic resistance" develops."

"...there is no example of mutation that "develops the genetic information." Evolutionists, who want to present antibiotic resistance as evidence for evolution, treat the issue in a very superficial way and are thus mistaken."

 

[Korey]

After more than 10 years of studying Evolution in my spare time. I have concluded that it is complete bunk. This I am 100% certain. I approached this long term study like an impartial judge weighing the evidence and counter evidence on both sides. I have read perhaps at least 40 books in regards to the Evolutionism and Creationism and I have learned Evolutionists tell half truths, withhold information that contradicts the Evolutionary paradigm, or straight out lies. I recommend reading Jonathan Wells Icon of Evolution that exposes the lies of Evolutionists. What's interesting about the book is he quotes Evolutionists that openly admit of the many lies of Evolutionary theory.

Please don't feed the above troll.

Check out his other gems here and here and here. So yea, just don't reply to him.

 

[Trent Strong]

WTF?

 

[Vizion28]

Please don't feed the above troll.

Troll? LOL.

If you were smart you would deeply consider all the evidence and counter evidence objectively and draw a conclusion from it despite the consensus or popular opinion.

 

[jaxword]

Vizion28, do you consider yourself a creationist? Is the world more than 6000 years old?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Vizion28's intent is pure provocation. He masks his intention by claiming to harbor some fidelity to the truth, and hides behind a wall of text possibly copied from other sources, but he has no interest in having a real discussion. The last time he did this, he failed to respond to any of my posts, while continuing to claim that he really gave a damn about arguing at all. If he truly wanted to debate, then I'd be more than happy to, but I doubt that he has any real intention to do so. It's best to ignore him, and with any luck he'll be swiftly banned.

 

[innervision961]

Humans won't be any different in thousands of years than they are now. Maybe not even in hundred of thousands of years. Species with big stable populations don't tend to change much. And, thanks to medical science and an abundance of food, pretty much everyone survives and pretty much everyone can reproduce if they want to. There is no selective pressure except for sexual selection. Our brains have remained the same for tens of thousands or more years and they probably won't change much in a huge, stable population like ours. And what do you mean that some species evolved from humans would be God-like? Some sort of X-men style people? Evolution could never produce a person who could break the laws of physics. (I'm probably misunderstanding what you mean though.)

Oh I didn't mean super natural attributes, more like unforeseen technological observations. That's the thing I'm referring to, in that our bodies may not change much, but our science and our thinking will grow and flourish, and it's by products would amaze us now.

I didn't think about memes though, if live to read more about the science behind memes if someone has some good links. (sorry if they've already been posted, haven't visited this thread in a while)

 

[Kinitari]

Woah, my thread has been revived. Been a long time. I think I'm working up the energy to reply to the behemoth of a post, if I selectively cut out bits and pieces, it's only because it's just SO much to reply to. Alright... I guess here goes.

 

[danwarb]

There's always evolution because there are always mutations. Some sharks have changed very little anatomically for a hundred million years. Genetically though, modern sharks will be hugely different from their 100 million year old ancestors.

 

[Lesath]

Woah, my thread has been revived. Been a long time. I think I'm working up the energy to reply to the behemoth of a post, if I selectively cut out bits and pieces, it's only because it's just SO much to reply to. Alright... I guess here goes.

I will try too, so if you miss anything, I might cover it in my own post.

 

[Vizion28]

Vizion28, do you consider yourself a creationist? Is the world more than 6000 years old?

Creationists? Absolutely! And I have adopted that worldview based on reasonable inference. Do I believe the world is less 10,000 years old? Absolutely! Is there evidence for that? Sure. But let's focus on the creationist question.

Let's take a close look at the DNA code to use as an example. We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.

This is argument based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method - which uses inference and induction - we have every reason to believe DNA is designed.

100% of our real world observations tells us that ALL codes ALWAYS originate via mental processes. Without exception. We have not one single counter example. While at the same time we have 0% observation of codes comming from unintelligent processes. Zero. Notta. El'zillcho. So EVERYTHING we KNOW empirically is that codes ALWAYS come via mental processes.

1)DNA is a code.

2)ALL codes come from intelligent mind.

3)DNA came from an intelligent mind.

The argument uses the scientific method of induction. I am assuming you are familiar with inductive and deductive proofs. All coded information we know of is created. We infer coded information comes from a mind. This can be easily toppled just by showing ONE example of code created by naturalistic processes.

If you disagree, show me an example of gravity being inconsistent. Or the speed of light being inconsistent. Or entropy being inconsistent. Or a code arising from an unintelligent process.

If you reject the inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.

If you reject the inference to design then there shouldn't be a discipline called Forensic Science or Archaeology.

That said I still got the nagging hunch that some wannabe know-it-all is going to stubbornly going to deny DNA contains coded information. He may say it is just a molecule or it is analogy or metaphor or whatever.

DNA containing coded information is not even debated in the scientific community. If you claim otherwise show the proof!

I, however, will quote scientists, many who are highly esteemed in their respected fields, who explicitly have said DNA does indeed contain coded information and it is not analogy or metaphor.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, CODE, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and PROOFREADING are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, METAPHORS, or ANALOGIES.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

I ask you to go through your biology textbooks make 100% sure the terminology is consistent with scientific convention. The words “code” and “symbol” are not used metaphorically in any of them. Science textbooks and papers are written very literally, and the word genetic code in biology is just as literal as the word protein. When you look up these definitions in biology textbooks, they don't say DNA is a "code" with quotation marks, or that it contains "information" with quotation marks, or that it is like a code, or that it contains something like information. They say that DNA is the basis for genetic code, and that it contains real, measurable information, and that the code uniquely determines real proteins.

DNA is a literal code. More references:

The genetic code is a set of 64 base triplets (nucleotide bases, read in blocks of three). A codon is a base triplet in mRNA. Different combinations of codons specify the amino acid sequence of different polypeptide chains, start to finish.
-Cell Biology and Genetics, Starr and Taggart, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995

Genetic Code: The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the messenger RNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence.
-50 years of DNA, Clayton and Dennis, Nature Publishing, 2003

“The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ‘coding' problem.” –Francis Crick

“The unique mark of a living organism, shared with no other known entity, is its possession of a genetic program that specifies that organism's chemical makeup. The program has two essential and related features: first, it is ‘read' by the organism, and the instructions embodied therein expressed, second, it is replicated with high fidelity whenever the organism reproduces….DNA carries genetic specificity. This structure immediately suggests that genetic specificity, the “information” that distinguishes one gene from another, resides in the sequence of nucleotides.

“Genetic information flows in linear fashion from the sequence of bases in DNA to that of amino acids in proteins. The parallel with letters and words is inescapable… the quantity of information transmitted can be estimated with the aid of algorithms derived from wartime researches on the fidelity of communications.”

“The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.”

-The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001

“A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.

“In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.

Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon's Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.

“The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be “degenerate.” That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code.”

-The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999

“(George) Gamow devised a scheme, illustrated by means of playing cards, that involved sets of three adjacent nucleotides per amino acide unit (“triplet” code) in a sequence of overlapping triplets. That proposal spurred Francis Crick and his colleagues to examine the coding problem more critically and to use knowledge gained from genetic experiments to test the possible validity of Gamow's scheme and its variants. By 1961 they had concluded that the nucleotides of each triplet did not belong to any other triplet (“nonoverlapping” code); that sets of triplets are arranged in continuous linear sequence starting at a fixed point on a polynucleotide chain, without breaks (“commaless” code), thus determining how a long sequence is to be read off as triplets; and that more than one triplet can code for a particular amino acid (“degenerate” code).

-Proteins, Enzymes, Genes: The Interplay of Chemistry and Biology, Joseph S. Fruton, Yale University Press 1999

“The genome of any organism could from then on be understood in a detailed way undreamt of 20 years earlier. It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. The genome was a dictionary of code words, now translated, that determined what the organism could do. It was the control center of the cell. Differences among organisms were the result of differences among parts of these genome sequences.”

-The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991

“The three-nucleotide, or triplet code, was widely adopted as a working hypothesis. Its existence, however, was not actually demonstrated until the code was finally broken…

“With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail… instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.”

-Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989

Not only is DNA a code is a communication system.

Your computer is a communication system because when you press the letter “A” your keyboard encodes the pressing of that button into 1000001 and your computer then decodes 1000001 to display the letter “A” on your screen.

The computer follows the rules of the ASCII code: a = 1100001; A = 1000001; b = 1100010; B = 1100010 and so on.

In the same way, DNA is a communication system because the triplets are encoded into Messenger RNA and decoded into proteins. For example the base pairs GGG (Guanine-Guanine-Guanine) are encoded into Glycine which is decoded by the ribosomes to form proteins.

The organism follows the rules of the Genetic Code. GGG = Glycine, CGG = Arginine, AGC = Serine, etc. Note that GGG is not literally Glycine, it is symbolic instructions to make Glycine.

Just like computer codes, the genetic code is arbitrary. There is no law of physics that says 10000001 has to code for the letter “A.” Likewise there is no law of physics that says three Guanine molecules in a row have to code for Glycine. In both cases, the communication system operates from an arbitrary, fixed set of rules.

In all communication systems it is possible to label the encoder, the message and the decoder and determine the rules of the code.

The rules of communication systems are defined in advance by conscious minds. There are no known exceptions to this.

It is not possible to draw a diagram of a proper communication system for these things …because it’s not possible to produce a table of symbols (as we do with DNA, i.e. GGG = Glycine, 1000001 = A), because there are no symbolic relationships. An electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Contrast this with DNA where three Guanines in a row are instructions to make Glycine. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine.

Layers of sediment might be considered codes, except that no decoding takes place until an intelligent being (a human) arrives on the scene to interpret them. Therefore sediment all by itself is not a communication system because there is no decoder. Furthermore the exact meaning of the layers is certainly not fixed and digital the way the genetic code is. Decoding the meaning of the layers is and subjective.

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code. Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/shannon_comm_channel.JPG
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna_isomorphic.JPG

DNA has error correction and error checking mechanisms, just like the hardware that connects your computer to the Internet. How do you derive those mechanisms from the laws of physics? Do the laws of electron bonding or gravity or nuclear forces or the equations for light or magnetism give you these error correction mechanisms?

Can anyone answer that question using the laws of physics alone?

From Yockey: “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

Yockey said (2005) “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” But they don’t.

Yockey says the origin of the code is unknowable or even "axiomatic". But it still begs the question.

What are not codes:

A snowflake contains no coded information because it symbolically represents nothing (no plan, no idea, no instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding / decoding mechanism and no system of symbols. Same with Gravitational fields (a field is a field, but it is not a code, as it does not uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B), crystals and snowflakes (they have edges and boundaries and growth patterns but do not contain any codes), magma flows and layers of rock and ice (they have no corresponding decoding system, until someone shows up to inspect and interpret them), radioactive decay (same problem as gravity and magma flows), rhodopsin (an example of transduction; there is no decoding). Also the same with laminar flow, blood dialysis, flight, black holes, thunderstorms, pouring water stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits etc etc.. None of these examples have no plan, no idea, no instructions and no encoding / decoding mechanism. None of these contain a system of symbols and does not qualify as a code by any formal definition from information theory.

DNA, however does symbolically represent something other than itself: A plan, instructions for building a complete organism.

Reference: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com

 

[Shanadeus]

1)DNA is a code.

2)ALL codes come from intelligent mind.

3)DNA came from an intelligent mind.

Interesting.

 

[Vizion28]

Vizion28's intent is pure provocation. He masks his intention by claiming to harbor some fidelity to the truth, and hides behind a wall of text possibly copied from other sources, but he has no interest in having a real discussion. The last time he did this, he failed to respond to any of my posts, while continuing to claim that he really gave a damn about arguing at all. If he truly wanted to debate, then I'd be more than happy to, but I doubt that he has any real intention to do so. It's best to ignore him, and with any luck he'll be swiftly banned.

I don't recall ever failing to respond to any of your posts. But I'm up for a debate or discussion as long as you stay clear from personal attacks.

 

[jaxword]

Creationists? Absolutely! And I have adopted that worldview based on reasonable inference. Do I believe the world is less 10,000 years old? Absolutely! Is there evidence for that? Sure.

What religious environment were you raised in?

 

[danwarb]

DNA isn't really a code in the man-made sense. It's molecules interacting with other molecules. You've basically decided that things can't exist without a creator, but that it's okay for a creator exist without a creator. If fairy stories make you feel better, then go for it. Don't try to convince people that "the world is less than 10,000 years old" though. You're better off keeping things like that to yourself, or a cult of like minded people.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

Don't try to convince people that "the world is less than 10,000 years old" though. Your better of keeping things like that to yourself, or a cult of like minded people.

No offense, but I think he has a right to speak his mind, even if people disagree with him (I do). You may not like the whole creationist/young earth movement, but there's no need to shut him down like that. Please don't take it the wrong way.

 

[Mgoblue201]

I don't recall ever failing to respond to any of your posts. But I'm up for a debate or discussion as long as you stay clear from personal attacks.

The thread was just linked to by Korey earlier on this page. If you are indeed serious about an actual discussion, then don't post copy/paste responses that you know most people will barely even read.

 

[danwarb]

No offense, but I think he has a right to speak his mind, even if people disagree with him (I do). You may not like the whole creationist/young earth movement, but there's no need to shut him down like that. Please don't take it the wrong way.

That's why I said like-minded people. I'd agree with you if it wasn't so silly. There are cave painting older than 10,000 years.

 

[wolfmat]

Life couldn't have been created by intelligent life because there would be evidence for it; start with the medical equipment necessary, for instance. Unless you believe in magic; at that point, all bets are off. Also, that's a feedback loop (intelligent life would have to become smarter and smarter up the creator chain), and that doesn't really pan out from what we can observe. Actually, it looks like the opposite is the case (the further we go back in history, the less sophisticated the species are).

Moreover, who made the flies and why? Where did they get the material involved? Expand that to ALL LIFE ON THE PLANET.

Experiments not turning up anything doesn't really mean much because they're confined by the experiment design in the first place. For instance, if you experiment on bacteria, your assumption is that there's any place to go for them; or if you play with flies, your assumption is that your timespan is sufficient.

As for the radiation experiments, that's just ridiculous. The doses are extremely high over tiny timespans. Everything degenerates at that pace, and we've known that for a long time.

As for how old life is, don't even start with that if you haven't got anything to back up any sensible theory about how life started in the first place; otherwise, you're just making up numbers.

 

[TacticalFox88]

After more than 10 years of studying Evolution in my spare time. I have concluded that it is complete bunk. ."

Wait...WHAT? How the fuck do you spend ten years studying evolution...yet come to the conclusion it's false?

 

[Kinitari]

I recommend reading Jonathan Wells Icon of Evolution that exposes the lies of Evolutionists. What's interesting about the book is he quotes Evolutionists that openly admit of the many lies of Evolutionary theory.

Scientific community pretty much unanimously accuses this book of not only spreading FUD, but intentionally misquoting many scientists. I assume you'd rather believe the book, then nearly every scientist misquoted and a host of researches calling this bunk, but I figured for anyone else out there with an actual open mind, they'd enjoy the reading.

Most mutations are almost always deleterious or neutral to the organisms. That is why it is unbelievably silly to think mutations can be one of the mechanisms to get a primordial cell to an ape. Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases.

And right off the bat, you bring in some absolutely terrible logic.

Lets play by your rules, most mutations are deleterious or neutral. What happens to offspring who have these mutations? Either they die, and are unable to pass on these genes, or nothing whatsoever.

The fact that there are thousands of genetic diseases only highlights the fact that evolution is not the work of some perfect deity, it is a messy, gross process, and most of the time, doesn't succeed in indefinitely keeping a chain of descendants alive.

Over 99% of all documented species to ever have walked the earth have gone extinct. We're the lucky ones, remember that.

Yes, there are some genetic mutations that may be beneficial for survival but still deleterious to the organism. For instance, the mutation responsible for sickle cell anemia has been put forward as an example of Evolution. The problems with this are obvious, as the sickle cell mutation, like the many other described hemoglobin mutations, clearly impairs the function of the otherwise marvelously well-designed hemoglobin molecule. ...etc

Many problems here.

1. The assumption that evolution = more information. Evolution isn't a 'one way street' - Evolution is just change.
2. Those who have sickle cell are immune to Malaria, which is a much MUCH worse disease, that's why people who have sickle cell in Malaria infested countries live longer, breed more, and spread this disease around. It is the lesser of two evils if you will, and it very clearly shows evolution at work. Evolution isn't a deus ex machina fix all, it may only take you from a -10 to a 2, but 2 is still a 'positive', even if its no 10. If the works of evolution lead to the manifestation of a cure for all diseases, that would actually go against our current understanding of Evolution, and point to a very generous deity working his magic. The fact that it doesn't well... speaks volumes.

As in the famous case of Theodosius Dobzhansky where he was bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies.

Yeah, you cant just throw radiation at stuff and expect a super race to emerge, that's not exactly the best way to put selective pressures on an animal. There have been literally hundreds of other experiments that show evolution at work.

Random mutations are equivalent to noise, and noise only destroys information and degrades functionality. Ask any communications engineer - in the world of digital communication there is no example anywhere of adding noise to a signal and getting a better signal that contains more information and more functionality.

To the bold. What the fuck? Can I just pass off bullshit like that too? My dick is equivalent to a deity, and deities are always extremely powerful. Fact. You can't just say stuff is equivalent to other stuff and cross your fingers and hope no one notices.

In other words mutations are a cause of degeneration not "upward evolution". In fact, we are "devolving". Genetic fitness is being reduced (entropy) every generation as mutations accumulate in the genome.

Again, evolution doesn't work in one way. It goes in multiple directions. If you were to give a species evolution points every 1000 generations, the species that reproduced a bunch would get many more points than the one that grew some cool limbs but did shit with them.

Scientists say it themselves:

Yes, they say stuff that doesn't contradict evolution. Mutation a lot of the time is bad. And? Sometimes it's good. And when that happens, species live longer, they evolve and they adapt. Not too hard of a concept to grasp.

Also, a lot of your damn quotes are literally ONLY found on creations websites and forums. Really annoying looking through those pages for some sort of concrete reference or confirmation.

Also the irony of you quoting scientists when the vast - vast majority take Evolution as fact is not lost on me.

Stuff about Bacteria not evolving

Hey, about about this bacteria evolving!

There is scientific consensus that the capacity to synthesize nylonase most probably developed as a single-step mutation that survived because it improved the fitness of the bacteria possessing the mutation. This is seen as a good example of evolution through mutation and natural selection that has been observed as it occurs.

I think that covered most of your... work. But honestly, there were a few points you were making over and over, that I just want to touch on once more.

Evolution does not necessarily mean the introduction of new information, HOWEVER, we have plenty of cases in which new information has been observed in Evolution (a bacteria that has evolved to break down a synthesized material, ie, something that hasn't been around since 'creation' is a pretty clear indicator of that). If it happens just once, it entirely invalidates your claim that it 'never' happens.

Your mention of mutations being bad - yeah, there are mutations that are bad, good and neutral. Even if we were to say most are bad, that means diddly. It has absolutely no bearing on the validity that positive mutations do effect the ability for an animal to breed more, spread this gene more, and effect the overall changes occurring in it's gene pool. It's so simple it physically hurts me that you don't understand this.

 

[EmCeeGramr]

1)DNA is a code.

2)ALL codes come from intelligent mind.

3)DNA came from an intelligent mind.

ANTHROPOCENTRISM, GOOOOOO

 

[jay]

No offense, but I think he has a right to speak his mind, even if people disagree with him (I do). You may not like the whole creationist/young earth movement, but there's no need to shut him down like that. Please don't take it the wrong way.

It seemed like good advice, though. Anyone willing to entertain his wall of text about evolution is going to just laugh and ignore him when they find out his belief is clearly tied to his religion, which happens to be of the sort that thinks the world is 6,000 years old.

Saying that, it is better for us if he is honest about it so we know whether it's worth trying to wade through the text.

On a side note, anyone else notice information theory is the new entropy for creationists? At least it's not micro and macro evolution.

 

[FunkyPajamas]

That's why I said like-minded people. I'd agree with you if it wasn't so silly. There are cave painting older than 10,000 years.

Yeah, sorry, I don't know, I think I might have read that the wrong way. And I also get the feeling that he is indeed trolling. Apologies.

Wait...WHAT? How the fuck do you spend ten years studying evolution...yet come to the conclusion it's false?

I've spent 20+ years studying sex and I've come to the conclusion that it's false.

 

[wolfmat]

The noise thing. Noise makes patterns, they emerge. Just watch white noise video for a couple of minutes and you'll see what I mean. Expand that to the sum of all noise over millions of years and gasp in awe of the miraculous and persistent patterns that are because of it.

 

[Kinitari]

Also, Vizion, for all of our sakes, make smaller posts. Please. Just pick like... one point, and throw it at us, and we can debate that forever and ever. By making a behemoth of a post, the reason why a lot of people don't reply is not because they are intimidated or awe struck at the knowledge you have just brung, they just don't want to read the whole thing and selectively reply to individual parts, meanwhile, the thread has moved another page or two.

If you would like to converse, lets, but don't do that thing where you go from point to point to point, never sitting still long enough for anyone to ever really have a firm grasp on anything.

 

[Scrow]

Wait...WHAT? How the fuck do you spend ten years studying evolution...yet come to the conclusion it's false?

that's what happens when you seek a specific answer to a question. you only absorb information that supports the answer you want, and filter out information that contradicts the answer you want.

humans do this so well that it can be difficult to realise you're doing it. even the most critical/scientific minds do this, some worse than others. before we've even started looking for the answers we've already convinced ourselves of one particular conclusion; the hunt for evidence to support it is only a way to reaffirm the belief in our mind

both sides of the coin (religion and science) are guilty of this. personally i find the scientific community suffers from this phenomenon much less that the religious community, so I trust them more.

Also, Vizion, for all of our sakes, make smaller posts. Please. Just pick like... one point, and throw it at us, and we can debate that forever and ever. By making a behemoth of a post, the reason why a lot of people don't reply is not because they are intimidating or awe struck at the knowledge you have just brung, they just don't want to read the whole thing and selectively reply to individual parts, meanwhile, the thread has moved another page or two.

If you would like to converse, lets, but don't do that thing where you go from point to point to point, never sitting still long enough for anyone to ever really have a firm grasp on anything.

it's an argumentative tactic, whether he realises/intends it or not.

 

[Stridone]

Creationists? Absolutely! And I have adopted that worldview based on reasonable inference. Do I believe the world is less 10,000 years old? Absolutely! Is there evidence for that? Sure. But let's focus on the creationist question.

Let's take a close look at the DNA code to use as an example. We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.

This is argument based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method - which uses inference and induction - we have every reason to believe DNA is designed.

100% of our real world observations tells us that ALL codes ALWAYS originate via mental processes. Without exception. We have not one single counter example. While at the same time we have 0% observation of codes comming from unintelligent processes. Zero. Notta. El'zillcho. So EVERYTHING we KNOW empirically is that codes ALWAYS come via mental processes.

1)DNA is a code.

2)ALL codes come from intelligent mind.

3)DNA came from an intelligent mind.

The argument uses the scientific method of induction. I am assuming you are familiar with inductive and deductive proofs. All coded information we know of is created. We infer coded information comes from a mind. This can be easily toppled just by showing ONE example of code created by naturalistic processes.

If you disagree, show me an example of gravity being inconsistent. Or the speed of light being inconsistent. Or entropy being inconsistent. Or a code arising from an unintelligent process.

If you reject the inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.

If you reject the inference to design then there shouldn't be a discipline called Forensic Science or Archaeology.

That said I still got the nagging hunch that some wannabe know-it-all is going to stubbornly going to deny DNA contains coded information. He may say it is just a molecule or it is analogy or metaphor or whatever.

DNA containing coded information is not even debated in the scientific community. If you claim otherwise show the proof!

I, however, will quote scientists, many who are highly esteemed in their respected fields, who explicitly have said DNA does indeed contain coded information and it is not analogy or metaphor.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, CODE, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and PROOFREADING are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, METAPHORS, or ANALOGIES.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

I ask you to go through your biology textbooks make 100% sure the terminology is consistent with scientific convention. The words “code” and “symbol” are not used metaphorically in any of them. Science textbooks and papers are written very literally, and the word genetic code in biology is just as literal as the word protein. When you look up these definitions in biology textbooks, they don't say DNA is a "code" with quotation marks, or that it contains "information" with quotation marks, or that it is like a code, or that it contains something like information. They say that DNA is the basis for genetic code, and that it contains real, measurable information, and that the code uniquely determines real proteins.

DNA is a literal code. More references:

The genetic code is a set of 64 base triplets (nucleotide bases, read in blocks of three). A codon is a base triplet in mRNA. Different combinations of codons specify the amino acid sequence of different polypeptide chains, start to finish.
-Cell Biology and Genetics, Starr and Taggart, Wadsworth Publishing, 1995

Genetic Code: The sequence of nucleotides, coded in triplets (codons) along the messenger RNA, that determines the sequence of amino acids in protein synthesis. The DNA sequence of a gene can be used to predict the mRNA sequence, and the genetic code can in turn be used to predict the amino acid sequence.
-50 years of DNA, Clayton and Dennis, Nature Publishing, 2003

“The problem of how a sequence of four things (nucleotides) can determine a sequence of twenty things (amino acids) is known as the ‘coding' problem.” –Francis Crick

“The unique mark of a living organism, shared with no other known entity, is its possession of a genetic program that specifies that organism's chemical makeup. The program has two essential and related features: first, it is ‘read' by the organism, and the instructions embodied therein expressed, second, it is replicated with high fidelity whenever the organism reproduces….DNA carries genetic specificity. This structure immediately suggests that genetic specificity, the “information” that distinguishes one gene from another, resides in the sequence of nucleotides.

“Genetic information flows in linear fashion from the sequence of bases in DNA to that of amino acids in proteins. The parallel with letters and words is inescapable… the quantity of information transmitted can be estimated with the aid of algorithms derived from wartime researches on the fidelity of communications.”

“The most compelling instance of biochemical unity is, of course, the genetic code. Not only is DNA the all but universal carrier of genetic information (with RNA viruses the sole exception), the table of correspondences that relates a particular triplet of nucleotides to a particular amino acid is universal. There are exceptions, but they are rare and do not challenge the rule.”

-The Way of the Cell, Franklin M. Harold, Oxford University Press, 2001

“A code is a set of rules governing the order of symbols in communication. This defines a code, regardless of the nature of the symbols, be they alphabetic letters, voice sounds, dots and dashes, DNA bases, amino acids, nerve impulses, or what have you. Codes are generally expressed as binary relations or as geometric correspondences between a domain and a counterdomain; one speaks of mapping in the latter case. Thus, in the International Morse Code, 52 symbols consisting of sequences of dots and dashes map on 52 symbols of the alphabet, numbers and punctuation marks; or in the genetic code, 61 of the possible symbol triplets of the RNA domain map on a set of 20 symbols of the polypeptide counterdomain.

“In intercellular communication the domains and counterdomains are the signal molecules and their receptors, and the code is like the base-pair rules of the first-tier code of the DNA, a simple rule between pairs of molecules of matching surfaces.

Why There are no Double-Entendres in Biological Communication: The basic information for the encoding in intercellular communication (a high-class encoding complying with Shannon's Second Theorem) is all concentrated in the interacting molecular surfaces. And this information is what makes the communications unambiguous. We can now define an unambiguous communication: a communication in which each incoming message or signal at a receiver (or retransmitter) stage is encoded in only one way; or, stated in terms of mapping, a communication in which there is a strict one to one mapping of domains, so that for every element in the signal domain there is only one element in the counterdomain.

“The table in Figure 7.9 tells us at a glance that a given amino acid may have more than one coding triplet: UUA, UUG, CUU, CUC, CUA, CUG, for instance, are all synonyms for leucine. A code of this sort is said to be “degenerate.” That is OK despite the epithet, so long as the information flow goes in the convergent direction, as it normally does. The counterdomain here consists of only one element, and so a given triplet codes for no more than one amino acid. Thus, there is synonymity, but no ambiguity in the communications ruled by the genetic code.”

-The Touchstone of Life: Molecular Information, Cell Communication and the Foundations of Life, by Werner R. Loewenstein, Oxford University Press, 1999

“(George) Gamow devised a scheme, illustrated by means of playing cards, that involved sets of three adjacent nucleotides per amino acide unit (“triplet” code) in a sequence of overlapping triplets. That proposal spurred Francis Crick and his colleagues to examine the coding problem more critically and to use knowledge gained from genetic experiments to test the possible validity of Gamow's scheme and its variants. By 1961 they had concluded that the nucleotides of each triplet did not belong to any other triplet (“nonoverlapping” code); that sets of triplets are arranged in continuous linear sequence starting at a fixed point on a polynucleotide chain, without breaks (“commaless” code), thus determining how a long sequence is to be read off as triplets; and that more than one triplet can code for a particular amino acid (“degenerate” code).

-Proteins, Enzymes, Genes: The Interplay of Chemistry and Biology, Joseph S. Fruton, Yale University Press 1999

“The genome of any organism could from then on be understood in a detailed way undreamt of 20 years earlier. It had been revealed as the full complement of instructions embodied in a series of sets of three DNA nitrogenous bases. The totality of these long sequences were the instructions for the construction, maintenance, and functioning of every living cell. The genome was a dictionary of code words, now translated, that determined what the organism could do. It was the control center of the cell. Differences among organisms were the result of differences among parts of these genome sequences.”

-The Human Genome Project: Cracking the Genetic Code of Life, by Thomas F. Lee, Plenum Press, 1991

“The three-nucleotide, or triplet code, was widely adopted as a working hypothesis. Its existence, however, was not actually demonstrated until the code was finally broken…

“With a knowledge of the genetic code, we can turn our attention to the question of how the information encoded in the DNA and transcribed into mRNA is subsequently translated into a specific sequence of amino acids in a polypeptide chain. The answer to this question is now understood in great detail… instructions for protein synthesis are encoded in sequences of nucleotides in the DNA molecule.”

-Biology, 5th Edition, by Curtis & Barnes, Worth Publishers, 1989

Not only is DNA a code is a communication system.

Your computer is a communication system because when you press the letter “A” your keyboard encodes the pressing of that button into 1000001 and your computer then decodes 1000001 to display the letter “A” on your screen.

The computer follows the rules of the ASCII code: a = 1100001; A = 1000001; b = 1100010; B = 1100010 and so on.

In the same way, DNA is a communication system because the triplets are encoded into Messenger RNA and decoded into proteins. For example the base pairs GGG (Guanine-Guanine-Guanine) are encoded into Glycine which is decoded by the ribosomes to form proteins.

The organism follows the rules of the Genetic Code. GGG = Glycine, CGG = Arginine, AGC = Serine, etc. Note that GGG is not literally Glycine, it is symbolic instructions to make Glycine.

Just like computer codes, the genetic code is arbitrary. There is no law of physics that says 10000001 has to code for the letter “A.” Likewise there is no law of physics that says three Guanine molecules in a row have to code for Glycine. In both cases, the communication system operates from an arbitrary, fixed set of rules.

In all communication systems it is possible to label the encoder, the message and the decoder and determine the rules of the code.

The rules of communication systems are defined in advance by conscious minds. There are no known exceptions to this.

It is not possible to draw a diagram of a proper communication system for these things …because it’s not possible to produce a table of symbols (as we do with DNA, i.e. GGG = Glycine, 1000001 = A), because there are no symbolic relationships. An electron is an electron, sunlight is photons, a snowflake is a snowflake. None of these things symbolically represents anything other than itself. Contrast this with DNA where three Guanines in a row are instructions to make Glycine. Three Guanines are not Glycine, they are instructions to make Glycine.

Layers of sediment might be considered codes, except that no decoding takes place until an intelligent being (a human) arrives on the scene to interpret them. Therefore sediment all by itself is not a communication system because there is no decoder. Furthermore the exact meaning of the layers is certainly not fixed and digital the way the genetic code is. Decoding the meaning of the layers is and subjective.

DNA transcription is an encoding / decoding mechanism isomorphic with Claude Shannon's 1948 model: The sequence of base pairs is encoded into messenger RNA which is decoded into proteins.

Information theory terms and ideas applied to DNA are not metaphorical, but in fact quite literal in every way. In other words, the information theory argument for design is not based on analogy at all. It is direct application of mathematics to DNA, which by definition is a code. Only intelligently designed systems map 1:1 to Shannon's model.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/shannon_comm_channel.JPG
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/dna_isomorphic.JPG

DNA has error correction and error checking mechanisms, just like the hardware that connects your computer to the Internet. How do you derive those mechanisms from the laws of physics? Do the laws of electron bonding or gravity or nuclear forces or the equations for light or magnetism give you these error correction mechanisms?

Can anyone answer that question using the laws of physics alone?

From Yockey: “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”

Yockey said (2005) “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” But they don’t.

Yockey says the origin of the code is unknowable or even "axiomatic". But it still begs the question.

What are not codes:

A snowflake contains no coded information because it symbolically represents nothing (no plan, no idea, no instructions) other than itself, and because there is no encoding / decoding mechanism and no system of symbols. Same with Gravitational fields (a field is a field, but it is not a code, as it does not uniquely map a point in space A to a point in space B), crystals and snowflakes (they have edges and boundaries and growth patterns but do not contain any codes), magma flows and layers of rock and ice (they have no corresponding decoding system, until someone shows up to inspect and interpret them), radioactive decay (same problem as gravity and magma flows), rhodopsin (an example of transduction; there is no decoding). Also the same with laminar flow, blood dialysis, flight, black holes, thunderstorms, pouring water stalagmites, stalactites, tornados, hurricanes, erosion, turbulence, sand dunes, rivers, ocean waves, planetary orbits etc etc.. None of these examples have no plan, no idea, no instructions and no encoding / decoding mechanism. None of these contain a system of symbols and does not qualify as a code by any formal definition from information theory.

DNA, however does symbolically represent something other than itself: A plan, instructions for building a complete organism.

Reference: http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com

 

[Kinitari]

it's an argumentative tactic, whether he realises/intends it or not.

I'd take that over absolute radio silence. Damn, he got me frothing and raring to go, and just disappears. Such a cock tease.

 

[jay]

I would enjoy seeing the scientific evidence for creation presented so we can judge that separately from evolution skepticism, which is not a theory and provides no answers.

 

[Kinitari]

I would enjoy seeing the scientific evidence for creation presented so we can judge that separately from evolution skepticism, which is not a theory and provides no answers.

http://bible.com/

Knock yourself out. That's the best there is ever going to be. I would be content if vision would just... reply, to ONE person who refuted any of his posts. It seems like he never does, or if he does, it's a subject change.

Vision! Here is just ONE point - Evolution is not a guarantee fix all - Evolution can even lead to a species extinction! It's not a panacea or anything of the sort! The longer a species lives, and the more it breeds, the better it did it's job. Does this make sense to you?

 

[AbsoluteZero]

Is it possible to be relgious and believe in evolution simultaneously?

I tend to think that evolution was God's plan all along.

 

[ZeroRay]

Is it possible to be relgious and believe in evolution simultaneously?

I tend to think that evolution was God's plan all along.

You can believe whatever you want.

Whether or not evolution fits in the dogma of religions is another thing.

 

[mclaren777]

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

 

[jay]

http://bible.com/

Knock yourself out. That's the best there is ever going to be. I would be content if vision would just... reply, to ONE person who refuted any of his posts. It seems like he never does, or if he does, it's a subject change.

Vision! Here is just ONE point - Evolution is not a guarantee fix all - Evolution can even lead to a species extinction! It's not a panacea or anything of the sort! The longer a species lives, and the more it breeds, the better it did it's job. Does this make sense to you?

He is getting his info from the ICR, which was started by Henry Morris, who wrote creationist text books because he realized that to win the culture war he would need to pretend there was some science involved. This is also why vision does not want to discuss his young earth belief. Saying "Jesus did it" will not win hearts and minds. We need to reject Satan's influence and only then can we come to our savior.

He also gets info from Michael Behe. I'm a little sad to say family members went to Lehigh, where he teaches his irreducible complexity bullshit, which Dawkins and others have already dismantled.

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

You seem to be a social conservative from other threads so is it safe to assume your religion disagrees with evolution?

 

[AbsoluteZero]

"It's a very wuzzy line and it's getting wuzzier all the time."

Spoiler

Apologies if it's been already posted.

 

[TacticalFox88]

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

You're the same guy who believes homosexuality is a lifestyle choice? Riiiight

 

[Stridone]

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

A biochemistry major huh? More like a major fucking moron if you really agree with him. :lol

Seriously WTF is wrong with US education when people can't grasp a simple concept like evolution.

 

[Vaporak]

Fine, an Algebra/Calculus/Geometry/Trigonometry thread and/or Fundamentals of Physics thread.

It's a cool idea, and one that I would be interested in contributing to once I've finished my Pure Math Bachelors. However, those subjects are much less approachable than evolution is, and they don't have any sort of controversy politicizing them, so I feel that their threads wouldn't receive much attention, if any at all.

 

[mclaren777]

Wait...WHAT? How the fuck do you spend ten years studying evolution...yet come to the conclusion it's false?

Many scientists spend entire careers researching such matters and arrive at similar conclusions.

Besides, over the past decade, the foundation of evolution has gradually eroded in some unexpected ways.

 

[jay]

A biochemistry major huh? More like a major fucking moron if you really agree with him. :lol

Seriously WTF is wrong with US education when people can't grasp a simple concept like evolution.

Behe must be his hero.

Many scientists spend entire careers researching such matters and arrive at similar conclusions.

And what competing theories do they offer? Not to mention most of them start at their conclusions.

 

[mclaren777]

Seriously WTF is wrong with US education when people can't grasp a simple concept like evolution.

How did you come to the conclusion that I can't grasp the concept of evolution?

That seems like a wild assumption at best.

 

[Stridone]

How did you come to the conclusion that I can't grasp the concept of evolution?

That seems like a wild assumption at best.

How can you live with the cognitive dissonance involved in denying evolution on one hand, based on a presumed lack of evidence, and accepting religious beliefs as true on the other hand, which don't even INVOLVE any evidence at all?

 

[Kinitari]

For what it's worth, Vizion28, I'm a biochemistry major who's getting ready to start his Masters program and I agree with much of what you've said.

If you don't mind, can you point out one or two simple points in which you agree with, and we can have a real discussion here? Or else people will just be going

"omg, wth you agree with him?"
"yah bro, he dropped some real talk"
"that wasn't real talk!"
"it was the realest of talk"

For fucking ever.

 

[wolfmat]

Many scientists spend entire careers researching such matters and arrive at similar conclusions.

Besides, over the past decade, the foundation of evolution has gradually eroded in some unexpected ways.

What ways? (And that's not something you put "Besides, …" in front of)

 

[Zaphod]

How did you come to the conclusion that I can't grasp the concept of evolution?

That seems like a wild assumption at best.

Besides, over the past decade, the foundation of evolution has gradually eroded in some unexpected ways.

That says it all if you ask me.

I would think that after 10 years of being able to easily sequence DNA the evidence for evolution is stronger than ever.

 

[Korey]

Many scientists spend entire careers researching such matters and arrive at similar conclusions.

Besides, over the past decade, the foundation of evolution has gradually eroded in some unexpected ways.

This is the guy who equated being gay with bestiality. So not only is he a troll and religious nut, but he's also a bigot.

 

[BocoDragon]

Is there anyone who didn't first presuppose religious truth who has come to the conclusion that evolution is false?

When an agnostic or an atheist comes to the conclusion that it's incorrect, then I'm interested. I'm not at all surprised that people who have an agenda to discredit evolution have found their "reasons".