Newsweek on Tiktaalik and Pandas

If I could draw cartoons, I'd draw one of Tiktaalik giving the finger to Paul Nelson.

Few leading [ID] researchers have argued against the existence of transitional forms.

No one here has mentioned the fact the Rob Crowther uses the term "claim" in his article. Specifically, "..a group of researchers claim to have uncovered the skeleton of a 375-million-year-old fish."(emphasis mine). Not even AIG questions the find, just the age. Several papers in a mainstream scientific journal with plenty of photographs substantiates their claim in my book. Their tangible claims carry several orders of magnitude more credibility than any claims I've read from the DI.

Delta Pi Gamma (Scientia et Fermentum)

Few leading [ID] researchers ....

Bruce,

This...

"No one here has mentioned the fact the Rob Crowther uses the term "claim" in his article. Specifically, "..a group of researchers claim to have uncovered the skeleton of a 375-million-year-old fish."

...is because, as you know, no one in the scientific community will accept the evidence until it has been checked, redated, redated with other methods, rechecked and redated with even newer methods and so on...

Vive la Methodé!

steve_is

Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

ABSTRACT How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, fifty years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial `protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium.

However, people WILL get testy if someone continues to claim that mutation decreases information never increases it, we've never seen speciation, evolution is only a theory, etc., after being show evidence to the contrary.

why the hysteria?

Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate?

I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria?

I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

Comment #95754 Posted by Graeme Carle on April 9, 2006 05:51 PM (e) Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

(I just can't see how information is added to DNA)

It's great to see that some members of the media are aware of some of those embarassing statements such as are made in OPaP. Perhaps, before too long, enough of the media will be aware of the disingenuous and deceitful work of the Intelligent Design movement to render their PR campaigns useless (although by then ID may have evolved yet again, perhaps into Purposeful Arrangement of Parts (PAP)).

Few leading [ID] researchers ....

Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

You should see some of the things I've been accused of lately because I don't like the same video games certain other people like

I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

— Graeme Carle

Depends on the context. Do so in church and you'll be applauded by equally ignorant parishioners in the pews. Do so in front of an audience composed of people who actually know something about it and you'll be laughed at or pitied

— RBH

I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched? Depends on the context. Do so in church and you'll be applauded by equally ignorant parishioners in the pews. Do so in front of an audience composed of people who actually know something about it and you'll be laughed at or pitied

— Graeme Carle

Do so in a high school science class, or at a school board meeting, and, no, I won't lynch you or get hysterical, but, yes, I will be mightily exasperated, perhaps even to the point of pissed-offedness.

— Russel

I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

— Graeme Carle

Depends on the context. Do so in church and you'll be applauded by equally ignorant parishioners in the pews. Do so in front of an audience composed of people who actually know something about it and you'll be laughed at or pitied

— RBH

Do so in a high school science class, or at a school board meeting, and, no, I won't lynch you or get hysterical, but, yes, I will be mightily exasperated, perhaps even to the point of pissed-offedness.

— Russel

Graeme Carle:
I just can't see how information is added to DNA.

Pete Dunkelberg:
Do you have a definition of information such that mutations can avoid adding information?

It is unlikely that Mr. Carle can define "mutations" or, indeed, knows anything about the chemical structure of DNA or how this structure works in the context of a living cell. I say this with some confidence because if he understood anything substantial about molecular biology (never mind evolution) he would probably not have asked the above question.

I'm not saying this to insult Mr. Carle, but rather to point out that (1) Mr. Dunkelberg's question above is probably already over Mr. Carle's head, and (2) to warn Mr. Carle that he is likely doing the equivalent of voicing an opinion about how a Formula 1 engine ought to be tuned, when he can't tell a piston ring from a crankshaft.

Biology, like F1 racing, is a technical subject, and there's really no point to forming an opinion until one has mastered the field's technical fundamentals (and, perhaps, until one's gone a bit beyond the fundamentals). To form and voice such an opinion anyway is to risk making a fool of oneself in a very public way. If Mr. Carle is genuinely interested in this subject, I and many others would be delighted to point him toward books, web sites, etc. that will provide the technical background required to form a useful opinion.

"This latest fossil find poses no threat to intelligent design." So says Discovery Institute senior fellow and leading intelligent design theorist Dr. William Dembski, adding: "Intelligent design does not so much challenge whether evolution occurred but how it occurred. In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes--as opposed to intelligence--can create biological complexity and diversity."

Another cartoon:

http://news.yahoo.com/comics/060409/cx_bday_umedia/20060904

Comment #95754 Posted by Graeme Carle on April 9, 2006 05:51 PM (e) Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

I can see a variant of the "Darwin fish" car emblem right now:

> Tiktaalik >
L L

Re "In particular, it questions whether purposeless material processes --- as opposed to intelligence --- can create biological complexity and diversity.""

When did material processes and intelligence become opposites?

Doesn't our intelligence use material processes all the time?

Come to think of it, what makes material processes "purposeless"?

If an unguided material process (I'm assuming that's what they meant) would produce an acceptable result, why would the one wanting that result be obliged to micromanage the process just because the ID pushers want it to have done so?

(Or am I being picky?)

Henry

When did material processes and intelligence become opposites? Doesn't our intelligence use material processes all the time? Come to think of it, what makes material processes "purposeless"?

The name Tiktaalik and the general body plan reminds me of a crocodile. Maybe the one that snagged the hand of Capt. Hook and got stuck with an alarm clock.

Maybe that Tiktaalik talk is just a reminder that time is running out for creationism.

I just can't see how information is added to DNA

It's great to see that some members of the media are aware of some of those embarassing statements such as are made in OPaP. Perhaps, before too long, enough of the media will be aware of the disingenuous and deceitful work of the Intelligent Design movement to render their PR campaigns useless (although by then ID may have evolved yet again, perhaps into Purposeful Arrangement of Parts (PAP)).

I can see a variant of the "Darwin fish" car emblem right now: > Tiktaalik > L L

Kevin takes the ball down court; he shoots

he scores!!!

yikes that was punny.

although by then ID may have evolved yet again, perhaps into Purposeful Arrangement of Parts (PAP)

... I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

I thought this would be an excellent example to bring to this table. Some recent news about "Anti-Freeze Fish", their anti-freeze protein came from JUNK DNA. If Graham Carle is still looking for an answer for how you can get "information" (in the sense he may be using) from non-information, there you go.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/060404090831.htm

I talked about it on my show last week, I find it significant because it demonstrates that genes don't have to come from other genes. They can leap out of the genetic junkyard!

Quick summary of what "information" means for the benefit of Graeme Carle :)

Shannon information (used in information theory) is basically defined as the improbability of an event - it's also known by the evocative term of "surprisal". Say you go down to breakfast and greet your wife, who's sitting at the table. About half the time you'll say "hi", about half the time you'll say "good morning", and one time in a million you'll scream and run out the room. The information content of the third option is drastically higher than the others - because it occurs so rarely your wife can learn a lot from it. In particular that there's something horribly wrong with her appearance and that you're sleeping on the couch tonight.

Now, there's two things to note here. Firstly, the information content of doing something twice works out to twice the information content of doing it once, so gene duplication will massively increase information. Secondly, if you pick one of your three options at random then a third of the time you'll pick the high-information option, so the average amount of information you convey will be higher. By the same reasoning, random mutation increases Shannon information.

Kolmogorov-Chaitin information is basically a measure of the length of the shortest description for a string - the shortest program (with data) that can generate it. So, for example, the information content for "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" would be very low - the program would basically boil down to "As. Lots of As". On the other hand, a completely random string would probably not be describable by any program much shorter than itself - there wouldn't be any patterns to exploit. Thus, once again, random mutation will in general increase information content.

The problem arises when people confuse these precise mathematical definitions with what laymen think of as information. This comes in two forms, which ID proponents are wont to conflate:

Data that means something, such as the works of Shakespeare, is a completely subjective quality. As such, it will in general not be produced by objective processes. Fortunately for evolution, there is no evidence of the genome possessing much of this type of information. There are no great sonnets encoded in our DNA. There aren't even any dirty limericks. So not a problem.

Data that does something, on the other hand, is a thoroughly objective quality. And fortunately for evolution, there's considerable evidence that this can arise quite easily by evolutionary processes such as random mutation and natural selection. If you want proof that it happens on a regular basis then I suggest reading up on genetic algorithms (which regularly produce useful programs and systems ex nihilo). For an example of it arising in the real world, however, you just can't beat the Nylon bug, a bacterium in which a single frame shift mutation gave it the capacity to digest a substance that didn't even exist 71 years ago.

So no, worries about how evolution adds information don't exactly keep me awake at night.

"But wait --------------- today we find human genetic loci (such as
hemoglobin or the HLA complex) that have well over *400* different
alleles (indeed some have over *700* different alleles). Hmmmm.
Since there could have only been 16 possible on the Big Boat, and
since there are over 400 now, and since 400 is more than 16, that
means that somehow the GENETIC INFORMATION INCREASED from the time
they got off the Big Boat until now."

But what if the Great Turtle waved its magic turtle tail and bobbed its magic turtle head and "sploquaf" (the noise such magic waving and bobbing make) and all that genetic "stuff" just "magically" appeared? Remember we are not dealing with science here but Great Turtle waving and bobbing.

Few leading [ID] researchers have argued against the existence of transitional forms."

Actually, according to the dubious myth itself, It was a father, three sons, and their four wives. Therefore, since the sons inherited their genes from their parents, (assuming no hanky-panky) then you only have 5 effective genomes - the father, mother, and three wives of the sons. So now it has been reduced to 10 possible alleles. But since they would have come from a particular population, it is likely that they would have shared many alleles.
There are some folks running around claiming that genetics support the ark myth, notably Reasons to Believe, but they never pony up the data, while there's tons of stuff that gives evidence to the contrary.

Re: few leading ID researchers - Don't you get it, everyone? They are talking about how few ID researchers there are in the first place! Any proportion of the total ID researchers would still qualify as "few."

Seems to me Graeme deserves a bit more respect. By my read he asked politely, and with some temerity, if he'd be flayed for expressing some lack of understanding while in search of some answers. A couple of the latest posts gave him some useful and respectful information, I'd say, but I'm not sure he'll read down far enough to come to them because he'll have to wade through some pretty shrill responses. Yeah, we're all tired of the idiocy and the dishonesty, but our responses to his post kinda prove his point, doncha think?

Our? Who are you exactly? I haven't seen you around here.

Am I the only one worried about the sheer vindictiveness of the evolution or creation debate? I thought science was about open mindedeness and rationality so why the hysteria? I admit I'm a doubter (I just can't see how information is added to DNA)but if I go public, am I likely to be lynched?

Seems to me Graeme deserves a bit more respect. By my read he asked politely, and with some temerity, if he'd be flayed for expressing some lack of understanding while in search of some answers. A couple of the latest posts gave him some useful and respectful information, I'd say, but I'm not sure he'll read down far enough to come to them because he'll have to wade through some pretty shrill responses. Yeah, we're all tired of the idiocy and the dishonesty, but our responses to his post kinda prove his point, doncha think?

Graeme Carle brought up the subject of DNA and information in this discussion thread.

The weak link in Darwinism's reasoning is not the ancient earth, common ancestry, descent with modification or natural selection, but rather its reliance on strictly random variations to produce novel changes. This particular tenet violates a law of information conservation that is adhered to by living metabolic systems at all times:

1) Protein and RNA synthesis requires data transmission from a precise DNA template to succeed.

2) Countless metabolic pathways and reactions work only because the right information (coded in molecular structure, placement and timing) is brought to bear at the proper junction by the proper agents.

3) The products of each metabolic reaction convey information from prior reactants to new bio-junctions where yet another "chemical handshake" perpetuate a transfer.

In all these cases, it is clear that information is not created ex-nihilo. Rather, every metabolic source is transferring some non-zero quantity of information to a subsequent metabolic sink. If energy and mass conservation apply to these systems, so does information conservation.

Random mutations cannot convey any more information than random nucleotide sequences or randomly-chosen metabolic reactants. Living systems implicitly reject the participation of random DNA codes and random chemical reactants from their metabolic organization because these parties lack the structured information needed to perpetuate matters. Therefore, it safely follows that all genetic changes would require meaningful information, and hence coordination, if viable changes and species were to arise.

If energy and mass conservation apply to these systems, so does information conservation.

In all these cases, it is clear that information is not created ex-nihilo. Rather, every metabolic source is transferring some non-zero quantity of information to a subsequent metabolic sink. If energy and mass conservation apply to these systems, so does information conservation.

I think you need to do the math to show this.

Right now, you're telling us this, not showing us. It's not supported by either math or by hard evidence derived from research.

Random mutations cannot convey any more information than random nucleotide sequences or randomly-chosen metabolic reactants. Living systems implicitly reject the participation of random DNA codes and random chemical reactants from their metabolic organization because these parties lack the structured information needed to perpetuate matters. Therefore, it safely follows that all genetic changes would require meaningful information, and hence coordination, if viable changes and species were to arise.

— appolo230

Arden Chatfield said: "Note the weasel words: 'Few leading [ID] researchers'. So that means that SOME leading ID 'researchers' say they don't exist, many ID 'researchers' who aren't 'leading' say they don't exist, and thousands of 'grassroots' ID doofuses continue to make that claim. My prediction is, they'll continue to make that claim forever."

Well, what proportion of "none" constitutes "few"? This is a safe claim for them to make, seeing as how there are literally *no* "leading [ID] researchers" to choose from.

Lynn

Few leading [ID] researchers have argued against the existence of transitional forms." Those "leading researchers" may know better, but the fossil gaps are cited many times in the controversial ID textbook "Of Pandas and People." The book takes particular note of the large difference between "the oldest amphibian" and "its presumed [fish] ancestor." It's a gap wide enough for a fish to walk through --- and now we know that one did.

Lixivium said: "I don't know why you're so hung up on this "meaningful information" business. If you took random handfuls of letters out of a Scrabble bag, most of the combinations you pick out will be garbage, but occasionally you'll get a combination that forms a word. When this happens you recognize that combination and put it on the board. This is the very role of natural selection, to pick "meaningful information" out of random mutations."

This is supposing that the only useful letter combinations are those which you recognize as words. "Useful" or "meaningful" combinations are determined simply by cultural context. There's no reason other combinations of letters couldn't be meaningful for someone utilizing another perspective--ie, coming from a different language background.

But more significantly, there's no reason new words can't be invented. Sticking to the language analogy, this happens all the time. Combinations of letters which meant nothing 100 years ago are now meaningful. To borrow from a reference cited above, consider the letter combination "nylon." And that "y" scores lots of points, too ;^)

Lynn

From apollo230: In all these cases, it is clear that information is not created ex-nihilo. Rather, every metabolic source is transferring some non-zero quantity of information to a subsequent metabolic sink. If energy and mass conservation apply to these systems, so does information conservation. Random mutations cannot convey any more information than random nucleotide sequences or randomly-chosen metabolic reactants. Living systems implicitly reject the participation of random DNA codes and random chemical reactants from their metabolic organization because these parties lack the structured information needed to perpetuate matters. Therefore, it safely follows that all genetic changes would require meaningful information, and hence coordination, if viable changes and species were to arise.

Random mutations cannot convey any more information than random nucleotide sequences or randomly-chosen metabolic reactants.

The weak link in Darwinism's reasoning is not the ancient earth, common ancestry, descent with modification or natural selection, but rather its reliance on strictly random variations to produce novel changes. This particular tenet violates a law of information conservation that is adhered to by living metabolic systems at all times:...

— apollo230

Therefore, it safely follows that all genetic changes would require meaningful information, and hence coordination, if viable changes and species were to arise.

after a lenghty discussion about information theory, and why that isn't a problem for evolutionary theory, and why posters like Graeme sometimes garner ire, Apollo goes and does exactly what pisses so many of us off so much;

presents uninformed and incorrect misinterpretations of evolutionary theory as "darwinism".

*sigh*

look, kiddo, we cut you a lot of slack here, explained several things to you, but you are starting to look like all you want to do is screech.

I hereby proclaim you a troll (duly note the time and date).

good luck with that.

On the odd chance that you really want to learn something, feel free to ask questions rather than proclaim your ignorance so loudly; or go to the talkorigins archive to learn the answers yourself.

in the meantime, let me disabuse you of one thing, since you seem to ignore the presentations on information theory already presented:

ToE does not rely on random mutation being the single force for genetic change.

If you want to criticize ToE, the least you could do is actually learn the details of it from somewhere that doesn't refer to it as "darwinism", for starters.

2. ID has pretty much fallen by the wayside. Note UD has only a few real commenters.

What great scientist came up with the "law of information conservation" and applied it to biological systems? Surely it must have been someone with the insight of an Isaac Newton!

I wonder if Apollo will give credit where credit is due, or has WD40's schtick become so legendary now that it no longer requires reference when posted on creationist websites?

I can see a variant of the "Darwin fish" car emblem right now:

In response to Graeme:

Have you taken any college level biology or something equivalent, like physical anthropology?

apollo230 simply makes the elementary mistake of conlating the 'random' in 'random mutation' with high Kolmogorov complexity or some other information-theoretical metric. But that's not what we mean. 'Random' in context means only 'without respect to selective effect.'

The Scrabble analogy is apt. The letters you select are selected 'randomly' in that the specific letters picked are chosen without reference to the letters you already have or the likelihood that the new combination will form a given word.

It's quite remarkable, really, just how much mileage ID seems to get out of glossing over simple distinctions like this.

apollo230 wrote: The weak link in Darwinism's reasoning is not the ancient earth, common ancestry, descent with modification or natural selection, but rather its reliance on strictly random variations to produce novel changes. This particular tenet violates a law of information conservation that is adhered to by living metabolic systems at all times:...

1. Dembski defines his information as Shannon uncertainty, which is equivalent to entropy. We know that entropy can and does increase. Dembski's law of conservation of information is simply wrong. 2. No recognized theory of information (i.e., the statistical theory of Shannon et al, and the algorithmic theory of Kolmogorov, Chaitin, and Solomonoff) has a law of conservation of information. William Dembski and Werner Gitt have each invented their own nonstandard information theories, but neither of these theories is used in science or engineering, and their claims are not supported by the vast body of research into information theory. 3. Even if there were a law of conservation of information, it would not necessarily invalidate evolution. Information is transferred from the environment to organisms by natural selection and other processes. 4. Normally, physical laws get to be considered laws after they are tested and verified by independent sources under very many various conditions. For Dembski to claim a new physical law without any testing whatsoever is hubris of the highest magnitude.

Picky, but regarding "Empty Fish Emblem with Feet" Tiklaalik doesn't have feet, as such, does it?