Dont worry about Q Ben - he's a contrarian bastard (I mean that in the nicest possible way Q Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ). How about we just discuss your point about No New Information - starting with your list of criteria that must be met in order for something to count has having it
specified complexity is a definition. But lets quote Spetner, again, not an evolutionist, as to what is needed for evolution to be observed: http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp "I am writing this essay in response to a request from Edward E. Max to comment on his posting The Evolution of Improved Fitness (updated July 12 1999). His essay is an attempt to defend evolutionary theory against attacks by creationists. Although Max scored some points against some alleged creationist arguments, he failed to defend Darwinian evolution against my attack on it in my book Not By Chance. He did not mention my book in his posting, but he referred to my book in his request for my comments. I shall also take this opportunity to clarify some issues in my book about which some readers have written me. The principle message of evolution is that all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source. I call this the grand sweep of evolution. The mechanism offered for the process of modification is basically the Darwinian one of a long series of steps of random variation, each followed by natural selection. The variation is generally understood today to be random mutations in the DNA. That primitive source of life is assumed to be sufficiently simple that it could have arisen from nonliving material by chance. There is no theory today that can account for such an event, but I shall not address that issue here. That is for another place and another time. What is relevant to this discussion is that the requirement that life arose spontaneously sets, at the very least, a stringent upper limit on the complexity and information content of the putative first organism that could reproduce itself, and thus serve as a vehicle from which to launch Darwinian evolution. The issue I address here is the alleged development of all life by the Neo-Darwinian process of random mutation and natural selection, starting from a sufficiently simple beginning. Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work. Most evolutionists assume that macroevolution is just a long sequence of microevolutionary events, but no one has ever shown it to be so. (Those few evolutionists who hold that macroevolution is really different from microevolution have changed their story several times since they first came out with it, and their mechanism is so fuzzy that I cannot tell what it is. John Maynard Smith seems to be of a similar opinion.) For the grand process of evolution to work, long sequences of “beneficial” mutations must be possible, each building on the previous one and conferring a selective advantage on the organism. The process must be able to lead not only from one species to another, but to the entire advance of life from a simple beginning to the full complexity of life today. There must be a long series of possible mutations, each of which conferring a selective advantage on the organism so that natural selection can make it take over the population. Moreover, there must be not just one, but a great many such series. The chain must be continuous in that at each stage a change of a single base pair somewhere in the genome can lead to a more adaptive organism in some environmental context. That is, it should be possible to continue to climb an “adaptive” hill, one base change after another, without getting hung up on a local adaptive maximum. No one has ever shown this to be possible. Now one might say that if evolution were hung up on a local Maximum, a large genetic change like a recombination or a transposition could bring it to another higher peak. Large adaptive changes are, however, highly improbable. They are orders of magnitude less probable than getting an adaptive change with a single nucleotide substitution, which is itself improbable. No one has shown this to be possible either. Moreover, as I have noted in my book, the large mutations such as recombinations and transpositions are mediated by special enzymes and are executed with precision - not the sort of doings one would expect of events that were supposed to be the products of chance. Evolutionists chose the mechanism of randomness, by the way, because we can’t think of any other way beneficial mutations might occur in the absence of a law that might govern them. Genetic rearrangements may not be really random at all. They do not seem to qualify as the random mutations Neo-Darwinists can invoke whenever needed to escape from a local adaptive Maximum. Evolutionists can argue, and rightly so, that we have no way of observing long series of mutations, since our observation time is limited to a relatively short interval. Our genetic observations over the past 100 years are more like a snapshot of evolution rather than a representative interval in which we can search for the required long series of changes. But our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist." The issue Spetner outlines is not that mutations occur, they do. It is not that "beneficial" mutations sometimes occur, he agrees with this. The issue is that no beneficial mutations which have been observed to occur in the germ cells of any organism add new information which can move the organism forward in its quest for increased complexity. A beetle on a lonely, wind-swept island may have a mutation which causes it to lose or corrupt the information coding for wing manufacture, a fish living in a dark underwater cave may lose sight, a bacteria may develop resistance to antibiotics, but none of these beneficial mutations move an organism forward evolutionarily or increase functional complexity. Sickle cell anemia does not improve the quality of respiration in humans, it makes it worse. The gene pools of today carry vast quantities of information coding for the performance of projects and functions which did not exist in the theoretical ‘primeval cell’. In order to support protozoon-to-man evolution, one must be able to point to instances where mutation has added a new ‘sentence’ or gene coding for a new project or function. This is so regardless of one’s assumptions on the survival value of any project or function.
speciation does not prove molecules to man evolution in the least. Speciation usually either neutral or information losing. For example, it is impossible to breed a chiuaua from a Great Dane. The information necessary has been lost on the part of Great Danes. Isolated gene pools allow organisms to adapt. This would be predicted by the creationist model as organisms were commanded to spread over the earth, find niches and adapt to new surroundings. Evolution involves new information to code for new organs and new functions. This is an improbable story, not science.
There is no 'quest for increased complexity', evolution has no direction. I object to the phrase, 'not shown to be possible". Of course it's possible. You can breed a chihuahua from a Great Dane (and they aren't separate species).
There's a lot of filler in there - but from what I can gather it refers to increased functional complexity - either physiological or morphological. If you were to sum it up in your own words is that what you would say?
This is the basic insight of an important point. Now combine that with the accumulation of variation and the fact of environmental change of many different kinds - including, say, symbiosis. Of course they have. They've even run little artificial models of possible processes and watched it happen. You are underestimating the possibilities of "self-reproduction". Certain clays and crystals, for example, reproduce themselves under certain conditions. If speciation lost information, the most diversely speciated beings - such as Hawaiian fruit flies - would have noticeably less information in their genomes than their relatives of less specific diversification. That is not observed.
Actually, you can with enough time and patience. Both the Chihuahua and the Great Dane come from a common ancestor: northern European wolves who were selectively bred for desirable mutations. Chihuahua's weren't running around Europe two-thousand years ago. Neither were Great Danes. They are all descendants of feral wolves. Even today we are capturing these desirable mutations and moving existing breeds into new--and stranger--forms. Some utilitarian. Some not. Nature, with no will or direction, does the same based upon environmental conditions. Eventually the mutations become so divergent that the two are mechanically incompatible (but currently the Great Dane and Chihuahua can be interbred... it's just the--shall we say--mechanics that prevent it). ~String
If evolution were the explanation for the origin and rise of all living things that is exactly what has happened; almost infinite complexity from a hypothetical simple starting point. And no, you cannot now breed back to a Chihuahua from the Great Dane breed alone.
"Of course they have. They've even run little artificial models of possible processes and watched it happen." We are not talking here of computer models, we are speaking of observational science. You know, that stuff you claim to be about, while pretending that we are notPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "You are underestimating the possibilities of "self-reproduction". Certain clays and crystals, for example, reproduce themselves under certain conditions." this is a silly analogy which I hear rather often. The patterns of certain minerals are based upon their chemical natures. Life is not like that. Crystal growth involves regularity, living systems involve complexity and a pre-existing code. "If speciation lost information, the most diversely speciated beings - such as Hawaiian fruit flies - would have noticeably less information in their genomes than their relatives of less specific diversification" Not all speciation is the result of genetic mutation. The point is that no new information has ever been observed to be the factor in speciation. The information contained in today's biocosm is all that there will ever be. We will lose more over time, but none will be gained. Drosophila Melangaster has been bombarded and abused since I was in college, but despite their short life cycle, they really are the same today as they were 100 years ago. Mutants have different color eyes, legs where eyes should be etc. But none are adding new information and subsequently new organs etc..
"Actually, you can with enough time and patience." Actually, you can't because information has been lost during many generations of selective breeding. To breed back you would need to attempt to recover this information by crossbreeding, but you could never do it with the Great Dane alone. "Both the Chihuahua and the Great Dane come from a common ancestor: northern European wolves who were selectively bred for desirable mutations. Chihuahua's weren't running around Europe two-thousand years ago. Neither were Great Danes. They are all descendants of feral wolves. Even today we are capturing these desirable mutations and moving existing breeds into new--and stranger--forms. Some utilitarian. Some not. Nature, with no will or direction, does the same based upon environmental conditions. Eventually the mutations become so divergent that the two are mechanically incompatible (but currently the Great Dane and Chihuahua can be interbred... it's just the--shall we say--mechanics that prevent it)." You are confusing two different things. I didn't write that Chihuahua's and Great Danes could not produce a fertilized ovum. I stated you could not breed a new Chihuahua species by starting with the Great Dane alone. I don't disagree with the contention that great danes,wolves, coyotes and perhaps fox all had a common ancestor and each speciated from them to what we have today. This is all downward de-evolution from an original kind which had maximum information in its genome. As the dog kind spread out into various niches, was domesticated etc., it adapted. Isolated gene pools resulted in information loss. Evolution must explain the arrival of the fitest, not the survival of the fitest. This is your problem. You are arguing from just so stories, false analogies and classic textbook misinformation you gleaned from college years. No observational information exists to support these stories, you just believe it based upon blind faith. Now I don't wish to upset the faith of others. I respect those with different faiths than I hold to. The problem of course is some here have deceived themselves into believing they are on the side of "science", when nothing could be further from the truth.
theoretically, they could, according to Spetner. But the point is that no evidence exists to support the contention that they have. Observed mutations are of a corrupting nature. Most are deleterious, some are neutral and very few are beneficial. But none of the observed beneficial ones are of the type necessary to demonstrate molecules to man evolution. Some have suggested that nylon eating bacteria is an exception. This is controversial. But certainly there should be tons of examples considering what we are seeing out there in the biosphere. That there are none that are not disputed, is telling. Arguing from no evidence we now have a so called "fact of science". Go figure! Now notice what Dr. Max, biochemist and evoution believer has to say about Spetners opening remarks, and then notice the follow up by Spetner: "Max: I agree that there are no definitive examples where a macroevolutionary change (such as the development of cetaceans from terrestrial mammals) has been shown to result from a specific chain of mutations. And I agree with your further comment that “we have no way of observing a long series of mutations.” But you go on to say that “our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that the series Darwinian theory requires indeed exist.” An equally reasonable conclusion, in my view, would be that our inability to observe such series cannot be used as a justification for the assumption that such a series of mutations did NOT occur. Spetner: Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence. [LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]" It appears that the evolutionist, like the atheist, is getting his own argument thrown back into his face! Max wants us to believe in evolution because it has not been proven to be impossible! He admits that there is no direct observational evidence in genetics to support it! Sorry, but I "lack belief". The burden of proof appears to be on the affirmative position.
Dan, do you intend to get around to providing a lost of critera that must be met in order for something to be classed as having new information?
Well, I think I have done that already by the posts I have offered above. You stated that Specified Complexity is a definition of Creationists. It is not as evidenced by this quote: "[L]iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity." (Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection," pg.189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973).) So mutations that bring about beneficial changes are not necessarily adding anything new in terms of information. A disruption of a protein which increases fur content may advantage a mammal living in a warm climate, but nothing new has been added. Information has been lost which benefits the organism in this environment. To advance from fish to philosopher we must add new genes and subsequently new organs in the phenotype which didn't exist before. Eyes where they didn't exist, feathers where none existed, wings where none existed etc.. Mutations which add new information to the DNA and correspondingly new organs to the phenotype of an organism would qualify as new information. The DNA of all organism is loaded with information coding for proteins which do work in the organism. This information is similar to the binary code of a computer. What evolutionists cannot explain is 1). Where did this information come from, how did it arise and 2). How did it change to form the biosphere we see today as well as that present in the fossil record now extinct, without story telling. Evolutionists would have us believe that genetics is the answer to the mystery of life. But the more we learn the more we find that genetics is no friend of evolution.
If you hear it so often it's a puzzle that you haven't paid attention to it, and learned from it what is wrong with some of your assertions - such as that self-reproduction requires extreme complexity, so that the beginnings of self-reproducing systems such as modern lliving beings must have been very complex. The beginnings of life on earth might very well have been quite simple, as far as the requirements of reproduction and the original staging of evolutionary development are concerned. Again, your assertions require that reality be other than we observe - we see many new species with just as much information as their ancestors, even more in some cases. The fruit flies of Hawaii are a prime example. By your assertions, each speciation event must involve loss of information - since it involves a different genome, and according to you nothing new can be added. Different, but nothing added, requires loss - a genome with less information than the ancestral one. This is not observed.
Actually the wolves from which all dogs are descended lived in what is now China. The gene pool is still identifiable there. This doesn't have a substantive impact on the discussion, I'm just correcting the error. Dogs were first domesticated there, or more likely self-domesticated, as the more curious individuals chose to experiment with a scavenger's diet in a multi-species pack, while the others stuck to the hunter's life in a much smaller and less diverse pack. Those who stayed with us adapted to a lower-protein diet, ending up with slightly smaller brains and dentition slightly less ideal for hunting, as well as modified social instincts.
First of all I said that "specified complexity" wasn't a definition but a piece of terminology used by creationists - while I was mistaken that it is used solely by creationists, it is still just a bit of terminology nonetheless. Secondly when it is put into context in the quote above it shows that all living organisms have it - so assuming you agree with this definition, all have new information, contradicting your assertion. So I'm guessing this isn't what you mean at all but something else entirely. This is why I suggested you provide your own definition - or straightforward list of criteria in your own words - instead of relying on quotes you don't asppear to fully understand
"If you hear it so often it's a puzzle that you haven't paid attention to it, and learned from it what is wrong with some of your assertions - such as that self-reproduction requires extreme complexity, so that the beginnings of self-reproducing systems such as modern lliving beings must have been very complex." The reason I don't pay any attention to it is because it is an argument without substance as I have already stated. And you statement that early life didn't need to be complex is equally baseless since we know of no independent living systems that are anything but complex. If you wish to advance the argument that life doesn't need to be complex that you need to find simple living things. Biochemistry is not your friend however as it has taught us that ALL living things are so complex they boggle the mind. "The beginnings of life on earth might very well have been quite simple, as far as the requirements of reproduction and the original staging of evolutionary development are concerned." So you say, but again, this is an argument by assertion and can thus be dismissed as such. No one has demonstrated this. "Again, your assertions require that reality be other than we observe" aren't you a little embarrassed to make this statement in light of your previous statements?Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Come on now, I am arguing real science and you are advancing just-so stories about what might have been...... "we see many new species with just as much information as their ancestors, even more in some cases." you cannot presume evolution and then use it as an argument for evolution. This is circular reasoning. "The fruit flies of Hawaii are a prime example. By your assertions, each speciation event must involve loss of information - since it involves a different genome, and according to you nothing new can be added. Different, but nothing added, requires loss - a genome with less information than the ancestral one. This is not observed." You have made a statement but not offered what new information is possessed by the Hawaiian fruit flies. If it is true that they possess more information than other related fruit flies you must then prove which speciated from which. I should also add that I have stated that speciation can be information neutral or information losing, but never information gaining as far as we know (i.e. have observed). If you have specific examples of the information gained and the recorded observations of these events then provide it. Evolutionist believer and biochemist Dr. Max of talk origins would love to know, as he failed to offer ANY EXAMPLES WHATSOEVER IN HIS DEBATE WITH DR. SPETNER.....