Re: The Heresy of Scientists


<cafeinst@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1136926596.425557.234790@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> Gene Poole wrote:
> > On 9 Jan 2006 08:40:46 -0800, cafeinst@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> > >
> > [SNIP]
> > >Gene Poole wrote:
> > >>
> > >> [I tried to post this in response to another sub-thread, but it seems
to
> > >> have gotten lost. It fits here just as well]
> > >>
> > >> I have a couple of questions for you regarding this nebulous
information
> > >> thing.
> > >>
> > >> First, we now know the genomes of both human and chimp. There is a
100%
> > >> correspondence of genes, meaning that for every protein in the chimp
> > >> genome, there is a corresponding protein in the human genome. They
may
> > >> be slightly different in exact sequence due to mutations, but it
seems
> > >> to me that using Spetnar's definition, both genomes would have
identical
> > >> information content. Do you agree? Why or why not?
> > >
> > >Assuming that
> > >1) There is a 100% correspondence between the genes of a chimp and
> > >genes of a human.
> > >2) All of the genes are used to define the organisms. (There are no
> > >"junk" genes.)
> > >3) There is no way to compress the genetic codes of each of the
> > >respective organisms into a smaller sequence.
> > >4) There are no other factors which define the organisms.
> > >
> > >Then yes, they would have identical information content. However,
> > >proving something like this would be difficult.
> >
> > Then, granted that these assumptions are true, there is no problem for
> > neodarwinian evolution with respect to Spetner's "information." (I
> > assume you consider chimp/human decent from a common ancestor as
> > qualifying.)
>
> That is correct.
>
> >
> > May I be so presumptuous, then, as to assume that you disagree with one
> > (or more) of these assumptions?
>
> I really don't know whether any of the assumptions are true. Another
> poster argued with 3).
>
> >
> > >Assuming that
> > >1) There is a 100% correspondence between the genes of a chimp and
> > >genes of a human.
> >
> > Since we have both genomes, and I would tend to regard this as a fact.
> > Do you disagree? Why?
>
> See http://www.genome.gov/15515096. It says that there is a 96%
> correspondence. How do you define correspondence? Also, humans have 23
> chromosomes. Chimps have 24.

Chimps have 24 chromosomes because one of their original chromosomes split.
If you put those two chromosomes together, they match up with the
corresponding human chromosome gene for gene.

Ironically, in order to salvage the global flood/ark story in the Bible,
many creationists claim that Noah only had to bring "kinds" aboard the ark.
The various species then evolved through microevolution from these basic
kinds. Presumably, there was a horse kind, but if we look at the DNA of
horses, we find that the number of chromosomes varies dramatically from
species to species. One can't help but wonder why a difference of a single
chromosome should block evolution in apes, but it is perfectly acceptable
for the number of chromosomes in horses to nearly double in the course of
their "microevolution"? One also can't help but wonder what we would find
if we looked at the chromosomes of other kinds: like the cat kind, and the
dog kind, and the reptile kind?

> > >2) All of the genes are used to define the organisms. (There are no
> > >"junk" genes.)
> >
> > You'll have to define "junk gene." It is a non-standard term as best I
> > can tell. There is, of course, "junk" (non-coding) DNA but since it is
> > non-coding, then by definition it does not contain genes.
>
> It's like a hard-working person who happens to have a job in which had
> that person not come to work one day, nobody would care. The person
> gets a lot of work done but still the work is meaningless. Sort of like
> the research of the average university professor.
>
> >
> > >3) There is no way to compress the genetic codes of each of the
> > >respective organisms into a smaller sequence.
> >
> > You'll need to expand on this one a bit too. If I take this at face
> > value, then indeed, both genomes are very "compressible." Only 1.2 % of
> > either genome actually codes for proteins. What does this have to do
> > with the argument? Which genome do you think is more compressible and
> > why?
>
> If I had to guess, I would think the chimp genome is more compressible
> than the human genome since the human is able to solve more difficult
> problems than a chimp and therefore would have a more complicated
> structure which requires more information to specify. But of course,
> the chimp could have "junk genes" as I defined above. Such a case would
> be analagous to a human genius and an human idiot. They might have the
> same genome, but the human idiot has more "junk genes" than the human
> genius.

Hold on! If we go back and look at Spetner's criteria for an increase in
information, we find that chimp DNA contains more information than human
DNA. Remember, information is a function of specificity. Humans live all
over the world in different types of environments. Chimps live in a
specific environment in Africa. Chimps have more specificity than humans.
Therefore, by Spetner's reasoning, chimps require more information than
humans.

> > >4) There are no other factors which define the organisms.
> >
> > This is yet another vague concept. What does it mean to define an
> > organism? Obviously there is much more to it than just the genome.
> > Nonetheless, it would seem that you are now abandoning Spetnar's line of
> > reasoning since he is only concerned with information as it applies to
> > the genome of an organism.
>
> Everyone seems to be convinced that DNA contains all of the information
> which makes us tick. What if there is more information than DNA which
> causes us to be what we are? How do we know that DNA is everything?
> What if someone discovers something else which specifies
> characteristics of life.
>
> >
> > Tangentially to our discussion, could you share your view on the
> > human/chimp relationship? Do you consider the two related by decent?
>
> No, I don't think they are related by descent. And if they are, then
> the chimps came from humans and not the other way around. This is all
> somewhat consistent with Spetner's ideas. But this belief is based on
> my religion though, not Spetner's ideas.
>
> As a scientist, I don't think it's possible to know what happened
> millions of years ago without time travel. Extrapolation is a very weak
> form of inference, as it's not even testable. Scientists are doing it
> all the time, yet it is not real science. Science cannot answer
> questions like this. The only reason scientists are doing it is because
> they want answers to questions like how did we get here, yet most
> scientists are atheists and since traditional religions for them cannot
> answer these questions, they make "science" their religion.

Past events leave evidence. A car accident leave evidence. A civil war
battle leaves evidence. An animal living a million years ago leaves
evidence. A volcano erupting 100 million years ago leaves evidence. We can
investigate past events by looking at the evidence that they left for us to
find today. The purpose of science is to explain the available evidence.
The explanation that best fits the evidence is considered the best theory.
That is the way science works.

You are making the common creationist mistake of ignoring the evidence. You
are trying to equate evolution with atheism and attack the motives of
scientists instead of dealing with the evidence. The motives of scientists
don't matter. The can be hypocrites, they can be jerks, they can be biased,
and it's all irrelevant. The only thing that matters in science is the
evidence. Until you learn to deal with the evidence, you won't make any
headway with scientists.

> > >The notion of information is very simple. However, quantifying
> > >information content is very complicated and in many cases impossible.
> > >Nevertheless, the concept is very relevant for evaluating whether
> > >neo-Darwinism explains how we got here.
> >
> > Please explain how your conclusion follows from those premises.
>
> I'd be wasting my time explaining it, as the reasoning all comes from
> Spetner's book and the trueorigin.org section about Spetner.
>
> Craig
>
> >
> > [SNIP]
>

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... >> Chimps have 24 chromosomes because one of their original chromosomes ... that creationism is true and therefore, that the evidence must fit creation. ... If we can recognize design in nature in the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... > Chimps have 24 chromosomes because one of their original chromosomes split. ... The only reason scientists are doing it is because ... A car accident leave evidence. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How utterly scientific of you guys! {and Ray is Correct btw}
    ... chimps and man are biologically compatible and can mate ... without evidence, since this hypothesis has never been tested. ... chromosomes 4 and 17 are structurally dissimilar, ... you do not have compatability and the hybrid will die out. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: The Heresy of Scientists
    ... we find that the number of chromosomes varies dramatically from ... > that creationism is true and therefore, that the evidence must fit creation. ... Humans live ... Chimps have more specificity than ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Developing a focused set of questions for IDists - Comments encouraged
    ... It could be given evidence by finding hidden messages or images inside ... of DNA. ... Nobody has claimed it not possible. ... duck could get cow genes. ...
    (talk.origins)