Creationist argument about DNA and information

[Reality Check]

"Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from members of the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the six strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which were developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used."
Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald (Calgary, Alberta, Canada), 16 Sept. 1990.

Google for "Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska, three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics" and the results contains lies from creationist web sites, e.g. AIG stating that "antibiotic resistance is not evolving".

Highlighting the fat that bacteria are resistant to antibiotics when natural resistance is expected is not smart.
Clindamycin is a semisynthetic derivative of lincomycin, a natural antibiotic produced by the actinobacterium Streptomyces lincolnensis.
Cefoxitin sodium is a semi-synthetic, broad-spectrum cepha antibiotic for intravenous administration. It is derived from cephamycin C, which is produced by Streptomyces lactamdurans.

 

[Reality Check]

"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the outstanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discernible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interesting narrative gloss.
Philip Skell PhD; Why Do We Invoke Darwin, August 29, 2005

Certainly cherry picking, argument from invalid authority and a little quote mining! Philip S. Skell was a chemist. Skell was ignorant enough to sign A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism from the Discovery Institute - not a surprise because he was an associate there !

This is an opinion article in The Scientist.
Why Do We Invoke Darwin?

Despite this and other difficulties, the modern form of Darwin's theory has been raised to its present high status because it's said to be the cornerstone of modern experimental biology. But is that correct? "While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky's dictum that 'nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution,' most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas," A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, wrote in 2000.1 "Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one."

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.

Alexander Fleming's discovery was basically an accident!
A personal anecdote is not evidence that evolution is not used in biology.
A vague survey of "70 eminent researchers" is not evidence that evolution is not used in biology.
It is amazing that Skell even as a chemist seemed to be ignorant about evolutionary developmental biology whose foundation is "evoking Darwin".

ETA: Philip Skell - The Cowardly Creationist points out that Skell has expressed that opinion in a few places and ignored the responses from biologists that evoke Darwin. Also see I get email from Philip Skell.

 

[Reality Check]

"On experimental grounds, I have shown that there are no known random mutations that have added any genetic information to the organism. I go through a list of the best examples of mutations offered by evolutionists and show that each of them loses genetic information rather than gains it. One of the examples that where information is lost is the one often trotted out by evolutionists nowadays in an attempt to convince the public of the truth of evolution. That is the evolution of bacterial resistance to antibiotics."
Dr. Lee Spetner; Not by Chance, 31 December 1997

Sounds like a creationist or IDiot lying in a book published in 1997. And Lee M. Spetner is an American and Israeli applied physicist and a creationist author.
The claim is invalid and documented:
Claim CB102:

Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
Response:
1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
• increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
• increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
• novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
• novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example: • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
• RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
• Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4. The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Daniel, you keep insisting that in order to prove that new information cannot arise one must go from lose quarks to fully functioning life in one experiment, but why?

Why do I need to create nucleotides to overthrow the argument that from lose nucleotides no information can arise?
The OP shows that in creationism that simple step is one of the things declared impossible.

Experimental evidence shows it IS possible.

Why then demand the experiments get expanded into a whole different area that is irrelevant in order to disprove the original statement?

 

[turingtest]

...

Correction, I haven’t presented any conclusions that you have the ability to argue with. I’ve illustrated a few of the biggest gaps in science: That no one has a clue what the true nature of reality is, where everything came from, what a human being actually is, how the physical activity of the brain generates ‘you’, how a ‘you’ generates science, and what the explicit relationship is between the laws of physics and the universe they describe.

This has got nothing to do with your vacuous strawmen about being overly wordy, or encouraging ignorance, or a mystery fetish. You simply don’t like to acknowledge the facts…so you get annoyed when anyone is so inconsiderate as to insist on them. I present these observations because you folks constantly insist that science has effectively got the whole thing sewn up. That the gaps into which any variety of God can be inserted are, effectively, either miniscule or about to be so.

Quite obviously, nothing could be further from the truth.

...

Wow, talk about your "vacuous strawmen"- please, feel free to point out any post of mine where I've said anything like that. In fact, in the very post you quoted in responding to, I specifically said that I acknowledge areas of mystery. The problem is, you want to ask questions like "what a human being actually is" without formulating them as falsifiable propositions, and then fault science because it doesn't do bottomless philosophical moonings.

You want answers to those questions? Ask Daniel; he's the one person here who seems pretty certain that he has the whole thing sewn up, with his Danielscience^TM, based on "Christianity is not a religion." Goddidit, don't you know?

 

[ehcks]

Daniel, you keep insisting that in order to prove that new information cannot arise one must go from lose quarks to fully functioning life in one experiment, but why?

Why do I need to create nucleotides to overthrow the argument that from lose nucleotides no information can arise?
The OP shows that in creationism that simple step is one of the things declared impossible.

Experimental evidence shows it IS possible.

Why then demand the experiments get expanded into a whole different area that is irrelevant in order to disprove the original statement?

It's the whole "absolute and final" nonsense. That if science can't explain everything, then it explains nothing. If you can't show the entire history of the universe from the big bang to star formation to planet and moon formation to abiogenesis to every single species organism from the first cell to humans, then science is wrong and god did it.

Daniel then takes it a step further. Even if you can do that, he calls it a fallacy to show him evidence as an excuse for not reading it.

 

[Daniel]

Daniel, you keep insisting that in order to prove that new information cannot arise one must go from lose quarks to fully functioning life in one experiment, but why?

Say what?? And where'd you get quarks...?

Why do I need to create nucleotides to overthrow the argument that from lose nucleotides no information can arise?

Not "You", you're an Intelligent Agent. Remember My Argument...Intelligent Design?
Remember Your Argument...(Your god)--- "Nature"/Natural Law , by chance?

Since Nucleotides are the building blocks of Nucleic Acids (DNA/RNA); I'm asking (and been asking you personally/explicitly for probably better than 10 posts) to show Nucleosides wickering themselves together "Naturally" spontaneously, THEN show Nucleotides wickering themselves together "Naturally" spontaneously.

** And sir, this has Nothing WHATSOEVER to do with Information, we are just dealing with "Physical Molecules" here. "INFORMATION" is not Physical, Remember...

Norbert Wiener Professor Mathematics MIT...

“Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
Wiener, N., Cybernetics, or Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, Hermann et Cie, The Technology Press, Paris, 1948.

The OP shows that in creationism that simple step is one of the things declared impossible.
Experimental evidence shows it IS possible.

Huh?? What simple step is impossible?? If creationism is impossible, then... how did you get here, pray tell...?

Let's see these "Experiments"....?

Why then demand the experiments get expanded into a whole different area that is irrelevant in order to disprove the original statement?

Are you reading a different thread... then posting here??


regards

 

[Daniel]

It's the whole "absolute and final" nonsense. That if science can't explain everything, then it explains nothing.

Ahhh, what on Earth are you talking about?? So you (and your cohorts) can't defend your position, so you CONJURE Arguments (Straw Man Fallacies) and claim those arguments (the ones you just conjured) are nonsensical, eh? Must be rough.

Can you post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery??

btw, "Science" can't explain anything because it has no vocal chords, it's not alive: it's not an ENTITY; Ergo....Reification Fallacy.

If you can't show the entire history of the universe from the big bang to star formation to planet and moon formation...

Please post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery so as to Support your claim here...?

How can somebody SHOW an Unobserved Past Event, pray tell...?

More Importantly, if this is Science and you can't cogently explain how all this can exist "Naturally" SCIENTIFICALLY then....What in the World are you talking about here and How on Earth is it SCIENCE??
Do you even know what Science is?

...to abiogenesis

Please post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery so as to Support your claim here...?

I was asking for ONE FUNCTIONAL MOLECULE (DNA/RNA/Protein).

Where have I asked anyone on this forum to show LIFE from Non-Life...? Go ahead and Quote Me, link the post!!

But I'll tell you what, I will now...YOU MUST SHOW Life from Non-Life "Naturally" to Validate your World-View. I'm mean this is SCIENCE right? This is what your World-View is based on, right? Then SCIENTIFICALLY VALIDATE IT!!!

Atheist Definition of Science: have a Pseudo-Scientist: paleontologist, archaeologist, anthropologist, geologist, evolutionary biologist (lol), theoretical physicist "non experimental" (Philosophers [like Darwin] with Calculators), cosmologist... make up a Story, then call it "Science" (Cause they have purportedly, 'scientific' initials behind their names).

to every single species organism from the first cell to humans, then science is wrong and god did it.

Do you think piling more Strawman Fallacies on top of Pre-existing Straw Man Fallacies somehow obfuscates or renders the incoherent pile, collectively coherent?

Daniel then takes it a step further. Even if you can do that, he calls it a fallacy to show him evidence as an excuse for not reading it.

This makes no sense. So even if you can't provide evidence of the things I didn't ask for.... I call it a Fallacy as an excuse for not reading what you didn't provide.


Do you have a response to the actual subject in this thread? Why don't you be the first from your camp to post a cogent/coherent/concise Definition of Information to get us on track....?


regards

 

[JeanTate]

<snip>

Can you post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery??

<snip>

Please post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery so as to Support your claim here...?

<snip>

Please post PRECISELY Specifically where I EVEN IMPLIED this quackery so as to Support your claim here...?

<snip>

Where have I asked anyone on this forum to show LIFE from Non-Life...? Go ahead and Quote Me, link the post!!

<snip>

I have a suggestion: read what you, Daniel, wrote, in posts here in the ISF, these last few months.

If you do, I think you may find an abundance of evidence, not least of where you have IMPLIED "this quackery" (I sometimes wonder if you actually read what you post, and re-read what you posted earlier ...)

 

[annnnoid]

Wow, talk about your "vacuous strawmen"- please, feel free to point out any post of mine where I've said anything like that. In fact, in the very post you quoted in responding to, I specifically said that I acknowledge areas of mystery. The problem is, you want to ask questions like "what a human being actually is" without formulating them as falsifiable propositions, and then fault science because it doesn't do bottomless philosophical moonings.

You want answers to those questions? Ask Daniel; he's the one person here who seems pretty certain that he has the whole thing sewn up, with his Danielscience^TM, based on "Christianity is not a religion." Goddidit, don't you know?

Yup…that is a generalization. I don’t mind admitting it…

…but…admitting there are ‘areas of mystery’ is a massive understatement of the situation.

We don’t know what anything actually is. Not…

…anything. Period….as Perpetual Student quite helpfully confirmed just yesterday:

The only thing we really know is that the mathematical description of small stuff we call QM has descriptive and predictive value. It says nothing about the ultimate reality of a photon, an electron or anything else. The ultimate nature of an electron (for example) as it goes through one or two slits, travels along a copper wire, is part of an atom or in any other of its manifestations is simply beyond our current science.

Nor do we know what is the explicit relationship between ANY of the laws of physics that we do use to describe and predict everything…and everything…

…nor does anyone effectively have the faintest clue as to how a ‘brain’ creates either a ‘you’ or a single one of these ‘laws of physics’…

…nor does anyone have the faintest idea what it actually means / is to know…well…anything (including comprehending this very word!).

Thus…your ‘area of mystery’ is ultimately every moment and detail of you and everything around you.

…but somehow…this becomes merely a ‘gap’…?!?!?!? As useful an example of the perils of reductionist materialism as is likely to appear …this morning anyway.

 

[Daniel]

You want answers to those questions? Ask Daniel; he's the one person here who seems pretty certain that he has the whole thing sewn up

Well that would depend on what your "Whole Thing" specifically entails.

Furthermore, it's not a Multiple Choice Question. The Cause for each case is either: Nature (Unguided) or Intelligent Design/GOD (Guided). If I have 2 Choices (A True Dichotomy) and I Rule One Completely Out, then based on the Law of Ground Squirrel Level Common Sense...what's "The Cause"? Voila

...with his Danielscience^TM

Are you saying, that I went through this process and filed the appropriate paperwork...

http://www.uspto.gov/trademark/trademark-timelines/trademark-application-and-post-registration-process-timelines

??

When did I do this? Does your Blind Conjecture Acumen/Powers extend to other genre's?? If so let's TEST it, what's my favorite color?

Or are you conjuring then floating nonsensical flailing Appeals to Ridicule (Fallacy) in lieu of substantive positions/arguments to somehow cloak/divert away from the afore mentioned 'lack of' substantive arguments ?

based on "Christianity is not a religion."

That's Correct. However, Materialism/Realism is a 'religion'. Stop over @ the QM thread and I'll show you "WHY".

Do you, by chance, have a cogent/concise/coherent definition of "Information", so we can get back to the topic?

regards

 

[marplots]

Entertaining Daniel's idea that DNA is a product of intelligent design, I was struggling to figure out what the purpose might be. Especially in a world where fatal congenital deformities exist, where mutations arise, and where cancer is hard-wired into genomes. Truly a puzzle.

But I think I've solved it: it's to discourage incest.

 

[Daniel]

Entertaining Daniel's idea that DNA is a product of intelligent design, I was struggling to figure out what the purpose might be. Especially in a world where fatal congenital deformities exist, where mutations arise, and where cancer is hard-wired into genomes. Truly a puzzle.

Your argument is tantamount to saying... because your car breaks down constantly; THEREFORE, it wasn't Intelligently Designed...the Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity et al constructed it.

If you want to know why we have Death/Disease/Suffering ect, SEE: Genesis Chapter 3.

regards

 

[Maurice Ledifficile]

Your argument is tantamount to saying... because your car breaks down constantly; THEREFORE, it wasn't Intelligently Designed...the Wind/Waves/Erosion/Gravity et al constructed it.

If you want to know why we have Death/Disease/Suffering ect, SEE: Genesis Chapter 3.

regards

Babble quotes do not explain death, diseases or anything else, really. Try harder.

 

[Border Reiver]

If you want to know why we have Death/Disease/Suffering ect, SEE: Genesis Chapter 3.

regards

Why are the stories of a collection of Bronze Age pastoralists and early city dwellers more accurate than the germ theory of disease and other such theories as explanations for the existence of death/disease/suffering?

 

[MikeG]

........However, Materialism/Realism is a 'religion'........

.........whereas christianity is a science.

 

[jimbob]

daniel, annnnoid,

1) Do you accept that offspring tend to resemble their parents but are not perfect copies?

2) Do you accept that any offspring that does manage to breed has at the least demonstrated suitable adaptation to its environment to be able to breed?

If you accept those two, the theory of evolution by natural selection follows.

 

[jimbob]

daniel, annnnoid,

1) Do you accept that offspring tend to resemble their parents but are not perfect copies?

2) Do you accept that any offspring that does manage to breed has at the least demonstrated suitable adaptation to its environment to be able to breed?

If you accept those two, the theory of evolution by natural selection follows.

 

[annnnoid]

daniel, annnnoid,

1) Do you accept that offspring tend to resemble their parents but are not perfect copies?

2) Do you accept that any offspring that does manage to breed has at the least demonstrated suitable adaptation to its environment to be able to breed?

If you accept those two, the theory of evolution by natural selection follows.

Define: ‘natural’

…doesn’t make the slightest difference to me. At the end of the day…’nature did it’ simply begs the question. Actually, it begs a whole pile of questions…many of which the majority of you folks constantly do your best to ignore.

Here is but one example: Many of you somehow find it possible to argue that nothing about reality implicates intelligence…while at the very same time insisting that something (the laws of physics) that could not be created WITHOUT intelligence (according to any conventional paradigm) is effectively instantiated in this very same reality.

 

[jimbob]

In this case "natural" means that no agency is needed.

Sophistry is unimpressive.