Can DNA information increase w/o intelligence?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Did you have a point here? We can see a TV we do not see a new
heart, or something else new like an eye or something where they
were not there before. We simply see what we see, nothing new
under the sun.
Kelly

The analogy is that a person who does not understand a television attributes its function to small intelligent beings who make it work and guide its function. Similarly a person becomes skeptical about creationism in the face of evidence but who does not understand the processes of evolution, leaves a role for god to guide the process.

Originally posted by Coletti
Think of TOE as a vector with a clear direction- up - from bugs to people. For any genetic mutation (or series of mutations) to be evidence of TOE, it must point in the same direction. But so far, the mutations could be going in any dire ...[text shortened]... t random. Random mutations. Maybe our ancestors will be amoebas!

Our ancestors may have had commonality with amoeba and our descendants might too. (I claim the Pedant Shield)

Yes, directionality is attributed by creatures who believe themselves the crown of creation

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Alzheimers is an inherited condition which reduces its victims to a shadow of their former being. I'd like to know what advantage comes packaged with thay gene.

Alzheimer's is evidence of evolution? I guess we must redefine evolution to say any change is evolution - but how does that get us from bugs to men? I don't think I'd want to count genetic diseases as evidence for evolution. That would be evidence of genetic inheritance - nothing is disputed in that.

Originally posted by Coletti
Alzheimer's is evidence of evolution? I guess we must redefine evolution to say any change is evolution - but how does that get us from bugs to men? I don't think I'd want to count genetic diseases as evidence for evolution. That would be evidence of genetic inheritance - nothing is disputed in that.

The detailed statistical study of family history of inherited diseases gives clear evidence for the processes of genetic inheritance. The question I posed was on whether any other traits are co-inherited.

Why do you see evolution as an ascent? Taller, faster, cleverer etc Some creatues have evolved in a process in which they are smaller, slower, or in the case of Texans, dumber than their forebears

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
The detailed statistical study of family history of inherited diseases gives clear evidence for the processes of genetic inheritance. The question I posed was on whether any other traits are co-inherited.

Why do you see evolution as an ascent? Taller, faster, cleverer etc Some creatues have evolved in a process in which they are smaller, slower, or in the case of Texans, dumber than their forebears

That is one of the problems with TOE. It is hard to define evolutionary progress - but it does assume progress. Which is also why complexity is part of the process. Evidence of TOE would need to show both, or it does not show TOE. And so it is extremely difficult to show both. Alzheimer's would be an good indication of de-evolution.

Originally posted by Coletti
A mutation that causes cancer would not be evolution.

A mutation that reduces the complexity of a life form would be de-evolution. (It removes evolutionary information.)

'Complexity' is another of those undefined terms used in this claim. That doesn't help me. Note the definition I gave is in terms of something physical and quantifiable - something one can do experiments to examine (base pairs and genes).
'Complexity', 'information', 'de-evolution' vs 'evolution'...these things can't be examined experimentally unless you define them in terms of something that can.

A mutation that causes cancer would not be evolution.

That gives an example of something that is not evolution. A mutation that causes cancer is also not a banana. This doesn't help define 'banana'. Similarly, your example does not define 'evolution' or 'de-evolution', and therefore does not define 'information'.

Can you devise an experiment to measure 'information' or 'complexity', or can you devise an objective test which would show whether an event is 'evolution' or 'de-evolution'?

Originally posted by Coletti
That is one of the problems with TOE. It is hard to define evolutionary progress - but it does assume progress. Which is also why complexity is part of the process. Evidence of TOE would need to show both, or it does not show TOE. And so it is extremely difficult to show both. Alzheimer's would be an good indication of de-evolution.

Complexity maybe, but progress is a subjective attribute. The sloth evolved to go slower and slower and it happily occupies a niche in the world. The chetah evolved to go faster and faster and it happily occupies a niche in the world. Which one had made 'progress'.

Alzheimers indicates nothing in evolutionary terms. Its onset is usually well after reproductive age, indeed, few of our forebears would have lived long enough to find out whether they carried the condition.

Good night

Originally posted by Coletti
Think of TOE as a vector with a clear direction- up - from bugs to people. For any genetic mutation (or series of mutations) to be evidence of TOE, it must point in the same direction. But so far, the mutations could be going in any direction, up down or sideways. Data is added and subtracted at random. Random mutations. Maybe our ancestors will be amoebas!

TOE as a vector pointing from bugs to humans...humans did not evolve from the bugs that exist now by the TOE, but let's say a vector from the bugs we did evolve from (according to the TOE) to humans. That's a minor point.

However, here's a more major point - According to the TOE, cheetahs also evolved from the same bugs. However the vector you propose (bugs to humans, or BTH) would point in a different direction at some point than the one which would point from bugs to cheetahs (BTC). This vector concept of yours doesn't work since the TOE encompasses phenomena other than those directly involved in the hypothesized evolution of humans. Both BTH and BTC are part of the TOE, as are the evolutions of every other form of life on the planet.

But so far, the mutations could be going in any direction, up down or sideways.

If the "mutations can go up" does that mean information can be added without intelligent intervention? The original claim, I think, claims that under no circumstances, ever, can "mutations go up" unless a human or some other ID (God, basically) is conciously, intentionally causing this to happen.

The TOE does agree that mutations happen at random. However, the process of natural selection is what directs evolution, once mutations add variation to the gene pool. There's no evidence to suggest natural selection would favor a change in the human species to become ameobas over time.

Using your imagery, the TOE claims mutations go randomly "up", "down", "sideways", etc. However natural selection caused those went "down" and "sideways" to either evolve into a different species or to die out and fail to reproduce. Those which went "up" were consistently successful at reproduction, and over time the accumulation of "up" mutations led to humanity.

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Why?

If a mutation to a gene gives a reproductive advantage it will pass into future generations. It does not matter that the same mutation increases susceptibity to cancer in later life. The mutated gene will have entered the gene ...[text shortened]... g. I'd like to know what advantage comes packaged with thay gene.

There doesn't need to be any advantage associated with Alzheimer's. It doesn't kick in until well after breeding age. People with that gene (if it's genetic) can have kids and raise them just fine before succumbing to illness.

I don't think I'd want to count genetic diseases as evidence for evolution.

They are not necessarily, though sickle cell anemia is. As my explanation shows, such diseases are not in conflict with the TOE however.

Originally posted by Coletti
That is one of the problems with TOE. It is hard to define evolutionary progress - but it does assume progress. Which is also why complexity is part of the process. Evidence of TOE would need to show both, or it does not show TOE. And so it is extremely difficult to show both. Alzheimer's would be an good indication of de-evolution.

It is hard to define evolutionary progress - but it does assume progress.

No, it doesn't. It assumes changes over time limited by the process of natural selection. It does not label those changes 'progress' nor does it claim humans have 'progressed' farther than ameobas. These are not terms associated with the TOE.

Originally posted by Coletti
That is one of the problems with TOE. It is hard to define evolutionary progress - but it does assume progress. Which is also why complexity is part of the process. Evidence of TOE would need to show both, or it does not show TOE. And so it is extremely difficult to show both. Alzheimer's would be an good indication of de-evolution.

thie is one piece of the puzzle

"A number of experimental studies seem to indicate that epigenetic inheritance plays a part in the evolution of complex organisms. For example, Tremblay et al. (ref. 3), have shown that methylation differences between maternally and paternally inherited alleles of the mouse H19 gene are preserved. There are also numerous reports of heritable epigenetic marks in plants.

That epigenetic heredity seems to exist transgenerationally in complex organisms can be explained by allowing for minor epigenetic changes not affecting totipotency. This puts some constraints on the extent to which epigenetic changes can be brought upon DNA, but it allows for EISs to play direct evolutionary roles."

and that's NOT speculation

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
There doesn't need to be any advantage associated with Alzheimer's. It doesn't kick in until well after breeding age. People with that gene (if it's genetic) can have kids and raise them just fine before succumbing to illness.

[b]I don't think I'd want to count genetic diseases as evidence for evolution.

They are not necessarily, tho ...[text shortened]... ell anemia is. As my explanation shows, such diseases are not in conflict with the TOE however.[/b]

sickle cell anemia is co inherited with resistance to malaria

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
A man didn’t understand how televisions work, and was convinced that there must be lots of little men inside the box. manipulating images at high speed. An engineer explained to him about high frequency modulations of the electromagnetic spectrum, about transmitters and receivers, about amplifiers and cathode ray tubes, about scan lines moving across an ...[text shortened]... d how televisions work. "But I expect there are just a few little men in there, aren’t there?"

We can talk about the TV, we can show all the parts, how they are
made, how they are put together, and work together it is all here
in the here and now. We cannot say the same thing about
evolution and new body parts through new informaiton, we can only
show what is here in the here and now.
Kelly