The point is that there is plenty of interesting debate to be had without blatantly inaccurate assertions being posted and debated. If you concede the point under debate that random mutations can add information, then there’s no need for this to continue . . .

1] Now, of course, long since, the fact that someone made an error was conceded and corrected. So at best this is like one who is sent to take down a mountain, turning aside to a molehill, then scraping it down with a shovel and saying that he has dealt with the mountain. In other words, we here can see the fallacy in the easy slide we are being “invited” to make: from “random mutations can add information [in trivial cases of a few bits of change, most often by disabling existing functions . . . e.g. in antibiotic resistance or the like]” to RM accounts for generating the scope of information relative to biofunction across the biological world.

–> Here I add that natural selection is simply a filter, unless we can FIRST generate the biofunctional DNA and express it in life systems, there can be no competition on differential reproduction. And such information is contingent, so the only credible dominant mechanisms are chance and purposeful agency.

–> In every directly observed case of generation of complex specified information beyond the Dembski bound, this has only happened by agent action.

–> The same holds for actual observed cases of irreducibly complex systems, i.e multicomponent systems that break down in function if one or more core-functional parts fail to work. (I have not found alleged counterexamples to this particularly impressive once we go beyond the gleeful headlines and summary statements, BTW. If just one case in point hoods form say Bebe’s 1996 presentation, the evolutionary materialist account for biodiversity collapses. Cf Loennig’s excellent work onthis, accessibel through my always linked, as usual.)

2] In short, we are here gliding by the problem highlighted by Sewell, in a rush off to a strawman. Namely, Sewell pointed out that: “Natural forces do not do macroscopically [i.e “simply”] describable things which are extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view.” (Nor, am I overly impressed by the idea that the post that is being discussed is simply a springboard for us to debate and draw attention to our own ideas and agendas. That notion may hold for those who want to capture a discussion and divert it from a direction dangerous to their agenda, but such diversions have names in logic: red herrings, strawmen, and the like. If you have a substantial point or correction, that is different from distracting attention.)

3] Now, too, in that phrase “ extremely improbable from the microscopic point of view” lurks all the substantial issues at stake. So to glide by it by substituting “add information” — one bit of information is not at all in the same ball park as 500 bits, or the millions to billions of bits that are expressed in DNA molecules in life forms [not to mention in the underlying coding system and algorithms that lurk in the DNA's object code] — is to tilt at a handy strawman set up by someone’s sloppy phrasing. (Onlookers observe how PE latched on to the single phrase, whilst insistently ignoring the substantial point. ID onlookers – here is a lesson on how important it is to be careful in how we speak, as we are dealing with people who will use any such error to get away from addressing the real problem on the merits. Of course, we will then be accused of being complex or long-winded, but there is never an end to possible rhetorical objections to ANY statement.)

4] The substitution of a strawman again crops up in the cases being cited from the literature: mutations that are based on one or a few base pairs, or on gene duplication accidents etc or even from the re-emergence of deleted code through redundancy mechanisms. All of these have NOTHING to do with the origination of hundreds of kilobits to megabits to gigabits of novel biofuncional information at novel body-plan level (or the like) in the relevant beyond merely astronomical configuration spaces.

We can therefore draw our own conclusions that Sewell’s major point stands, if the best that can be done by those who oppose his main point is to major on minors, or to otherwise divert attention.

GEM of TKI

What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading” but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing.

If you are willing to say that rm+ns is pseudo-science which can never be shown to be true, even in principle, then I guess you’re right that nothing can falsify design. Personally I’m willing to give the NeoDarwinian theory of macroevolution more time to prove itself keeping in mind that if it’s false it will never be proven. ID has nothing to prove. We aleady know that intelligent agency can alter the course of evolution through purposeful changes to genomic information i.e. genetic engineering.

“….nor did they consider the equally valid presumption of “Front Loading” that presumes a complex feedback control loop in the Genome that “mathematically or logically originated” the duplicated gene.”

“…#1 the (duplicated) gene is a spare tire gene that already had the ability in it.
#2 the probability of totally random processes finding the correct mutations to modify the gene are fantastic thus the experiment actually demonstrates “front loading” that is preprogramed in the cell”

You have made some good arguments for ID in this debate. I might mainly differ only in the preferred subhypothesis of how ID in evolution actually takes place. From the above quotes it appears that you favor the “front loading” hypothesis of ID among all the other versions.

The first quote indicates that you consider that the duplication of the gene was itself a response by the organism to environmental stress, brought about by a complex feedback mechanism in the organism. The “front loading” was apparently in the existence from very early times of the feedback mechanism itself.

The second quote implies that the subsequent exceedingly improbable (from a random standpoint) adaptive mutations to the duplicate gene were “front-loaded” in some way. One form of this would be a very complex built-in system which senses environmental stress, determines what genetic changes are necessary to respond to it, and modifies the appropriate gene(s) accordingly.

Alternately in the front loading concept, the duplicate genes and adaptive mutations could have been stored in the genome in the beginning and somehow intelligently accessed as necessary.

All the different hypotheses of ID of course have various pros and cons. It seems to me that this is less plausible than simply positing that (most of) the genomic changes including gene duplications and simpler mutations have somehow been induced directly at many times in evolution, by some unknown intelligent agent.

“the probability of totally random processes finding the correct mutations to modify the gene are fantastic thus the experiment actually demonstrates “front loading” that is preprogramed in the cell”

Here’s a thought experiment for you. What evidence could possibly show that something is not a process of “front loading” but is in fact a random mutation? Answer: nothing. Therefore you get to keep your bias and I get to keep mine.

“your definition of information is divorced from the overall function of the organism”

Your definition of information inexplicably has a nebulous concept of “function” tied up in it which makes it impossible to measure. Once you find out a way to measure it, please get in touch.

Your gun is quite empty Phevans!

I believe the following is what your so excited about.

the fact that the “new” galactosidase enzyme didn’t evolve from scratch, but was produced by a small number of mutations in an existing gene, albeit in an operon far distant from the deleted galactosidase gene. In a similar way, the gene for the repressor of this newly-evolved galactosidase, a protein that controls its expression, was rendered lactose-sensitive by a simple mutation in its sequence. In other words, the “new” 2-part system was produced by a couple of rather minor mutations in two pre-existing genes.

Now let me get this straight; you are claiming this experiment is a totally random process by which information was created and thus proves neo-darwinism true. Well:

#1 the gene is a spare tire gene that already had the ability in it.
#2 the probability of totally random processes finding the correct mutations to modify the gene are fantastic thus the experiment actually demonstrates “front loading” that is preprogramed in the cell. i.e. Was it just luck as required for proof of neo-darwinism or is there a deeper control loop in the genome finding the correct response? The math clearly points to the latter.

#3 the “evolved” irreducible complex system is less robost than the system that was removed.

So you are still square one in generating novel information that increases functionality of an organism.

Phevans you have no bullets, I can assure you that each system you show will be found as such. I’ve been through these arguements too many times before.

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bi.....6&m=1

Not only introduction of novel genetic information, but one which forms an irreducibly complex system! Very nice.

Bornagain, you seem to be missing the point with this quote:

“Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes”

Gene duplication *creates* new genes. It’s mutations on these genes that provides the variance that natural selection works on.

Also, you need to be more careful about your terminology. An increase in information in the genome is a very different prospect to novel behaviour expressed at the “macro” level.

On a side note, here’s a great review from Nature on various ways that new genetic data can arise http://www3.uta.edu/faculty/be.....eviews.pdf

We propose a genetic mechanism to account for these changes and speculate as to their adaptive significance in the context of gene duplication as a common response of microorganisms to nutrient limitation.

So even the authors of the paper admit the need for a “preexisting mechanism” to explain the phenomena. Phevans this example you show me is screaming “front loading” not the purely random mutation that is absolutely required to prove neo-darwinism true!! Thus your need to prove a truly random and beneficial event has happened is still unsatisfied. This is a good example of a preexisting complex feedback control loop by the way.
In regards to your assertion that it is truly generating novel information I point out two facts. #1 the gene that was duplicated was a preexisting gene , duplicated by a preexisting mechanism I might add, in responce to stress placed on its environment. #2 The overall functionality of the yeast is decreased in its normal environment, thus when the stress is removed from the mutant yeast, the original yeast will be favored by selection over the mutant yeast.
Clearly you have not demonstrated a gain in information since you have not “built a better overall yeast” that will be favored by selection.

I’m not. I’m attempting to curb the use of sloppy and inaccurate generalisations which are parroted as being gospel when they are patently and provably false.

These blog posts are starting points for discussion, and BA and I were discussing an side issue which naturally came up in the conversation. You have no right to dictate what is and is not valid debate.

You’ll notice that not once have I claimed that new genome information proves Darwinism or disproves ID. This is not my point. The point is that there is plenty of interesting debate to be had without blatantly inaccurate assertions being posted and debated. If you concede the point under debate that random mutations can add information, then there’s no need for this to continue.