rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.

[CrowCross]

A good example, CrowCross, thank you for that.

The environment in a cave contains the information "there is no light here". That information is copied, by evolution, into the DNA of the fish living in that cave. That information results in resources being diverted away from eyes, which are useless in a dark cave, and towards other requirements.

Which resulted in a loss of information...de-evolution. If you turn the lights back on and give it time...the eyes will not reappear.

It would be like having two cats of the same kind that departed the ark...and after a little while...two of them bred and a cat with no stripes amongst the litter resulted.
The no stripe cat later on bred with a striped cat and a litter of no stripe cats were born. The no striped cats lost the ability to produce stripes as the genetic information which was once present was lost. Later on a scientist came along and labeled each cat two separate species...assuming the striped cat evolved from the no stripe cat.

 

[rossum]

Which resulted in a loss of information...de-evolution.

Irrelevant. There are many examples of organisms losing information as the environment changes. Many parasites lose information as they evolve to suit the parasitic life. All mammals have lost the information to develop gills, since their ancestors no longer lived in an aquatic environment.

Evolution changes the information in DNA. That change may be an increase, a decrease, or leave the raw amount of information unchanged.

 

[CrowCross]

All mammals have lost the information to develop gills,

Mammals never had the information to produce gills.

Evolution changes the information in DNA. That change may be an increase, a decrease, or leave the raw amount of information unchanged.

Evolutionism has never been shown to increase information to the point of sophistication and complexity we see in the animals world.

 

[The Pixie]

...
But it MUST answer that question as the information in the cell IS an empirically proven FACT. ...

What definition of information are you using?

Prove that there is information in the cell; prove information -according to your definition - is in the cell. Or do all the things you accuse others of to avoid proving it.

 

[rossum]

Mammals never had the information to produce gills.

But their ancestors did. See Tiktaalik for just one example. Frogs have retained that information, and we share a common ancestor with frogs.

Evolutionism has never been shown to increase information to the point of sophistication and complexity we see in the animals world.

Your sources are lying to you again. Evolution can increase information in DNA on both Shannon and Kolmogorov information measures.

 

[vibise]

Mammals never had the information to produce gills.

Evolutionism has never been shown to increase information to the point of sophistication and complexity we see in the animals world.

Chickens have lost the ability to make teeth, but they still retain the genetic information for tooth-making.

Cave-dwelling fish have lost the ability to make eyes.

There are many such examples of adaptations that result from loss of features.

 

[ferengi]

What part of "Science does not do proof, science does evidence" do you have a problem with?

Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.- PROVE IT​

 

[ferengi]

Chickens have lost the ability to make teeth, but they still retain the genetic information for tooth-making.

Address the OP

 

[ferengi]

What definition of information are you using?

Shifting the burden - ask ross - stop avoiding

Prove that there is information in the cell; prove information

Shifting the burden - tell ross to prove that

 

[rossum]

Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection.- PROVE IT

You want proof? OK, then we are into the realm of symbolic logic.

Premise 1: The environment contains information.​

Premise 2: DNA contains information.​

Premise 3: Better matching between environmental and DNA information is beneficial.​

Premise 4: Natural selection acts to spread copies of beneficial DNA.​

Conclusion: Natural selection selects DNA that best matches the information in the environment.​

As I said before, science does evidence, not proof.

 

[CrowCross]

But their ancestors did. See Tiktaalik for just one example. Frogs have retained that information, and we share a common ancestor with frogs.

It has been shown that Tiktaalik (and here) (and here) has been places in the wrong spot on the evo-charts along with many other problems which present problem for evo-scientist. Though I don't know why you placed Tiktaalik on your list as you didn't really do anything but make an unsupported claim.

As to frogs???? What information....once again all i see is a claim.

Your sources are lying to you again. Evolution can increase information in DNA on both Shannon and Kolmogorov information measures.

My sources are lying? Really?

 

[CrowCross]

Chickens have lost the ability to make teeth, but they still retain the genetic information for tooth-making.

Cave-dwelling fish have lost the ability to make eyes.

There are many such examples of adaptations that result from loss of features.

You have shown "de-evolution" away from the created kind....."de-evolution" expected.

I need a better word than de-evolution as de-evolution suggest evolutionism created the animal.

 

[CrowCross]

You want proof? OK, then we are into the realm of symbolic logic.

Premise 1: The environment contains information.​

Premise 2: DNA contains information.​

Premise 3: Better matching between environmental and DNA information is beneficial.​

Premise 4: Natural selection acts to spread copies of beneficial DNA.​

Conclusion: Natural selection selects DNA that best matches the information in the environment.​

As I said before, science does evidence, not proof.

One could easily argue that the so-called "information" contained in the environoment will change creating environmental noise as the amplitute and tempo drift or is dramatically changed over time.
You have not shown (outside of your cartoon version) how the process of random mutation, chance and selection could keep pace and allow the DNA to re-code and use the information contained in the everchanging environment and spread the copies of what you call beneficial mutations.

 

[rossum]

As to frogs???? What information....once again all i see is a claim.

What you see is the truth. Frog DNA contains the information for making gills. Have you never looked at a picture of a tadpole? Tadpoles have gills, so the information for making gills is contained in their DNA. Tadpoles are young frogs.

What I gave you was a lot more than a claim. All you are doing here is showing that you need to learn more about biology.

 

[rossum]

One could easily argue that the so-called "information"

Wrong again. There is information in the environment. Real information, not "so called" information.

You have not shown (outside of your cartoon version) how the process of random mutation, chance and selection could keep pace and allow the DNA to re-code and use the information contained in the everchanging environment and spread the copies of what you call beneficial mutations.

Here you have a point. If the environment changes too quickly then evolution cannot keep up and lineages go extinct. The obvious example is the environmental effects of the Chicxulub impact. Many species did not adapt quickly enough and went extinct. It is notable that many of the surviving species were small and fast breeding, as opposed to large and with longer generation times.

 

[ferengi]

You want proof? OK, then we are into the realm of symbolic logic.

Premise 1: The environment contains information.​

Premise 2: DNA contains information.​

Premise 3: Better matching between environmental and DNA information is beneficial.​

Premise 4: Natural selection acts to spread copies of beneficial DNA.​

Conclusion: Natural selection selects DNA that best matches the information in the environment.​

As I said before, science does evidence, not proof.

Still no proof for your claims

 

[ferengi]

rossum said: Information is copied from the environment into DNA by random mutation and natural selection​

PROVE YOUR CLAIMS

 

[vibise]

You have shown "de-evolution" away from the created kind....."de-evolution" expected.

I need a better word than de-evolution as de-evolution suggest evolutionism created the animal.

Why would chickens waste resources making teeth they do not need? Loss of teeth is an advantage.

 

[rossum]

Shifting the burden

You asked me to prove my claims. I provided a proof in formal logic. If you cannot show any errors in my proof then my proof stands.

You need to prove your claims ferengi.

 

[Gus Bovona]

You asked me to prove my claims. I provided a proof in formal logic. If you cannot show any errors in my proof then my proof stands.

You need to prove your claims ferengi.

Specifically, the claim ferengi makes is here:

Still no proof for your claims

It's intellectually dishonest to ask for a proof, receive a syllogism as a reply, and to then claim that no proof has been offered without identifying where the syllogism is wrong, irrelevant, or whatever - without supporting the claim that no proof has been offered. No wonder some of us don't care to engage with ferengi.