Pregressive evolution?

[diggnate]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board, but I've been reading up on the latest posts here, and instead of trying to jump into conversations already in progress (many of them drifting way off original topic), I decided to start a new topic.

First off, I'm a Christian, but am not a "creationist". I've come to accept (at least tentatively) some of the work of ID theorists such as Dembski, Behe, etc. However, as one who is dedicated to science, I'm not married to theories, as they are (by their very nature) falsifiable, therefore I have no reason, emotional or otherwise, to accept any scientific conclusion based on anything but the facts.

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Also, and this is my main concern presently, I have serious questions about the process by which natural selection works on in which to provide novel functionality to biological organisms. I think I read here that you guys don't consider Darwinian evolution to be a progressive process NECESSARILY, but that many times it is progressive.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection? Please let me know if I need to provide more details.

[Caligar]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board, but I've been reading up on the latest posts here, and instead of trying to jump into conversations already in progress (many of them drifting way off original topic), I decided to start a new topic.

First off, I'm a Christian, but am not a "creationist". I've come to accept (at least tentatively) some of the work of ID theorists such as Dembski, Behe, etc. However, as one who is dedicated to science, I'm not married to theories, as they are (by their very nature) falsifiable, therefore I have no reason, emotional or otherwise, to accept any scientific conclusion based on anything but the facts.

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Also, and this is my main concern presently, I have serious questions about the process by which natural selection works on in which to provide novel functionality to biological organisms. I think I read here that you guys don't consider Darwinian evolution to be a progressive process NECESSARILY, but that many times it is progressive.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection? Please let me know if I need to provide more details.

One thing many people don't realize about evolution: it is a theory that requires very little observable evidence. There are some theories that just make sence.
For example, if I theorise that on the moon a square has four sides, it makes sence. It dosn't matter that I dont have any observeable evidence as to state that a square on the moon has four sides.

[McCulloch]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board,

Welcome

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

Unlike Dembski, Behe, etc.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Get a hold of Richard Dawkin's slim book, Climbing Mount Improbable.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection?

I am not sure what proof you want. How about an illustration?
Let's say that in a particular area complexity enhances survivability and that the random mutations are randomly differently complex than the original by ± 10%.

Natural selection will favour those mutations which are more complex and weed out those which are less. Over many generations, the sample will become more complex.

[diggnate]

Get a hold of Richard Dawkin's slim book, Climbing Mount Improbable.

CMI is one of the reasons why IC systems present such a problem for strict darwinian interpretation. The fact that small, incremental steps is not a point of contention here, the problem is that you can't take a logical "step back" for an IC system, at least not without some heavy creativity.

Let's say that in a particular area complexity enhances survivability and that the random mutations are randomly differently complex than the original by ± 10%.

I was thinking more along the lines of real life examples, but this will do I suppose.
First off, please define complexity, and what you consider "different" complexity.

Natural selection will favour (sic) those mutations which are more complex and weed out those which are less. Over many generations, the sample will become more complex.

Certainly, if higher complexity has a selective benefit, the natural selection will indeed preserve it. But that was not my question. My question was, how does the "fuel" of natural selection (those random mutations), produce an informationally positive organism, and do you have any examples of such an occurrence ever happening?

[diggnate]

By the way, I realize that I misspelled the word "progressive" and I'm horribly embarrassed. Obviously "pregressive" is not what I meant to put.

I'm not stupid, I'm really not

[Furrowed Brow]

Hi diggnate,

My question was, how does the "fuel" of natural selection (those random mutations), produce an informationally positive organism, and do you have any examples of such an occurrence ever happening?

OK. You are going to have to fill me in. What does “informationally positive organism" mean - more complex DNA molecule? More complex features of a structure like an eye? Or something else?

[Goat]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board, but I've been reading up on the latest posts here, and instead of trying to jump into conversations already in progress (many of them drifting way off original topic), I decided to start a new topic.

First off, I'm a Christian, but am not a "creationist". I've come to accept (at least tentatively) some of the work of ID theorists such as Dembski, Behe, etc. However, as one who is dedicated to science, I'm not married to theories, as they are (by their very nature) falsifiable, therefore I have no reason, emotional or otherwise, to accept any scientific conclusion based on anything but the facts.

Welll, part of the problem with I.D. is that it is NOT falsifiable. There might some aspects of it that makes falsifiable claims (and indeed, all such claims they have made have been falsified), but I.D. fails to make predictions, has no explanatory powers, nor is testable.

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Irreduicibly complex features in biology can be produced via evolution. There are examples in the fossil record (for example, the evolution of the inner ear). Plus, there are repeatable experiments that can show the formation of "IRC" systems.

Also, and this is my main concern presently, I have serious questions about the process by which natural selection works on in which to provide novel functionality to biological organisms. I think I read here that you guys don't consider Darwinian evolution to be a progressive process NECESSARILY, but that many times it is progressive.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection? Please let me know if I need to provide more details.

"progressive" is not really the proper terminology for it. Evolution does not have a 'direction' to it. The only criteria is the ability of any offsprint to survive and reproduce.

What do you mean by 'information gain'. Can you give a quantifiable definiition for it. That sounds like the terminology that Dembski uses. He is unable to come up with a way to quantify and test for 'information' in a biological sense either. Can you define the term "information" in a way that it is meaningful to biology? Can you come up with a way to measure information. If not, what exactly do you mean by "information gain"? I would like for you to qualify that terminology before we proceed. I have seen many times when an answer is given, but the response was 'but that isn't what I meant by information gain'.

[micatala]

Hey guys,
I'm new to the board, but I've been reading up on the latest posts here, and instead of trying to jump into conversations already in progress (many of them drifting way off original topic), I decided to start a new topic.

First off, I'm a Christian, but am not a "creationist". I've come to accept (at least tentatively) some of the work of ID theorists such as Dembski, Behe, etc. However, as one who is dedicated to science, I'm not married to theories, as they are (by their very nature) falsifiable, therefore I have no reason, emotional or otherwise, to accept any scientific conclusion based on anything but the facts.

I generally accept the age of the universe/earth as best theorized by cosmologists and geologists, and accept the theory of natural selection as a mechanism for change in biological organisms.

I do, however, also take seriously the logical inadequacies of the best theories for the evolution of Irreducibly Complex features in biology, which I may discuss further in later threads.

Also, and this is my main concern presently, I have serious questions about the process by which natural selection works on in which to provide novel functionality to biological organisms. I think I read here that you guys don't consider Darwinian evolution to be a progressive process NECESSARILY, but that many times it is progressive.

My question is, what proof do you have that Darwinian evolution is an informationally positive process? Can you provide examples of net information gain simply by a series of random mutations, preserved by natural selection? Please let me know if I need to provide more details.

Welcome diggnate.

Here is a short analogy. Let's say I have 100 strings of five 0's

00000
00000
00000
.
.
.
.

etc.

About as simple as one can get.

Let's every day, each of the 0's has a .001 chance of turning into a 1. After a bunch of days I have something that looks like


01100
10100
11101
00010

.
.
.
.


Much more complex. Even with simple parts and a simple process.

[palmera]

Can anyone provide a valid example of anything in nature that is irreducibly complex? If so, evolutionary theory falls apart. Many have given examples of organisms or parts of organisms that, because of a lacking knowledge or imagination, they cannot perceive as a sum of smaller steps; yet, this does not mean that said example is actually irreducibly complex.

[Cathar1950]

Can anyone provide a valid example of anything in nature that is irreducibly complex? If so, evolutionary theory falls apart. Many have given examples of organisms or parts of organisms that, because of a lacking knowledge or imagination, they cannot perceive as a sum of smaller steps; yet, this does not mean that said example is actually irreducibly complex.

I think you make a good point and it seems simple to me all the way down.
Given an outside source of energy to a closed system has shown to increase complexity of even the simple.