Monday, December 31, 2007

Simple Explanation of a Darwinist's Fallacy

This is what the evolutionist ozy had to say:

"Random mutations come from the environment. So does natural selection. In the end the only input to the proposed evolution function is random. "

Natural selection comes from the environment, but is not random. This is a flaw in that statement.
OK, maybe its not entirely random, but consider what information is there in the environment, there's a night, there's a day, there's an up and there is a down. A few more simple things like this. The proposal that it is possible to extract more information from the environment is absurd. Do you propose an additional source of information? If so, then you are not an evolutionist anymore, as evolutionist dogma dictates nothing but random sources of information.

"Extracting information from a truly random stream is not possible."

You can absolutely consider the environment a non-random input to this system if you so choose to model it this way. The idea that evolution is impossible because it implies an unachievable creation of information from randomness is invalid.

Can a harmonic oscillator not produce a periodic sinusoidal signal given a white input? Does this periodicity (of the "fittest" frequency, if you will) not contain information about the environment and the machine itself?
The information that a harmonic oscillator is outputing, is already part of the information of the oscillator. If we have already labeled something an oscillator, then it is possible through the laws of physics to deduce more or less, at which frequencies it would vibrate. Therefore no new information is brought about into existance when it actually does vibrate.

If you admit that information can be destroyed through mutations (say, one codon gets replaced with all A's, producing a dysfunctional but maybe surviving organism--I hope you will not argue that mutations are impossible!), then how can it not be created by a symmetric mutation? A one-time, random event, that survives and replicates due to the mechanics of the machine (DNA, cells) itself as well as the surrounding environment.

There are a number of problems here. First, consider a random event that changes the properties of some protein that results in an animal of a different color, for example. This would be an example of micro-evolution. In this case no new information has been added to the system, as both colors were implicit in the original protein.

Now consider, the case of macro-evolution. For example, an entirely new organ system. Here an accumulation of small changes would be required. Problem, is the changes are not independently beneficial, only together, so natural selection would tend to get rid of these changes, preventing the new organ system from coming into existance.

But the fundamental problem, that evolution cannot answer, and the reason that I consider it to be a major conspiracy to obscure the nature of the universe, is that evolution cannot point to the original source of information. Darwinist dogma demands randomicity.

There is not even any kind of a mathematical process proposed that could somehow generate new information just using random information as the input. I mean, think about this, if there was such a mathematical formula, it would be taught as part of Biology classes. Darwinism also denies any other sources of information. Instead of what you get is misdirection and implying that information is created by combining two differen random streams of information. Again two, is not really different than just one, mathematically speaking.

4 comments:

Fritz the Cat said...

The problem with your final assertion is that it assumes the outcome of random mutation leads to "new" results.

The results are not new in the sense that you mean, as if culled out of thin air. We can assume that mutating the gene of a given subject will have SOME result, right? That much can be established in a laboratory. The mere fact that we do not know what, exactly, that result will be does not make it "new."

Unless I just completely misunderstand your argument, you are saying that if we do not know all of the possible results that could come from all the random gene combinations, then that information is "new," and therefore logically impossible. Obviously this relies more on the lack of human knowledge than on the imperfection of Darwin's system.

All that aside, what is the alternative? Do you honestly believe that the world was created in six literal days? If not, then do you honestly believe that all creatures on the Earth were simply created at once (since, as you so fervently point out, evolution is a lie), and have simply existed for billions of years? Or is the age of the Earth a lie as well?

You have obviously gone to some lengths to understand Darwin's theory. Are carbon dating technologies or the fossil record equally conspiratorial in this so-called attempt to obscure the true nature of the universe?

AussieClone said...

"A few more simple things like this. The proposal that it is possible to extract more information from the environment is absurd."

Ridiculous. The environment is incredibly complex. Radiation, temperature, chemical composition of the water/soil/air, predators, prey, competition for resources from other animals and those within our own species, weather, gravity, atmospheric pressure... the list goes on and on. Methinks the article is attacking a straw man...

"Therefore no new information is brought about into existance when it actually does vibrate."

Which has absolutely no bearing on biological "information" or genetics - and we HAVE seen the genome increase in bacteria, during the formation of nylon eating bacteria and cit+ E. coli.

"consider a random event that changes the properties of some protein that results in an animal of a different color, for example. This would be an example of micro-evolution. In this case no new information has been added to the system, as both colors were implicit in the original protein."

Had the color ever existed in the species before that time? If not, then it is new information to the species' genome. If so, then it probably died out for a reason. More stupidity from the author.

"Here an accumulation of small changes would be required. Problem, is the changes are not independently beneficial, only together, so natural selection would tend to get rid of these changes, preventing the new organ system from coming into existance."

He's positing this against MODERN organs - another idiotic creationist fallacy.

"But the fundamental problem, that evolution cannot answer, and the reason that I consider it to be a major conspiracy to obscure the nature of the universe, is that evolution cannot point to the original source of information."

AND IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO - that's abiogenesis.

"There is not even any kind of a mathematical process proposed that could somehow generate new information just using random information as the input."

There is when there's a filter, and the environment is the filter.

In short, this guy is an idiot and has no idea what he's talking about.

The Cynics Wife said...

How come we simply cant show evolution happening right now? where are the human mutations that will benefit us happening right now?
After millions of years it can't just stop. Otherwise i could show how a poof becomes a chair then an armchair then grows wheels gets an engine. No evidence in between?

please contact me if you wish to discuss on my radio show and podcast it would be very interesting info@gsfcuk.com
www.blog.gsfcuk.com

Erich said...

To the blogger

You're an idiot.
I want you to know that.
I'm not going to be polite to you, because you're spreading disinformation, which is just wrong. You're fueling all the anti-evolution idiots out there who are making this world that much worse.

This isn't an anti-evolution blog, this is an anti-atheism blog (this is evidenced when he starts talking about atheism near the bottom of the post,) which is stupid and shows how uninformed this blogger really is.

1. There is NO connection, what-so-ever, between Atheism and Evolution. There are many Theists who accept evolution.
Ken Miller is one of those people:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw

2. Evolution NEVER stated to know how life originated. That's not the purpose of evolution.
Evolution just explains the diversity of life.
Abiogenesis is the branch of science that deals with the origin of life.

3. I suggest you read a book other than the Qur'an for once in your life (I suggest reading anything by Sagan or Dawkins.) You may surprised at what you learn.