Information and Entropy

[One Eyed Jack]

It is still evolution.

According to one definition of the word...

 

[Johnny]

One Eyed Jack,

I have, but since I realize you don't make arguments like that, I'm willing to drop it.

Fair enough. I will look more carefully in the future for such an argument.

It's simple truth -- you can move away from where you live, but you're stuck with your genes.

Of course, and I would agree with what you just stated. But I said the allele is beneficial on a populational level. You said you disagreed. You explained your reasoning by suggesting an even better way to avoid malaria--leave the area. I attempted to explain why that isn't always what happens. You counter by telling me its simple fact that leaving the area is better at avoiding malaria--which is true--but it doesn't support your statement that the sickle cell allele is not beneficial for a population.

Natural selection selects, Johnny -- it doesn't create.

Very true. By "evolved" I meant selectional pressures favoring that allele (shifting allelic frequency).

Kinda like that family in The Hills Have Eyes, huh?

Haven't seen it yet.

According to one definition of the word...

According to the widely accepted definition of the term used in biology and evolutionary texts. Do you have another definition?

 

[jobeth]

Johnny,

For my part, it's not the definition that I have a problem with. It's the Evolutionist's implied aggregate or overall trend that I disagree with.

Here is a typical definition. Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

Truth in adverstising would demand that the Evolutionist not say "New and Improved", but rather they ought to say "New and not quite as good as before".

IMO, the cummlative effects of evolutionary change by means of sucessive mutations are much more negative for any given species than they are beneficial. Do you agree?

 

[Johnny]

Jobeth,

Truth in adverstising would demand that the Evolutionist not say "New and Improved", but rather they ought to say "New and not quite as good as before".

What do you mean "not quite as good as before". If something is surviving better and reproducing with higher success, in what sense is it "not as good"?

IMO, the cummlative effects of evolutionary change by means of sucessive mutations are much more negative for any given species than they are beneficial. Do you agree?

No, because a trait which pushes away from reproductive fitness will not accumulate in the gene pool.

 

[aharvey]

Johnny,

For my part, it's not the definition that I have a problem with. It's the Evolutionist's implied aggregate or overall trend that I disagree with.

Here is a typical definition. Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form.

That's a typical creationist definition of evolution, perhaps, but I don't know of any evolutionary biologist who would agree with either "usually more complex" or "better."

Truth in adverstising would demand that the Evolutionist not say "New and Improved", but rather they ought to say "New and not quite as good as before".

As I've mentioned elsewhere recently, it is difficult to imagine how natural selection can cause a population to become "not quite as good as before." If a mutation is worse than the wild type allele, then natural selection will tend to eliminate it, right? So in fact, evolutionists would rather heartily disagree with your understanding of both what they do say and what they should say.

IMO, the cummlative effects of evolutionary change by means of sucessive mutations are much more negative for any given species than they are beneficial. Do you agree?

Like Johnny said.

 

[jobeth]

The Law of Entropy applies to Evolution

The Law of Entropy applies to Evolution

Jobeth,

What do you mean "not quite as good as before". If something is surviving better and reproducing with higher success, in what sense is it "not as good"?

Well, even with slight mutations, they are still able to reproduce. The downside is that there is a chance that their detrimental mutation will be passed on to their offspring.

Here are a few examples (although there are many, many more):
1. Sickle-cell anemia, childhood onset diabetes, and other genetic diseases are heritable and is detrimental to the offspring who randomly inherits them. The "diseased" gene is not being entirely eliminated by natural selection. Although artificial means, such as modern Medicine and Information regarding breeding decisions have helped halt the spread, somewhat, and yet genetic diseases remain a pressing problem for the health of future generations.
2. Sperm count is falling on a world-wide scale. This trait is heritable, and yet even with lower sperm counts, men are still (at least for now) able to reproduce. This is not an imminent threat, like nuclear anniliation is, but it is cummlative. While we don't expect Male reproductive ability to disappear overnight, the trend is towards a slowly vanishing ability. I don't have accurate projections, but this could mean that male reproductive ability will continue perhaps a million or less years into the future.
3. Girls are beginning menses (and other signs of sexual maturity) at earlier ages globally. Boys are maturing faster today than they ever did in the past as well. Their voices change and their balls drop at much earlier ages than the historical norm. Faster maturation rates are heritable, and is definitely not a good trend to notice among any given species.
4. Higher instances of autism, child-hood diabetes, arthritis, etc. are another indication that our genetic copies are becoming increasingly less "healthy" although our ability to reproduce has not (yet) disappeared.
5. Something, possibly a deterioration in their aggregate gene pool, is causing deformities, faster maturation rates, and early deaths among amphibians world-wide.
6. Many of the traits which evolutionary scientists call "vestigal" are superior to what we have left. Humans today have, compared to prior generations, diminished capability for night-vision, distance-hearing, grabbing things with our toes, focusing sounds with our ears, chewing and digesting fiberous and raw foods,... There are lots more.
7. It appears that current crops of vegetables and grains are not as nutritious as they were in the past.

Some people have tried to explain these trends by appealing to environmental agents, dietary habits, Western life-styles, or other causes. But the fact is that Evolution itself is the most-likely source of these problems.

No, because a trait which pushes away from reproductive fitness will not accumulate in the gene pool.

That is True up to a point. But for the most part I'm not talking about reproductive fitness (except in the "shrinking sperm-count" example, which is rather specific to reproductive health). Rather, I am alert to the heritible traits that are detrimental to the species as a whole, but which do not affect reproductive fitness, per se.

AHarvey

As I've mentioned elsewhere recently, it is difficult to imagine how natural selection can cause a population to become "not quite as good as before." If a mutation is worse than the wild type allele, then natural selection will tend to eliminate it, right? So in fact, evolutionists would rather heartily disagree with your understanding of both what they do say and what they should say.

As an analogy, think of making a copy of a copy of a copy....
Mistakes and deletions and flaws (mutations) will tend to accumulate over time.
This is what I meant when I said "the fact is that Evolution itself is the most-likely source of these problems."

Natural selection will tend to eliminate these "mutations" only when they begin to affect reproductive ability. Prior to that time, reproduction of the mutations is both possible and cummulative.

The Law of Entropy applies to Evolution same as it does to everything else. If not, then why not?

The human gene pool can certainly be considered a "closed" system. We are not (at least not yet) introducing foreign or extra-species genes into our reproductive system. The Law of Entropy applies to ALL closed systems. That is why I can say without apology "The Law of Entropy applies to Evolution."

 

[Unbeliever]

I agree. Genetic mutations are ALWAYS detrimental to the organism who has them. People with sickle-cell anemia are very sick people.

Being protected from Malaria does not make you "well" any more than wearing a seat-belt on the way to work does not "save your life" if a twin-tower falls on you while working in your office. One thing has really nothing to do with the other.

Wrong. I have red hair. It is due to a mutation in the Melanocortin 1 Receptor. Having red-hair is not, by itself, detrimental, and in some cases, like pain-tolerance, this mutation confers some benefits.

 

[Unbeliever]

How come when the skeletons of small humans, like those Hobbits, were found it's talked about and celebrated by Evolutionists, but when skeletons of giant humans are found, they are hidden and never spoken of?

What giant humans? Source please.

Genetic change is occurring, no doubt. But could it be that those changes are making humans less tall, less strong, shorter-lived,and less intelligent than our forebears, rather than the other way round.

If you look at the fossils of humans that lived just a few thousand years ago, it is clear that we are taller and longer-lived (mostly due to modern medicine).

Could it be that people in long ages past actually lived to much greater age, were more agile, both stronger and faster, could see and hear better, and were more intelligent than people are today?

Just about anything "could be." Where is the evidence?

Children are maturing faster than they did in the past. Faster maturation rates are not a good thing.

Why not? Where is the harm?

Isn't it at least possible that the Mutations that we see occurring in human populations are detrimental rather than beneficial to our species?

What mutations are you referring to? Faster maturation rates are not due to a mutation.

 

[Unbeliever]

Rather, I am alert to the heritible traits that are detrimental to the species as a whole, but which do not affect reproductive fitness, per se.

The human species is unique in that we have almost complete control over our environment. The selective pressures that other organisms encounter are not the same for us. For gazelles, poor eyesight would probably result in death, so that trait would be selected against. We humans wear glasses and don't have to worry about being eaten because we can't see well unaided. So this less-fit trait stays in the gene pool.

Humans are doing exactly what evolution says we will do, we are changing to suit our environment. But it is an environment of our own making. We have mitigated the downside to certain traits, and so they are now more prevalent in the population.

 

[jobeth]

Wrong. I have red hair. It is due to a mutation in the Melanocortin 1 Receptor. Having red-hair is not, by itself, detrimental, and in some cases, like pain-tolerance, this mutation confers some benefits.

Red Hair? That's fascinating, because one of the genetic traits of the giants of old was red hair. Other traits include six fingers, six toes, a double row of teeth, large size (of course), extraordinary strength and endurance, and a tendency towards cannabilism.

What giant humans? Source please.

Do a google search for giant humans. There is plenty of information along with pictures online. One published book I have, besides the Bible, is "Genesis 6 Giants" "Master Builders of the Prehistoric and Ancient Civilizations" by Stephen Quayle, End Time Thunder Publishers, 3rd Printing 2005.

If you look at the fossils of humans that lived just a few thousand years ago, it is clear that we are taller and longer-lived (mostly due to modern medicine).

Well, if giant humans really existed and their bones were still around, it would put the lie to those assertions. There is theory that posits that some of the so-called Neaderthal bones were actually simply bones of humans which lived to very great age. Great age would explain the fact that their skulls were of a different, more elongated or stretched-out shape than modern humans.

Just about anything "could be." Where is the evidence?

I do not expect you to take my word for it. Do some research if you are interested. Most people do not want to be confronted with the notion that humans are not as well fit today and humans of past ages. Personally, I call it the scariest thing I've ever heard, outside of the doctrine of hell.

Why not? Where is the harm?

Faster maturation rates are considered cute for us grandparents. We think it's adorable that our grandchildren are able to talk and read as such "young" ages. But it could also be a sign that the human gene pool is deteriorating. It is a truism that people tend to not see what they don't expect to see. I think it's sad that Evolutionists are blinded to these trends which I find so glaring. Maybe some clever person will at least investigate what's really going on. But that would require an unlikely curiosity in a direction contrary to the accepted dogma.

What mutations are you referring to? Faster maturation rates are not due to a mutation.

Oh really? What then causes faster maturation rates, if not genetic mutations?
I'm not one to believe in conspiracies. So I don't think anyone (Eugenics) is tampering with our food or water supply to create "bigger and better" human beings without our knowledge or consent. Do you?

The human species is unique in that we have almost complete control over our environment. The selective pressures that other organisms encounter are not the same for us. For gazelles, poor eyesight would probably result in death, so that trait would be selected against. We humans wear glasses and don't have to worry about being eaten because we can't see well unaided. So this less-fit trait stays in the gene pool.

Humans are doing exactly what evolution says we will do, we are changing to suit our environment. But it is an environment of our own making. We have mitigated the downside to certain traits, and so they are now more prevalent in the population.

Blah, blah... I've heard all this before. I have noticed that Evolutionists are happy to invent myths to explain the facts that are anamolous to their sacred theories of "beneficial mutations" and "natural selection". And I realize that I am introducing a notion that is contrary to the way of progression that most people are accustomed to believe. But will you at least investigate these trends for yourself?

 

[Unbeliever]

Red Hair? That's fascinating, because one of the genetic traits of the giants of old was red hair. Other traits include six fingers, six toes, a double row of teeth, large size (of course), extraordinary strength and endurance, and a tendency towards cannabilism.

It was also a trait of Aphrodite. That doesn't make her real.

Do a google search for giant humans. There is plenty of information along with pictures online. One published book I have, besides the Bible, is "Genesis 6 Giants" "Master Builders of the Prehistoric and Ancient Civilizations" by Stephen Quayle, End Time Thunder Publishers, 3rd Printing 2005.

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time reading anything published by "End Time Thunder Publishers." I'm talking about a scientific source.

Well, if giant humans really existed and their bones were still around, it would put the lie to those assertions. There is theory that posits that some of the so-called Neaderthal bones were actually simply bones of humans which lived to very great age. Great age would explain the fact that their skulls were of a different, more elongated or stretched-out shape than modern humans.

And, if freckles were dollars, I'd be rich. I can make up stuff too when I have no evidence.

Faster maturation rates are considered cute for us grandparents. We think it's adorable that our grandchildren are able to talk and read as such "young" ages. But it could also be a sign that the human gene pool is deteriorating. It is a truism that people tend to not see what they don't expect to see. I think it's sad that Evolutionists are blinded to these trends which I find so glaring. Maybe some clever person will at least investigate what's really going on. But that would require an unlikely curiosity in a direction contrary to the accepted dogma.

How does faster maturation rates indicate that the gene pool is deteriorating? There is no connection here.

Oh really? What then causes faster maturation rates, if not genetic mutations?
I'm not one to believe in conspiracies. So I don't think anyone (Eugenics) is tampering with our food or water supply to create "bigger and better" human beings without our knowledge or consent. Do you?

One, healthy children develop faster. If you starve a child, their growth will be stunted. When you referred to "faster maturation rates," I assumed that you were talking about the earlier onset of puberty that we are seeing. This is also the result of healthier kids. The onset of puberty is determined by biological factors like overall health, even body fat content, and since these things have gone up, puberty comes sooner. No mutation involved.

Blah, blah... I've heard all this before. I have noticed that Evolutionists are happy to invent myths to explain the facts that are anamolous to their sacred theories of "beneficial mutations" and "natural selection". And I realize that I am introducing a notion that is contrary to the way of progression that most people are accustomed to believe. But will you at least investigate these trends for yourself?

No evolutionist has ever said that all mutations are beneficial. But you're not talking about mutations. You are talking about an increase in less-beneficial traits in the genome. I agree with that. And my explanation covered why this is the case.

 

[Stratnerd]

No it's not, having eyes actually requires less energy. This also isn't really evolution, and was one of the things that perplexed Dawrin.

Really? Where did you come across this?

 

[Yorzhik]

I'm with Straterd... how do you figure having something would require less energy than not having something?

 

[jobeth]

Unbeliever

You are talking about an increase in less-beneficial traits in the genome. I agree with that.

Do these "less-benefical traits in the genome" that you are conceding do occur also tend to accumulate over time?

 

[Stratnerd]

actually I was curious about the Darwin comment... I'm no Darwin scholar but I've never seen him say anything about energy.

Not sure why it was relevent anyway.

As for energy, if fish are not using ATP's to produce eye cells then those ATP's are gained for something else.

seems more likely that the lost of vision is just drift and no selection for blindness or sight.

 

[Unbeliever]

Unbeliever
Do these "less-benefical traits in the genome" that you are conceding do occur also tend to accumulate over time?

So long as they are not a threat to the continued existence of the species, they will accumulate. If they become a threat to the species, either the species will change or die out. No doubt this is what has lead to some extinctions in the past.

Your concern may be well founded, but there's little we can do to change it (short of eugenics) and any harm that does happen will occur far in the future.

 

[jobeth]

Your concern may be well founded, but there's little we can do to change it (short of eugenics) and any harm that does happen will occur far in the future.

Yes. This is my thought exactly.

 

[jobeth]

I think the same is true of Global Warming.

In other words, even though any harm from these trends (Global Warming and Genetic Entropy) will occur far in the future, I still think we ought to be tracking these trends in order to see if these developments are gradual or exponential.

 

[Unbeliever]

I think the same is true of Global Warming.

In other words, even though any harm from these trends (Global Warming and Genetic Entropy) will occur far in the future, I still think we ought to be tracking these trends in order to see if these developments are gradual or exponential.

I'm a little suspicious of global warming, but there is no question that it should be studied. Anything that can be studied should be studied. That is the only way that we can hope to find the truth.

 

[noguru]

Faster maturation rates are considered cute for us grandparents. We think it's adorable that our grandchildren are able to talk and read as such "young" ages. But it could also be a sign that the human gene pool is deteriorating. It is a truism that people tend to not see what they don't expect to see. I think it's sad that Evolutionists are blinded to these trends which I find so glaring. Maybe some clever person will at least investigate what's really going on. But that would require an unlikely curiosity in a direction contrary to the accepted dogma.

I do not see how this trend (that children are reading at an earlier age) is evidence for deterioration of the gene pool. Don't you consider literacy beneficial?

Blah, blah... I've heard all this before. I have noticed that Evolutionists are happy to invent myths to explain the facts that are anamolous to their sacred theories of "beneficial mutations" and "natural selection". And I realize that I am introducing a notion that is contrary to the way of progression that most people are accustomed to believe. But will you at least investigate these trends for yourself?

Oh the irony.