# Define "information"? Creationists aren't even willing to define it **URL:** \ **Category:** Conversation\ **Tags:** Science, Communication\ **Created:** [September 25, 2023, 3:03am UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326 "2023-09-25T03:03:29Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 8

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2023, 7:11pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/141 "2023-10-22T19:11:36Z")

> [@RonSewell](#): > > As I and others here have pointed out, natural reservoirs are not a prediction of GE. Natural reservoirs are the antithesis of GE This is most probably wrong. For example, nearly unique among vertebrates, bats constitutively express IFN alpha genes, likely resulting in less viral replication, hence less GE. [https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1518240113](https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.1518240113) Here the last sentence of the article: _In summary, we present an evolutionarily unique bat type I IFN locus with the discovery of only three functional bat IFN-α genes. Although bats have fewer IFN-α family members, the constitutive and ubiquitous expression pattern of IFN-α in bats may provide bats with a highly effective system for controlling viral replication._ ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 3:57pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/144 "2023-10-23T15:57:22Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > That would depend on the particular values, but the general rule is lesser the replication and higher the fidelity, the lesser GE. Sure but without those particular values, all you have is handwaving. GE isn’t testable because you have no way to predict a magnitude of effect. The point is that the whole idea with natural reservoirs is just his vague idea you point to when we point out life is really really old. But your vague idea doesn’t save GE because it has no content. There is no actual testing of the GE idea going on because you have no values to plug into any formula that shows deep time is consistent with GE given the natural reservoir. This meets the criterion for pseudo-science. ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 3:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/145 "2023-10-23T15:58:06Z")

> [@RonSewell](#): > > It gets worse. It is held that genetically perfect viruses were originally created to benevolent purpose, and at the fall the “controls”, whatever they might be, came off. Conforming to the original benign purpose is then the apex of functional information. Yet Sanford uses _virulence_ as a proxy for peak function and intact information, and loss of virulence as an indication of information loss. Very good point. ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 3:58pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/146 "2023-10-23T15:58:25Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > I don’t know. But the fact that you don’t know the why about something doesn’t mean that the thing doesn’t exist, right? I think I’m a billionaire. Since I am, I must have billions in the bank. How did I get it? Where is it? I don’t know, but that I don’t know doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, right? See how dumb that sounds? ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 3:59pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/147 "2023-10-23T15:59:15Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > Why less replication in natural reservoirs? Probably because too much viral replication would be harmful to the host. This would seem to conflict with observations of viruses in known contexts. And what do you mean by “natural reservoirs”? I don’t think you have any idea. The default hypothesis should be that there is no such thing. > [@Giltil](#): > > Why higher fidelity ? I don’t know. Not only don’t you know, it’s difficult to imagine how higher fidelity replication would be accomplished. The default hypothesis should be that there is no such thing. > [@Giltil](#): > > That would depend on the particular values, but the general rule is lesser the replication and higher the fidelity, the lesser GE. Obviously. But I would suggest that the credible range of particular values doesn’t include the magic “reservoirs” you need. Sanford attempts to get out of this problem by postulating an extremely young biota. But how can you? Forget viruses. Shouldn’t all life be extinct by this point? ---

> [@Giltil](#): > > This is most probably wrong. …and then you go on not to respond at all to that claim. > [@Giltil](#): > > bats constitutively express > IFN alpha genes, likely resulting in less viral replication, hence less GE. Significantly less? Do bat viruses evolve unusually slowly? That would be a test of your hypothesis. Of course when we say “bats” here, we’re referring to exactly one species, as the paper mentions nothing about any other bat species. ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 4:01pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/150 "2023-10-23T16:01:17Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > This is most probably wrong. For example, nearly unique among vertebrates, bats constitutively express > IFN alpha genes, likely resulting in less viral replication, hence less GE. Bats are a concern because they are a reservoir with spillover potential. Given that bats are often found in vast packed together colonies, it is not surprising that they exhibit defensive antiviral adaptations. That this might result in preservation from GE, however, is nonsense. If such preservation were the case, we would expect that viral surveys would review a preserved strain. As has been stated above, and any search of the literature would confirm, is that natural reservoirs, bats included, manifest variation. For just one of several studies… > Through detailed research on 13,064 bat samples from 14 provinces of China, 1141 CoV strains are found across 10 subgenera and one unclassified Alpha-CoV, generating 399 complete genome sequences. Within bat CoVs, 11 new CoV species are identified and 425 recombination events are detected. Bats in southern China, particularly in Yunnan province, exhibit a pronounced diversity of CoVs. [Panoramic analysis of coronaviruses carried by representative bat species in Southern China to better understand the coronavirus sphere](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10491624/) Whenever bat hosted viruses are inventoried, it is the same story. There will be a spectrum of variation, often leading to constructions of deep phylogenic trees. Undoubtedly, the cataloged strains are but a narrow portion of those actually existing in the here and now, and the strains existing in the here and now but a portion of strains which have come and gone. There is no single dominant or static wild strain. There are thousands of mutations represented. Any evaluation of the host-viral interaction and variation must be consistent with the observation that there is nothing close to genetic preservation in bat reservoirs, even over relatively brief intervals. The self inconsistency of GE remains. ---

**Author:** ![Dan\_Eastwood](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/dan_eastwood/32/2368_2.png) [@Dan\_Eastwood](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Dan_Eastwood)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 8:39pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/151 "2023-10-23T20:39:09Z")

A post was merged into an existing topic: [Midhun on Information](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/midhun-on-information/16360/10) ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 10:03pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/152 "2023-10-23T22:03:11Z")

> [@John\_Harshman](#): > > This would seem to conflict with observations of viruses in known contexts It doesn’t seem to conflict with the phenomenon of disease tolerance in bats. > **[Going to Bat(s) for Studies of Disease Tolerance](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02112/full)** > > A majority of viruses that have caused recent epidemics with high lethality rates in people, are zoonoses originating from wildlife. Among them are filoviruses (e.g., Marburg, Ebola), coronaviruses (e.g., SARS, MERS), henipaviruses (e.g., Hendra,... > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > And what do you mean by “natural reservoirs”? I mean the animal reservoirs of the zoonotic viruses. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > The default hypothesis should be that there is no such thing. However, your default hypothesis seems largely invalidated, at least in bats. > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > it’s difficult to imagine how higher fidelity replication would be accomplished Not really. For example, the host could provide sub-units of the RNA replicase complex that may increase fidelity of replication. ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2023, 11:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/153 "2023-10-23T23:54:42Z")

> [@John\_Harshman](#): > > Sanford attempts to get out of this problem by postulating an extremely young biota. But how can you? Forget viruses. Shouldn’t all life be extinct by this point? Given neodarwinism only, yes, I believe that all life should be extinct by this point. So something else is at play. I proposed an hypothesis at 88. Let me quote myself: _For example, one can hypothesized that stem organisms played similar role in phylogeny than stem cells in ontogeny. We know that the mutation rate is lower in stem cells than in somatic cells. Similarly, the mutation rates of these putative stem organisms could also be much lower than the ones observed in non stem organisms, making them much less prone to GE_ ---

**Author:** ![Rumraket](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/rumraket/32/9328_2.png) [@Rumraket](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Rumraket)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/154 "2023-10-24T13:51:22Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > Given neodarwinism only, yes No, given the hypothesis of GE. Not “neodarwinism”(whatever that is even supposed to be). There isn’t anything in contemporary evolutionary theory that entails life can’t be billions of years old. You have to assert some premise that just _isn’t_ part of standard evolutionary theory. You have to make assumptions that have no empirical support. ---

**Author:** ![Tim](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/tim/32/9381_2.png) [@Tim](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Tim)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/155 "2023-10-24T13:51:43Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > So something else is at play. So you are hypothesising a _completely unobserved_ (and likely unobservable) lower “mutation rates of these putative stem organisms” (which are likely all extinct) as an explanation for the fact that we _fail to observe_ GE? Wouldn’t a simpler explanation be simply that Sanford hallucinated GE? Likewise, the only basis for your hypothesis seems to be the fact that Stem Cells and ‘Stem Organisms’ share a similarity in labels – hardly the basis for a strong analogy, let alone a strong argument that they should share _this particular_ similarity. ---

**Author:** ![CrisprCAS9](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/crisprcas9/32/9145_2.png) [@CrisprCAS9](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/CrisprCAS9)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:51pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/156 "2023-10-24T13:51:51Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > making them much less prone to GE GE is not a thing, so there is no ‘less prone’. It’s just a failed idea. It’s wrong. If you think it’s right, do what Sanford can’t and show the math. ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:52pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/157 "2023-10-24T13:52:01Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > your default hypothesis seems largely invalidated, at least in bats. You are ignoring that bat virus populations are permeated with mutation. The reality does not conform to the rhetoric of GE. The proof is in the pudding, is it not? We have long known that tolerance in bats does not preserve viral purity, as variation is the observed state. Tolerance in bats does not offer any sort of mutation free zone. Sanford does not get to have it both ways. ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:53pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/158 "2023-10-24T13:53:00Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > It doesn’t seem to conflict with the phenomenon of disease tolerance in bats. > > [https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02112/full](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2018.02112/full) But do the evolutionary rates of bat viruses drastically slow down relative to the rates of virus evolution in other hosts? You have nothing so far that says this, so your references are not relevant to the main issue. > [@Giltil](#): > > I mean the animal reservoirs of the zoonotic viruses. But those animal reservoirs, as far as we can tell, do not have the characteristics you demand in order to save viruses from GE. > [@Giltil](#): > > For example, the host could provide sub-units of the RNA replicase complex that may increase fidelity of replication. I mean it’s difficult to imagine a _credible_ mechanism. And you have no data to indicate such a mechanism, or a lower mutation rate for any reason. > [@Giltil](#): > > For example, one can hypothesized that stem organisms played similar role in phylogeny than stem cells in ontogeny. We know that the mutation rate is lower in stem cells than in somatic cells. Similarly, the mutation rates of these putative stem organisms could also be much lower than the ones observed in non stem organisms, making them much less prone to GE Great. But what organisms are stem organisms? Shouldn’t we be able to identify them easily? On phylogenetic trees, they should show unusually short terminal branch lengths. And by “unusually”, I mean many orders of magnitude. Where are these stem organisms? And what would their biology look like, for that matter? You’re just postulating a form of magic here. ---

**Author:** ![Roy](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/roy/32/3799_2.png) [@Roy](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Roy)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/159 "2023-10-24T13:54:11Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > > [@John\_Harshman](#): > > > > Sanford attempts to get out of this problem by postulating an extremely young biota. But how can you? Forget viruses. Shouldn’t all life be extinct by this point? > > Given neodarwinism only, yes, I believe that all life should be extinct by this point. So something else is at play. I proposed an hypothesis at 88. Let me quote myself: > _For example, one can hypothesized that stem organisms played similar role in phylogeny than stem cells in ontogeny. We know that the mutation rate is lower in stem cells than in somatic cells. Similarly, the mutation rates of these putative stem organisms could also be much lower than the ones observed in non stem organisms, making them much less prone to GE_ These stem organisms existed at widely varying times scattered across evolutionary history. Your hypothesis suggests that we should be able to look at extant species, see which ones (if any) have much lower mutation rates than their relatives, and determine that these species are the stem organisms for future clades. Since humans don’t have a lower mutation rate than other mammals, or even other primates, your hypothesis suggests our lineage won’t thrive and diversify. Your hypothesis also suggests that the stem organisms, with their lower mutation rates, would not have been able to evolve as fast as their competitors in response to changing environmental or ecological conditions, and so would have gone extinct - which would have course prevented them from becoming stem organisms at all. You didn’t consider the possible consequences of your hypothesis _at all_, did you? ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/160 "2023-10-24T13:54:25Z")

> [@John\_Harshman](#): > > Significantly less? Do bat viruses evolve unusually slowly? That would be a test of your hypothesis The article below shows that the evolutionary rate of bat viruses can vary by order of magnitude in ecologically distincts reservoir species. > **[Rates of Viral Evolution Are Linked to Host Geography in Bat Rabies](https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1002720)** > > Author Summary Rapid evolution of RNA viruses is intimately linked to their success in overcoming the defenses of their hosts. Several studies have shown that rates of viral evolution can vary dramatically among distantly related viral families.... ---

**Author:** ![Giltil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Giltil](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/Giltil)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 1:54pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/161 "2023-10-24T13:54:48Z")

> [@RonSewell](#): > > The self inconsistency of GE remains Not only the rate of evolution of RNA viruses can be order of magnitude less in some ecological distinct host species (see my answer to @John_Harshman ) but there is also the possibility of abiotic preservation of viruses (see below). So no, as far as RNA viruses are concerned, GE is not necessarily inconsistent. To argue that it is, one has to assume that we have a comprehensive understanding of the world of viruses, which is far, far from being the case. > **[Persistence of Avian Influenza Viruses in Various Artificially Frozen...](https://www.hindawi.com/journals/irt/2012/912326/)** > > Background. This study investigates the viable persistence of avian influenza viruses (AIVs) in various types of artificially frozen environmental water and evaluates the feasibility of similar occurrence taking place in nature, and allowing for... ---

**Author:** ![John\_Harshman](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/john_harshman/32/1121_2.png) [@John\_Harshman](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/John_Harshman)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 3:55pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/162 "2023-10-24T15:55:25Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > The article below shows that the evolutionary rate of bat viruses can vary by order of magnitude in ecologically distincts reservoir species. > > [Rates of Viral Evolution Are Linked to Host Geography in Bat Rabies](https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.ppat.1002720) Two problems: 1) the rate of evolution isn’t the same thing as the mutation rate unless all mutations are neutral; 2) even the slowest observed rate of evolution is very fast, enough that if GE were true the virus would have gone extinct long ago. So where’s your magic reservoir? Are you now going to claim that it’s glaciers? But how old, even if we believe this bizarre hypothesis, are the oldest glaciers? Hold old do you think the oldest virus lineages are? ---

**Author:** ![RonSewell](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/flex016/user_avatar/discourse.peacefulscience.org/ronsewell/32/6194_2.png) [@RonSewell](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/u/RonSewell)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2023, 3:56pm UTC](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326/163 "2023-10-24T15:56:39Z")

> [@Giltil](#): > > as far as RNA viruses are concerned, GE is not necessarily inconsistent. To argue that it is, one has to assume that we have a comprehensive understanding of the world of viruses, which is far, far from being the case. The evidence is direct. We observe diversity, not fidelity. What is the point in postulating mechanisms for an end state that doesn’t exist? If there is some high fidelity strain, please provide an example. [Previous page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326.md?page=7) [Next page](https://discourse.peacefulscience.org/t/define-information-creationists-arent-even-willing-to-define-it/16326.md?page=9)