The Failures of Mathematical Anti-Evolutionism

Your claim in your paper that new genes are created by duplication and random mutation. I think this claim is challenged by mathematical arguments given genes are functional sequences which exist in exceedingly large mathematical spaces…

Gene duplication with subsequent divergence is an empirical fact. It is a well-understood process, and it plainly has the ability to account for information growth in the genome by any reasonable definition of “information.” Therefore, any assertion that known genetic mechanisms cannot account for information growth is false. That is my claim.

As it happens, anti-evolutionists routinely make precisely that assertion. I pointed to Werner Gitt and Andrew McIntosh in my article, but I could as easily have pointed to many others.

Since I don’t even mention Behe and Axe in my article, I don’t know why you keep bringing them up in this thread. I do devote some space to the mathematical aspects of their arguments in my book, however.


We have evidence that Bill is immune to math and other reasoning. No need to give him any more of your time.


I agree assertion that known genetic mechanisms cannot account for information is problematic as it sets up the person making the claim to have to prove a negative.

The claim that is problematic for evolution (Behe) is that duplication and divergence is unlikely to explain the new information we are observing. Random change is more likely to lose information then gain it. The empirical evidence supports that most changes in protein sequences are deleterious.

Yes, Bill, that’s why pseudogenes exist. No one is making the argument that all duplication and divergence events lead to the introduction of new genes and functions of what they encode. As long as some do, that is all that is needed. Evidence pretty clearly shows us that some do.


And here we are witnessing the mental processes that occur in the brain of a person who accepts Intelligent Design Creationism. Appalling, isn’t it?


How do you define “informatiion” here? Obviously you aren’t referring to Shannon information, as duplicating a gene necessarily increases Shannon information. Is added information necessarily beneficial? Do deleterious mutations necessarily decrease information? If so, under what definition of “information”?


EDIT: I mistakenly quote @John_Harshman when I intend to address @colewd. Apologies for my error.

You have no idea what you are saying.

ETA: @colewd we have discussed information in this context many times. It hardly seems possible you have anything new to add on this subject that has not been previously address multiple times.

I’ve been trying to leave you alone, and perhaps I should, but so much WRONG is hard to ignore.
While I’m at it …

Then it’s a good thing change isn’t random, isn’t it?

1 Like

That may well be. Can you explain?

1 Like

A post was split to a new topic: Functional Information (again)

Apologies, that was meant for someone else.

Apologies again that it took me two days to figure that out.

Edits have been made.

What? Do you mean that I may in fact know what I’m saying?


Yes yes, you know what you are saying. Hold on a minute, I think I have a sword I can throw myself on. :grin: :dagger:


This topic was automatically closed 7 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

My advice: If you have a choice, throw yourself on the non-pointy end.


I plan to aim badly. '-)

You could always throw yourself on a chocolate sword

Face first! :laughing:

1 Like

That was actually the ending scene of Quentin Tarantino’s very dark remake of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

It did not score well with focus group test audiences—especially the under age 9 demographic—so it went direct-to-video and can now be found in the $1.99 bin at Walmart. (If you sit through the entire end-credits, there’s a brief shot of an Umpa Lumpa pilfering the battlefield and looting that sword. Not a great visual image.)


I don’t know if it would have scored any better than this scene that was actually kept in the original. :wink: