John, Russell ~ Speaking from the perspective of information science, one
can abstract out the underlying information encoding scheme(s), actually
employed by life & by conscious self-aware life as well, which could be any
number of suitable candidates. We know of three known currently employed
encoding schemes DNA, RNA (RNA viruses for example)  and epigenetic coding
of how this DNA is expressed  that can cross generational boundaries and
mutate or change the resulting phenotype expressed in progeny.

As Russell pointed out there is the matter of memes acting as a kind of
encoded piece of cultural DNA that can culturally form individuals even
after many generations have past. In some senses, in more advanced cultural
creatures such as our species -- though some would argue that last statement
J -- ideas transmit and evolve in a Darwinian manner.

If we abstract away the details of how information is encoded, preserved,
transmitted etc. and deal instead in the abstract, we can avoid a whole mess
of confusion and focus in on the essential common characteristics that are

>From this perspective what is required in order for evolution to occur is
the following sequence: 

1)      A new abstract information entity or a mutation on an existing one
is introduced into an individual organism or a population of individual
organisms through some process. This process may be hereditary, in the
special case of a mutated or new information entity that has been introduced
in some earlier generation and is going through a new generation of natural

2)      This new information must be remembered by one or more individuals
in the initial population set and be able to be encoded and preserved in a
durable and high fidelity manner in those individuals.

3)      It must also be able to be transmissible across generational
boundaries and through some abstract hereditary process (again leaving out
all details) and durable high quality copies of the original must exist and
also be able to be expressed in the individuals in these successive
generations - e.g. the process of heredity stated in an abstract way.
Copying flaws and mutations are of course allowed and considered integral to
the way things actually work.

4)      Crucially, in each succeeding generation, it must undergo and
survive a process of Darwinian selection being driven by the given
environmental pressures in its world. Only the abstract information entities
that make it through each generational selection obstacle course survive -
amongst some individual members in the population of the succeeding
generation - to be passed on to the next generation in the evolutionary

5)      Many generations of natural selection must occur - i.e. loop through
steps 1,2,3,4 - in order to enable the bubbling up of beneficial mutations
and the weeding out of harmful mutations. How many generations does it take?
No easy answer for that but certainly more than say two or three. 


Only when new abstract information entities satisfy and survive through
(step number 4) repeated over many generations (step 5) can evolution be
said to have occurred.





[] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Sunday, August 11, 2013 9:21 AM
Subject: Re: Serious proof of why the theory of evolution is wrong


On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Chris de Morsella <>


>> It's not news that some chemicals increase the rate of mutation.


> Epigenetic changes that effect what is transcribed is not mutation - at
least in the classic sense of changing - i.e. mutating - the underlying DNA.
The DNA is not mutated; the underlying sequence of bases remains unaltered. 

It's true that  epigenetic changes don't effect the underlying DNA, but that
is a distinction of little or no importance to Evolution because all it's
interested in is the resulting phenotype and how well the animal does in
getting its inheritance factors (regardless of if those factors are made of
DNA base pairs or methylation) into the next generation. Perhaps on a
distant planet there is a ecosystem that doesn't use DNA or methylation at
all, but it must have some mechanism of inheritance and that mechanism must
be very reliable but not perfectly so because there must be some way to
generate random changes. And on that distant planet Darwinian natural
selection would still be needed to separate the good changes from the bad. 

> it seems to me - that life dances on the knife edge between order and
chaos. Stray too far towards either chaos or order and life very quickly
stops living.

Yes, I agree.

  John K Clark

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
To post to this group, send email to
Visit this group at
For more options, visit

Reply via email to