Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Kilkrazy wrote:

DAaddict wrote:

Creationism - at its core is a belief in some engineer who designed something with a plan. Darwinism - evolotion - at its core is a belief that over time a combination of things will take place to result in some duplication of an engineer. In effect the engineer is time and the effects of environment.

All I am saying is that both are a faith. Neither one is proved. You can tell me I am ignorant but I haven't seen a proven passage of human from ape or ape from fish missing link. By the same token, it is called a theory and not a law for a reason. I am not a lemming to roll off the cliff just because the weight of numbers is against me. If that were the case, we should be following the Ptolemaic Theory that everything revolves around the earth and still be holding slaves because the majority thought it was a good idea.

By the scientific principles which everyone beats down creationists as pooh-poohing it, evolution remains a theory. All that I am saying is the creationism is a theory. Where I get my dander up is when either side play a holier-than-thou attitude about I am right and you are wrong. Or a variation that evolution is the norm and because the majority accept it therefore it is right.

If I understand your position correctly, you disbelieve in evolution because you haven't been shown examples intermediate stages for every single species that has ever existed. The rest of the evidence for evolution is not convincing to you.

You believe in intelligent design proved by irreducible complexity, although every claimed example of irreducible complexity has been refuted by examples from nature.

+1 to this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grakmar wrote:Yay, Libertyville! It's gone from remote hick town, to yuppie suburb, to right-wing crazy town in a period of 15 years!


Why do they always seem to put the religious nutjobs as the Bio teachers? I didn't have Schaefer as my freshman Bio teacher (yes, Bio was a Freshman level course back in my day), but he taught my anatomy class senior year. My freshman bio teacher was Bomgaars, who was clearly uncomfortable with the evolution unit. He never went as far as bringing up creationism in the classroom, but he made a few comments about being unsure about the whole evolution thing.

The school board made a huge mistake in keeping Schaefer employed. I'm definitely going to have to make fun of my friends employed by LHS for working at a private school.

There is a epidemic in this country... there are very very few science teachers... and far fewer good ones

If I understand your position correctly, you disbelieve in evolution because you haven't been shown examples intermediate stages for every single species that has ever existed. The rest of the evidence for evolution is not convincing to you.

You believe in intelligent design proved by irreducible complexity, although every claimed example of irreducible complexity has been refuted by examples from nature.

This is why is farsical to believe in either.
Evolution is a theory, it should be clearly taught as such - that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have.
Arguably people have 'faith' in evolution.

Phototoxin wrote:

If I understand your position correctly, you disbelieve in evolution because you haven't been shown examples intermediate stages for every single species that has ever existed. The rest of the evidence for evolution is not convincing to you.

You believe in intelligent design proved by irreducible complexity, although every claimed example of irreducible complexity has been refuted by examples from nature.

This is why is farsical to believe in either.
Evolution is a theory, it should be clearly taught as such - that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have.
Arguably people have 'faith' in evolution.

What do you mean proven? I mean if you really want to break everything down from every platform, subject, and technology nothing is 100%, and there are always variables that will change your results. We have already observed proven instances of evolution in bacteria, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and observe it in all species. Asking for that is ridiculous. I think it is pretty safe to say once you prove the framework you can apply it to the species as fact but keep in mind some level of variance.

Well you can't actually, because that whole time thing, bu then again-who cares?

Phototoxin wrote:

If I understand your position correctly, you disbelieve in evolution because you haven't been shown examples intermediate stages for every single species that has ever existed. The rest of the evidence for evolution is not convincing to you.

You believe in intelligent design proved by irreducible complexity, although every claimed example of irreducible complexity has been refuted by examples from nature.

This is why is farsical to believe in either.
Evolution is a theory, it should be clearly taught as such - that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have.
Arguably people have 'faith' in evolution.

You are saying that physical facts are meaningless as evidence by which to understand the physical world.

Polonius wrote:

Crom wrote:. Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has.

I guess I see these statements are contrdictory. If something is natural, how can it be given by man?

Personally, I don't think rights are given, they're taken away.

I was born with Freedom, nothing can make me more free, only less.

To the Gulag.

Mike Noble wrote:

Polonius wrote:

Crom wrote:. Our government and individual rights were given by man, and seen as a natural right that every human has.

I guess I see these statements are contrdictory. If something is natural, how can it be given by man?

Personally, I don't think rights are given, they're taken away.

I was born with Freedom, nothing can make me more free, only less.

These freedoms you are born with are still an idea and concept accepted, developed, philosophized and regulated by man. Murder is illegal, but you can justify murder in the right of self defense. Freedom of speech is limited, you cannot follow someone around and slander them all day. These are things developed over time and are well thought out by man. The only thing that makes them natural is that man assumes every citizen gets these rights as being a citizen is a natural right.

My whole point was to outline how we are not a nation founded upon religious values, and more so we are a nation found upon the concept and principals of personal rights and freedoms.

What do you mean proven? I mean if you really want to break everything down from every platform, subject, and technology nothing is 100%, and there are always variables that will change your results. We have already observed proven instances of evolution in bacteria, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and observe it in all species. Asking for that is ridiculous. I think it is pretty safe to say once you prove the framework you can apply it to the species as fact but keep in mind some level of variance

No as mammals are more complex than bacteria.

You are saying that physical facts are meaningless as evidence by which to understand the physical world.

No I'm saying that faith in a theory is pointless. A theory is the best fitting model - supported by the (physical) evidence. However the best method does not mean that it is correct or accurate.

EDIT: I was away with the faries - durgh! - repeats add more information. Please forgive me - I haz diabetus cold and am sounding like a fundie. Prayer to the FSM and IPU (blessed be her holy hooves) for my health!

Phototoxin wrote:

You are saying that physical facts are meaningless as evidence by which to understand the physical world.

No I'm saying that faith in a theory is pointless. A theory is the best fitting model - supported by the (physical) evidence. However the best method does not mean that it is correct or accurate.

I don't people have faith in theories... And you are right, the best model may not be accurate, BUT it is better than something thats WAAAAAAAAAAAY off and unconstitutional to boot.

Phototoxin wrote:Howver there are so many holes in evolution that it's not that strong of a model. It's too simple. An example of a flaw I find with it are where are the obseved instances where evolution has increased the overall genomic content?

Umm... all over the place. Why do you think that different organisms have different sized genomes? There's lots of evidence showing duplications of genetic material that expand the size of the genome and introduce duplicate copies of genes. I work on grasses, some grasses have very differently sized genomes with a lot more genetic material in them but they clearly have a shared ancestor and can even hybridise.

Phototoxin wrote:
This is why is farsical to believe in either.
Evolution is a theory, it should be clearly taught as such - that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have.

What you've just described is, arguably, a form of belief; particularly if you're a strict positivist.

Phototoxin wrote:This is why is farsical to believe in either.

It is not farcical to believe in the theory that mostly closely matches observed phenomena and offers the best predictive value. Far from being farcical, this is actually how we've built the modern world.

Evolution is a theory, it should be clearly taught as such

As a lot of us explained to DAaddict by multiple posters (which I'm guessing you didn't bother to read) that in science a theory is entirely different to what you think it is. In science a theory is a collection of the established laws in a branch of science, and putting them together as a whole. It is the theory of gravity in the same way as it is the theory or evolution.

- that scientifically speaking it is the best understanding that fits the model and is supported - although not definitively proved - based on the knowledge we have.

There is no such thing as proof in science, as science will always posit that a better theory that more closely aligns to observed phenomena could develop. Newton's theory of gravity was great, until Einstein came along with the theory of relativity. This didn't mean Newton's theory was wrong, it was just that as science marched on Einstein was able to provide a theory that accounted for more phenomena, and better able to predict future obervations than Newton's theory had been.

This is how science works. Understand this.

Arguably people have 'faith' in evolution.

Argue it if you want, but it's nonsense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Crom wrote:We have already observed proven instances of evolution in bacteria, but we don't have the ability to go back in time and observe it in all species.

We actually observed speciation in flies, in the 60s.

We actually observed speciation in flies, in the 60s.

We have also been able to manipulate evolution in longevity studies.

Umm... all over the place. Why do you think that different organisms have different sized genomes? There's lots of evidence showing duplications of genetic material that expand the size of the genome and introduce duplicate copies of genes. I work on grasses, some grasses have very differently sized genomes with a lot more genetic material in them but they clearly have a shared ancestor and can even hybridise.

I think the argument is that while you can retroactively see this, aside from absorbing plasmids and the like, that information generally decreases.
Also I would point out that I edited my post before anyone posted to reflect that infact genomic information does arguably increase, assuming that quantity of repeats can be thought of as information (which they can).

This is how science works. Understand this.

Don't patronise me.

Phototoxin wrote:I think the argument is that while you can retroactively see this, aside from absorbing plasmids and the like, that information generally decreases.

You mostly see all these things after the event because they are relatively rare, it's not really possible to sit around waiting for it to happen spontaneously in front of you. That said it is known for genomes to change in size because of malfunctions in chromosome segregations which instantly increases the chromosome number, and genomic content, in a single generation. Where this can be seen to have happened in the distant past the chromosome, or large sections, are very similar but have diverged so are not quite the same and do slightly different things, or have slightly different genomic content. The same is seen in individual genes, where two genes are nearly the same because they have come from a duplciation error at some point, but since that they have mutated slightly so that their function is subtly different. Of course where this has happened in the very distant past and much mutation has since occured it gets more difficult to see which come from the same source.

So not only doe the volume of information increase, but the copies created can then evolve different functions, meaning volume and diversity of genetic material has increased. So yes, overall genomic content does increase and new 'information' appears.

This again?

We get it, religion is bonkers, atheists are demon spawn.

You mostly see all these things after the event because they are relatively rare, it's not really possible to sit around waiting for it to happen spontaneously in front of you. That said it is known for genomes to change in size because of malfunctions in chromosome segregations which instantly increases the chromosome number, and genomic content, in a single generation. Where this can be seen to have happened in the distant past the chromosome, or large sections, are very similar but have diverged so are not quite the same and do slightly different things, or have slightly different genomic content. The same is seen in individual genes, where two genes are nearly the same because they have come from a duplciation error at some point, but since that they have mutated slightly so that their function is subtly different. Of course where this has happened in the very distant past and much mutation has since occured it gets more difficult to see which come from the same source.

So not only doe the volume of information increase, but the copies created can then evolve different functions, meaning volume and diversity of genetic material has increased. So yes, overall genomic content does increase and new 'information' appears.

I see what you mean, but is a bit like saying I have a copy of book 'TOWER' if due to an error I have two of them (TOWER TOWER) my information doesn't actually increase, the volume of text does so to speak, and then come the mutations (POWER/TOWED etc) which may code for things. However while possible it seems like a lot of hit and miss and some expressed genes need to be fairly spot on whereas others are more lax.

Phototoxin wrote:
I see what you mean, but is a bit like saying I have a copy of book 'TOWER' if due to an error I have two of them (TOWER TOWER) my information doesn't actually increase, the volume of text does so to speak...

Changes in volume are fundamentally changes in information. Take set theory:

If you have set X, and set Y where set Y is all values of set X expressed twice you can express set Y as 2(set X) but you cannot express all transformations of set Y, using only set X, without first expressing it as 2(set X); meaning that set Y represents a unique state of information despite being nothing more than a derivation of set X.

Additionally, even if all transformations of set Y are fundamentally limited by the initial conditions established by set X, that limit does not imply that complexity (information) cannot increase through transformation, only that the sort of complexity that can be added is limited.

Phototoxin wrote:I see what you mean, but is a bit like saying I have a copy of book 'TOWER' if due to an error I have two of them (TOWER TOWER) my information doesn't actually increase, the volume of text does so to speak, and then come the mutations (POWER/TOWED etc) which may code for things. However while possible it seems like a lot of hit and miss and some expressed genes need to be fairly spot on whereas others are more lax.

This is how it works though, there is hit and miss, but that's somewhat the point of natural selection, the 'misses' get filtered out of the population. Also if you have a gene that already does something useful and is duplicated, then it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to think that it could modify slightly to become a slightly differently useful thing. A lot of different genes are largely similar at the base level. This isn't all about random code suddenly hitting upon a useful gene but a series of stepping stones from one useful thing to another useful thing.

A functioning gene can be duplicated, and the copy then changes slightly from one useful thing to another useful gene. Then you have two different genes that do slightly different things. If you look at something like wheat there are effectively three genomes (A,B and D). There are six copies of every chromosome instead of two. They are all clearly of the same origin because the three sets of paired chromosomes are very similar in overall content; lots of the repeated sections and coding sections are similar. That doesn't happen by chance, the three sets didn't all come to be so similar by happenstance, that's hugely improbable, they are like that because they duplicated in the distant past. But they are not identical because they have diverged in content slightly from that period in the past when the duplication occurred. Some genes are shared on all three, but sometimes a gene only appears on one, or a gene on all three is similar but slightly modified on each case, or the gene is active on one and deactivated on the other two. Also even though you have six chromosomes they don't get all mixed up, the cell knows to strictly match the AA, BB and DD pairs up and not have very similar but non-identical chromosomes pairing, but if you knock out certain genes controlling this mechanism then they will pair somewhat reinforcinging their similarity and shared origin.

Just saying "However while possible it seems like a lot of hit and miss..." is just arguing from your own personal incredulity rather than on a scientific basis, the evidence is everywhere. I don't expect everyone to be intimately familiar with it all, that's just impossible, but it's there to be found if you look in the right places, the examples of various things people frequently ask for do exist.

Howard A Treesong wrote:This is how it works though, there is hit and miss, but that's somewhat the point of natural selection, the 'misses' get filtered out of the population. Also if you have a gene that already does something useful and is duplicated, then it's hardly a stretch of the imagination to think that it could modify slightly to become a slightly differently useful thing. A lot of different genes are largely similar at the base level. This isn't all about random code suddenly hitting upon a useful gene but a series of stepping stones from one useful thing to another useful thing.A functioning gene can be duplicated, and the copy then changes slightly from one useful thing to another useful gene. Then you have two different genes that do slightly different things.

Ahh nope - in that case they generally undergo alternate splicing. In addition having multiples of some genes can cause disease and having a slightly changed gene can cause disease. Point mutations on an exon can seriously bugger up the generated protein - or alternatively do nothing.

If you look at something like wheat there are effectively three genomes (A,B and D). There are six copies of every chromosome instead of two. They are all clearly of the same origin because the three sets of paired chromosomes are very similar in overall content; lots of the repeated sections and coding sections are similar. That doesn't happen by chance, the three sets didn't all come to be so similar by happenstance, that's hugely improbable, they are like that because they duplicated in the distant past. But they are not identical because they have diverged in content slightly from that period in the past when the duplication occurred. Some genes are shared on all three, but sometimes a gene only appears on one, or a gene on all three is similar but slightly modified on each case, or the gene is active on one and deactivated on the other two. Also even though you have six chromosomes they don't get all mixed up, the cell knows to strictly match the AA, BB and DD pairs up and not have very similar but non-identical chromosomes pairing, but if you knock out certain genes controlling this mechanism then they will pair somewhat reinforcinging their similarity and shared origin.

But all that does is imply common ancestry of the wheat rather than 'everything came from a single common ancestor'?

Just saying "However while possible it seems like a lot of hit and miss..." is just arguing from your own personal incredulity rather than on a scientific basis, the evidence is everywhere. I don't expect everyone to be intimately familiar with it all, that's just impossible, but it's there to be found if you look in the right places, the examples of various things people frequently ask for do exist.

I'm not arguing from incredulity, I'm pointing out that due to the random nature of mutations genomic survival seems more down to luck ie hit and miss, than actual 'design' or 'evolution' The amount of mutation required and the slow rate of mutation makes it seems that it would have taken a long long time. I think that evolution is going the way of the big bang. It works up to a point.

Phototoxin wrote:Ahh nope - in that case they generally undergo alternate splicing. In addition having multiples of some genes can cause disease and having a slightly changed gene can cause disease. Point mutations on an exon can seriously bugger up the generated protein - or alternatively do nothing.

Mutations occur fairly frequently though. Yes they can be bad but there's only so many amino acid variants and it's not binary either. A single mutation does not just lead to either success or death. Loads of mutations make small modification are somewhere between the two extremes. Obviously if you duplicated or bugger up a gene that makes a vital product that is supposed to be tightly regulated then you will have a serious problem but they odds are that such an organism would not last long if it even survived fertilisation. Also many of the most vital and fundamental components are in areas of the genome more tightly conserved than other regions against mutation and chopping around of the DNA.

But all that does is imply common ancestry of the wheat rather than 'everything came from a single common ancestor'?

You're moving the goal posts. What I was writing was specifically aimed at comments that 'information' doesn't increase in volume and is only lost, you don't get new information and complexity doesn't increase, it wasn't about proving overall shared ancestry. As it happens wheat is demonstrably genetically related to barley, rye and others grasses. Using the rate of random mutation in the non-coding regions you can estimate how far apart it is since they have diverged. For instance, modern grasses divided from rice around 50 million years ago IIRC. There are fundamental genes and genetic sequences that are shared by nearly all organisms from plants to animals and fungi.

I'm not arguing from incredulity, I'm pointing out that due to the random nature of mutations genomic survival seems more down to luck ie hit and miss, than actual 'design' or 'evolution' The amount of mutation required and the slow rate of mutation makes it seems that it would have taken a long long time. I think that evolution is going the way of the big bang. It works up to a point.

Simply saying how things 'seem' to you is not an argument. And evolution does often take a long time, that's the point. Many species produce greater numbers of offspring an are a bit looser with correcting mutations because it doesn't matter if loads of them never survive. In organisms like humans complexity is greater, mutations can often bad and because we reproduce slowly they have to be rarer events to avoid putting the species at risk. But it hardly matters if mutation is higher in flies and bacteria because they reproduce to such a huge number that the population can cope. What you seem to be saying is that millions of years are not enough in your mind for evolution to work. I don't really follow why the random nature of mutations leads to the idea that genomic survival is down to luck rather than any sort of evolution. What are you saying, that genomes that do have mutations and survive do so by chance and luck rather than any sort of selection. It's not really clear.

There is an element of chance in what gets passed between generations because natural selection isn't totally dominant and operating all the time on everything. The extent of selection on certain traits can be greater or smaller and there's always a bit of room for pure chance to simply increase or remove something from a population. Something like a specific eye or hair colour could be lost from a population just by accident. This is the basis of genetic drift which is incorporated into the theory of evolution.

Selective breeding shows that by choosing certain individuals to go into the next generation you can change the shape of an animal quite quickly. Sure it's a farmer picking and choosing what animals breed but domesticated breeds of animals look nothing like their wild ancestors and that's occurred in a matter of hundreds of years. Take dog breeds, some prized breeds of dog don't look like they did even 100 years ago because the selection for certain traits has been so strong. So if you can swallow that why can't selection due to natural circumstances change something over millions of years?

You berated someone else for patronising you, but honestly you don't really seem to understand what you are talking about.

-completely ignoring the past 5 pages in order to keep blood pressure down and inserting opinion on the matter-

I have no problem with the guy teaching creationism side by side with evolution. We went over the creation mythos of several different religions in addition to evolution and I honestly don't see it as a bad thing. If we're going to advocate a fair and balanced view then we should teach both the leading religion's (or multiple religious ideas on the matter) in addition to the secular modern view on the subject and each should be given a neutral tone in explanation that doesn't favor one or the other.

Yes, but that suggests that they have equal value as an explanation for the development of life on earth and the emergence of humans. Which they really don't.


At all.

The book of Genesis has no place in the science classroom, because it isn't science, it's mythology. If people simply MUST teach children the various myths and legends of world religion, then a Religious Education class is the place to do it. We had one at my school, and they provide a very basic grounding in the various traditions. It was a compulsory class up to year 9 (around 13-14, iirc), and after that you could choose to take it as one of your GCSE options.


There were few, if any takers.

If I had the option of taking a religion class it would have meant giving up either art, animation, or band. Even if I had an interest in learning a variety of religious beliefs I wouldn't have because it would have sacrificed my creative outlets. I was lucky with a special program, most people on the advanced college track only got one elective per year and with many involved in the arts, it wouldn't have been a high priority.

I'm not really looking to get into the debate,but as of a year of collegiate level evolution courses taught by a former archeologist I'm not entirely convinced that evolution is 100% accurate as it is often portrayed as.

Phototoxin wrote:
Ahh nope - in that case they generally undergo alternate splicing. In addition having multiples of some genes can cause disease and having a slightly changed gene can cause disease. Point mutations on an exon can seriously bugger up the generated protein - or alternatively do nothing.

Changes in volume are fundamentally changes in information. Take set theory:

If you have set X, and set Y where set Y is all values of set X expressed twice you can express set Y as 2(set X) but you cannot express all transformations of set Y, using only set X, without first expressing it as 2(set X); meaning that set Y represents a unique state of information despite being nothing more than a derivation of set X.

Additionally, even if all transformations of set Y are fundamentally limited by the initial conditions established by set X, that limit does not imply that complexity (information) cannot increase through transformation, only that the sort of complexity that can be added is limited.

Woah! A whole YEAR!?

Yeah, you're right. God must have created humans out of dust, then. Case closed.

Howard A Treesong wrote:
You berated someone else for patronising you, but honestly you don't really seem to understand what you are talking about.

Medical ethics support his reasoning.

Albatross wrote:Woah! A whole YEAR!?

Yeah, you're right. God must have created humans out of dust, then. Case closed.

Firstly: that's several evolution classes so I have a lot of the theory, timelines, etc.
Secondly: I do believe mocking is equivalent to flaming and is rather rude. I'd appreciate it if you didn't do that.
Thirdly: Regardless as to what my beliefs actually are, I didn't actually advocate the Judeo-Christian formula, I only advocated balance and expressed doubt as to the modern science belief.

The kids involved are in high school and are at the time when they are able to begin making decisions on what they believe.

Mutations occur fairly frequently though. Yes they can be bad but there's only so many amino acid variants and it's not binary either. A single mutation does not just lead to either success or death

It doesn't always, there's a backup set of genes anyway, but it *can* - some apparent point mutations can dispose you towards certain diseases which would kill.

What are you saying, that genomes that do have mutations and survive do so by chance and luck rather than any sort of selection. It's not really clear.

If you're talking about a gene in an organism it doesn't really have a choice - either it survives or doesn't. I might say that that's luck that it has the right genes, you might say it's selection.

Additionally there are some control mechanisms and regulatory sequences, some parts are conserved and there's always a back up (having pairs of chromosomes) but generally occurrence mutation is random. Also some things which are important aren't highly conserved in humans - branch points and splicesome initiation points are an example which aren't as well conserved in humans than they are in apes. They're pretty important.
In terms of duplication genes some diseases have a threshold of how many repeats are healthy. Too many and you get ill, even more and you probably don't develop properly.
Or what about whole sets of geners - a duplicate an extra ch21. They live and can be relatively healthy.

Selective breeding shows that by choosing certain individuals to go into the next generation you can change the shape of an animal quite quickly. Sure it's a farmer picking and choosing what animals breed but domesticated breeds of animals look nothing like their wild ancestors and that's occurred in a matter of hundreds of years. Take dog breeds, some prized breeds of dog don't look like they did even 100 years ago because the selection for certain traits has been so strong. So if you can swallow that why can't selection due to natural circumstances change something over millions of years?

That is not mutation that is seletive breeding. If I get all the people with pointy noses and breed them, then select the offspring that express pointiest noses (as not all will) and breed them and so on eventually I will have a group that has the Pointy/Pointy set of genes so no matter what, as long as they're bred with another Pointy/Pointy will produce Pointy/Pointy offspring. The children haven't evolved (much) they've just been made into a bloodline.

If you have set X, and set Y where set Y is all values of set X expressed twice you can express set Y as 2(set X) but you cannot express all transformations of set Y, using only set X, without first expressing it as 2(set X); meaning that set Y represents a unique state of information despite being nothing more than a derivation of set X.

Additionally, even if all transformations of set Y are fundamentally limited by the initial conditions established by set X, that limit does not imply that complexity (information) cannot increase through transformation, only that the sort of complexity that can be added is limited.

Perhaps 'relevant information' should be the term, (then again what is information...!) but by doing that I'm going the creationist route of using subjective mutable terms which should be avoided. (or as H.A.Treesong said moving the goalposts). As I said I edited my original message as I was in brainfart mode and I do agree that genetic information increases.

EDIT: I was away with the faries - durgh! - repeats add more information.