Information Theory and Intelligent Design.

See Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experimentsInformation intentionally deleted is regained by evolution.Thus evolution can result in an increase in information.Case closed.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I think that was a massive moving of the goal-posts, and that if you want to believe that life began by some miracle 3.5 billion years ago, that you are free to do so, but that also means it has then proceeded by purely natural means, with evolution of all life forms from that first life form.That evolution involved "adding" of "information" in the same manner as was shown for the e-coli bacteria, and thus information is no barrier to such evolution of all life from that first life form. You are putting up "fancy" against fact and you are voting for fancy. that is not faith, it is delusion. Mathematical and philosophical models of reality are not reality. Thus when they conflict with reality, the conflict is with the model and not reality -- they are wrong. It is really that simple Rob. No matter what you throw at reality, you still need to deal with the reality or you are in a delusional state.The reality is that the earth is old and that life evolves and has evolved.You dodged the age of the earth issue last time so that you can pretend it doesn't exist. That too is a form of delusion. Try a dose of reality at Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)Look at the research and see what the possibilities are. Do we know for sure? Of course not. But we also do NOT know that it was NOT possible.See RAZD - Building Blocks of Life for some of those possibilities. ... still leaves us with 3.5 billion years of evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see on this planet.And your argument otherwise is refuted and you have totally failed to substantiate a single portion of it. Pretty much, by your own failure to reply substantiatively, as well as the evidence that refutes your argument.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Truth is brutal. The alternative that you won't confront is that you are wrong. That you are the one with closed eyes, that you refuse to confront the evidence - evidence for evolution, evidence for an old earth, etc.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Which just proves your assumptions are wrong again.I believe there is truth, but that what we can know about it is bounded on one side by what we do not know, and on the other side by what we know to be false.That is not relative.The earth is old. We know that it is at least 4.55 billion years old, how much older we do not know. We know that it cannot be much older as the solar system is not that much older.You believe the earth is young: this is false.Life on this planet is old. We know that it is at least 3.5 billion years old, how much older we do not know. We know that it cannot be much older because the earth is not that much older.You believe life is young: this is false.Evolution has, does and will proceed to diversify life on this planet. We know that by whatever metric you choose to measure "information" that it has, does and will "increase" (as well as decrease or remain the same) by purely natural means during the course of evolution.You believe it cannot "increase": this is false. Your radar for detecting truth is broken.You believe things that are contradicted by evidence. That is not truth, it is not faith, it is delusion.Only by confronting evidence do you find the bounds of truth, not by hiding from it.The "information" is there -- all you need to do is look at it. Quoting biblical verses is not evidence, and is rather an admission of defeat on a science thread, when you are supposed to substantiate your position with evidence. All this shows is that you would rather hide behind a convenient self-comforting quote than confront reality.It's your security blanket.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Message 30

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

It's a matter of logic, not science.If all{A} = all{B} then all-not{A} = all-not{B}If all{A} = some{B} then all-not{A} ≠ all-not{B} as some {B} already = not{A}And you cannot derive which parts are {B} and which are not{B}.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

No, the other way around all{A} fits inside but does not cover all{B}, so some{B} is outside {A} and is not{A}. But what you can't tell is whether there is missing information that would have produced the color, or added information that blocks the color from being expressed or that changes the colors expressed.So you have not{A} - no color - but you don't know if you have {B} or not{B}.{abe} you also have the issue of recessive and dominant genes, so you could have recessive color that will show up again in later generations. In this case the "information" is neither lost nor gained.{/abe}Edited by RAZD, : [abe]

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Look in the mirror Rob, for what you say about others applies in spades to you. How do you know that YOU are not the blind one?What we have here is a problem in perceptions of reality. The question to you is how do you validate your perceptions?Let us discuss this on a thread dedicated to this problem - Perceptions of Reality

quote:

---

To begin with, I don't think it is possible in the slightest for two people to have exactly the same set of beliefs and knowledge, we are all a little different from anyone else and sometimes a lot different from some others. We are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand.

​

The real question is how does one's personal view relate to {reality}, and how can we determine that (IF we can determine that)?

---

How do you validate one person's perceptions of truth versus another's?See you there eh? Message 157Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.