|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
arphy writes: What the...???All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. No, they weren't "dodgy", they only appear so when quote-mined and taken out of context. You would rightly rile at someone just quoting you to say "I am not suggesting that natural selection didn't happen" and gleefully taking it to mean you endorse whole-heartedly evolution. Scientists (and those who take that side of the debate) get grumbly over legitimate questions (which have been answered) regarding accuracy of the method (fact is, camouflaged moths are eaten in the daytime less, ergo it was useful work, whether moths are normally perched there or not) being taken out of context to mean that the work was bogus or contraversial. And yes, as I told WK, the chinese whispers analogy only goes so far. Drop it? No. Acknowledge where it doesn't stretch? sure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3892 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
RAZD writes: Hi again greyseal :waves: English, yes. It's coloUr, darn it all to heck!
Curiously, I didn't say it wasn't evolution, just that it was not an example of a mutation arising that shows a benefit -- the mutation was already extant in the population, and the melanic variety was known about well before hand. ahha! but..but...er.. well yes. I noticed that afterwards. Kneejerk reaction, but you're right. Curse youuuuu! (PS: everyone I don't say hi to - I love you all, I really do...I just don't want to fill posts with "hello, hi, how do you do")
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
And just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean somebody else doesn't. Saying "godidit" because you don't understand it, doesn't make it so. One scientist with a will and the means can unlock this "machinery", a thousand ID apologists who don't want to know never will. I guess you do understand it. If so, I would surely like to hear how an origin of life model factored in the arrangements of nucleotide sequences in DNA or RNA in order for the complex interacting proteins and coherent machinery of the first living and replicating cell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I guess you do understand it. And as usual you are wrong. He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic".
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
traderdrew Member (Idle past 5185 days) Posts: 379 From: Palm Beach, Florida Joined: |
He did not claim to understand it. What he said was that not understanding it is not a basis for the Great Big Fundie Fallacy: "I don't understand this perfectly. Therefore, no-one else in the world understands it perfectly or ever will. Therefore, I do understand it perfectly --- God did it by magic". I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion. The process shouldn't dumb down participants. The process should be an exporation and an excercise of intelligence and philosophy. Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it. Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy. I guess some people wish to define their opponents in certain ways in hopes to create certain impressions on others. The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences. EvC Forum: "cdesign proponentsists" (Fallen and subbie only) Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given. Edited by traderdrew, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion. I see. Tell me, how many times in the past three thousand years of scientific endeavour has the "intelligent designer" been found to be the cause behind a phenomenon? Edited by Admin, : Fix grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
greyseal writes: Once again, answer the question - what would you regard as adding information? You've said that getting random chatter in a sentence, turning (for example) "have a nice day" into "have aalser niceslekjrs dayawer" isn't "adding information"...but it is. The fact that it's nonsense is of no interest. The fact is that's still not how genetics works. I'll try to explain but I've got a suspicion that you're not going to understand. I'll show you what I mean by adding information. I'll take my example of a piece of code:
void swap(object a, object b){ temp = new object(); temp = b; b=a; a=temp;} Now I'll add some information:
void swap(object a, object b, object c){ temp = new object(); temp = c; c=b; b=a; a=temp;} It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance. Your analogy with the Chinese whisper is just silly. Creative forces in this universe are few and far between. You guys still don't understand that data is NOT information. Information is datarised for transmission and noise is also data. But noise is not information. Noise can be interpreted and statements (information) made about the noise but noise is the effect of entropy on information. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
I'll show you what I mean by adding information. I'll take my example of a piece of code: That's a nice example. How much more information does the second piece of code contain than the first?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Arphy Member (Idle past 4463 days) Posts: 185 From: New Zealand Joined: |
Yip, well said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
LucyTheApe Inactive Member |
cavediver writes: That's a nice example. How much more information does the second piece of code contain than the first? If you want to try quantify the amount of extra information, that's a mathematical task that I'm not going to attempt for the sake of a response. More importantly the code has introduced functionality that was not previously there. This is what evolutionism has to try explain, not me. There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance. You know I mentioned the existence of genetic programming? Let me mention it again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
LucyTheApe writes: It takes intelligence to create information. It can not be done piecewise by chance. Sure it can, and I provided an example back in Message 154. Everyone already agrees that an intelligence can create information. Why are you trying to prove something everyone already agrees with? You're ignoring the central issue: whether random chance can create information. If you think it can't then you have to find the flaws in the many examples provided to you, such as the one in Message 154. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
As Arphy recognises the best creationists can do is evade discussing the details and rely on pure assertion.
Which shows how worthless the whole argument is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I don't think there is anything wrong with "God did it" and I will tell you why. There will always be skeptics of the "God did it" idea. This is what science is for. Science should challenge itself and if and when it fails to find a unambiguous example of an explanation then, perhaps we could credit intelligent design as a casual explantion. How much ignorance of nature do we need for it to magically turn into knowledge of God? After all, our species spent millennia not knowing, for example, what lightning was, and yet all that ignorance did not, as it turned out, add up to one scrap of knowledge about the thunder-god Thor and his magic hammer.
Francis Crick's sequence hypothesis is apparently more than just a hypothesis. Anyone who thinks the sequences in DNA are nothing more than Shannon information fails to explain how the precise functions and coherence within the cell formed without it. That paragraph makes less sense then you hoped when you wrote it.
Also, labeling me as a creationist is off the topic and an argument more from philosophy. And, also, not something I actually did.
The ID paradigm is distinct from creationism. It is sort of a hybrid between science and creationism but more toward science. It is a particular way of thinking and once you start to use the paradigm, the differences become obvious. See link below which helps discern the differences. The similarities are rather more striking.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
cavediver Member (Idle past 3674 days) Posts: 4129 From: UK Joined: |
that's a mathematical task that I'm not going to attempt for the sake of a response. So you do know how to quantify it, yes?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024