PROOF against evolution

No, codes are not meaningless.Codes are arbitrary. The reason that Percy doesn't explain why he chose the symbol-referent pairs that he did is because they're irrelevant; his example works no matter how you arrange the colors and their encodings. There's no reason. If there was a reason, there wouldn't be the occasional odd organism with different codon-amino parings.But there is, which means that the codon-amino pairings are arbitrary. Sure. You could simply ask him to draw the locus of all points that are located a given distance from one other point.Without having ever seen a circle, he would be able to construct one from it's definition. Did I say that words were meaningless? Did I? Show me where I said that.What I said was, words are arbitrary symbols that stand in for their referents. Those pairings are arbitrary; there's no reason that the juicy red fruit is denoted by the symbol "apple", as opposed to any other word. The reason we use the symbol "apple" is because we all decided to.You need to go back and read my post, because it's obvious you totally missed my point. "Arbitrary" and "meaningless" are not synonyms.

Nonsense. All you're doing is jabbering.Words are only words. The Map is not the Territory. A totally meaningless statement. You know that jumble of letters with no information you've been talking about? That's your quote.I can tell you there is nobody who gives meaning to information. That's the dumbest statement I've heard in many a decade. How stupid. Of course he would be able to look atthe drawing and determine exactly what it is. How in the hell do you think minkind developed the definition of what a circle is.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well... You clearly didn't understand (or don't want to understand) what I was talking about.... Can you explain me how this example shows us the "evolution" of information? All you are saying is that information comes toghether with meaning But discussion is how was this information created or "evolved" (if you like)You are also saying that 'information with meaning' is copying 'information with meaning' ... again - but how was "evolved" this kind of information? You are still saying that "it just was". My question is still the same - "evolution" of information.

Well... are you an evolutionst?

How do you know the word "bear" had a new meaning? ok, enough... i'm tired of this.... (btw, that site doesn't explain how the information was "evolved")So my clear question is and will be: Give me logical definition/explanation how was information evolved..... you have exact explanation how was universe evolved (Big Bang without a meaning, btw), so you have to have the same for the information.

quote:

---

So my clear question is and will be: Give me logical definition/explanation how was information evolved

---

Through self replicating chemical reactions. New information was inserted through new chemical reactions, the same as today.

quote:

---

you have exact explanation how was universe evolved (Big Bang without a meaning, btw),

---

The information for the Big Bang is stored in the atoms and the laws of thermodynamics. It is this same information that allows reproducible chemical and nuclear reactions, as well as replicating chemical systems. Also, why does the Big Bang need "meaning"?

UNBELIEVABLE ! .... That's not the answer ! ....so you can explain me, why people don't have naturally golden eyes, or red ones? ....why 00 comes together with 01? Why 0001 created blue color? Your explanation is "Because it is so" or "because it works and though there is no explanation needed"...is this normal??? 100% sure? Or just a possibility? ....reference, please. The problem si - there is NO definition of circle [in the example], crashfrog. You clearly don't understand it. First answer at the top apply to this one as well. And give me clear explanation of how information "evolved".So if code has a meaning... how was created that code? How was created 0001 (blue) etc what Percy was talking about... because Percy was talking about that as if "it was". But you are clearly saying symbol "apple" was not, it was created.... symbol "apple" = code .... and now please answer me.

Sorry, information can't be inserted, because information doesn't exist ! ....you can't use bottle to create a bottle. OK - what are atoms and laws of thermodynamics saying? What is stored there? What information? So you would like to hear "meaningful information" rather? OK then.. change it and try to answer. ....where was the information at that moment and how was created? Or it just happened ?

I'm not sure anymore but I think the original point that Percy was making was that information can be added to a genetic sequence. That is all the example was meant to convey.The example chosen was not intended to be a real genetic code and I would have thought that was pretty obvious. You are asking rather silly questions now.The same mechanism can have affects on the genome and the RNA mechanisms for reading the genome can produce real, new "meaning". Of course, you haven't said what you mean by "meaning" yet so you'll have to explain that.Why the particular codes of Percy's example means what they do is just an accident of his chosing.Why the particular codons of the genome "means" what they do might also be an accident. However, there is some research done to see if there are some choices that are better than others. If that is the case there may have been some evolutionary pressures on early life forms to get to the right ones.As to why they are the pattern they are - we don't know yet. I think, just maybe, I understand what you are getting at. You might be talking about the problem of getting life using DNA and RNA in partnership going. This is clearly a problem. It is correct in that, at first, there is no "meaning" to a pattern in the DNA until the RNA reads it. It is a subject of ongoing research. We don't know the answer.It is part of the abiogenesis problem and not an issue for evolutionary theory. So it doesn't really belong to "proof against evolution".

No, it is the answer to this question of yours:

quote:

---

But why? Why 0001 is not green, 0010 is not yellow, 0100 is not blue and 1000 is not brown? There is no explanation to this in your posts, Percy.

---

The reason Percy provided no explanation is because no explanation is required. Codes are arbitrary, as this one is. In Percy's example, because 0001 codes for protiens that give rise to blue eye color. Why does 0001 code for blue eye proteins, and not 0011, for instance? Because Percy says so, and it's his example, and the precice configuration of his code is irrelevant, because codes are arbitrary. Reference for what, exactly? You're speaking English, though. Therefore we assume Percy knows what "circle" means. It doesn't matter that you didn't define it in your example; everybody knows what the definition was.If you were speaking another language besides English, you should have said so. If you were assuming Percy was ignorant of the definition of "circle", you should have said so.But you didn't. Through natural selection and random mutation, in the case of genetic information. As Percy already showed you. Percy made it up, because codes are arbitrary. The code he provided is not the real code, it's an example. But the real code is just as arbitrary, as I showed you, though the sequence for (for instance) blue eye protiens might be hundreds of these pages long, and hardly convinient as an example.It doesn't matter, though. Everything Percy showed you about his code applies to the actual genetic code sequences. It's just that his analogy was simpler.

Irrelevant, "evolutionist" is just a word that likely has very different meanings for different people, and my accepting or rejecting of that label should not alter your response to my arguments.Would you be interested in responding to my original comment now?Essentially, I feel a problem with your arguments is that you are ignoring the possibility of a selective filter determining what parts of a random outcome are kept and which are discarded.

quote:

---

OK - what are atoms and laws of thermodynamics saying? What is stored there? What information?

---

They are saying that H2 and O2, when combusted, will form H2O. They say that each chemical reaction is predictable because of the information held in the atomic structure of the atoms. They say that certain reactions are more probable than others because of thermodynamics. The information is found in nature at the very root of matter and physics.

quote:

---

where was the information at that moment and how was created? Or it just happened ?

---

In the quantum fluctuation that caused the formation of positive/negative energy, and matter/antimatter.

One example: the photosphere of a star is chock-full of atoms sending forth information, coded by the wavelengths of light they emit, about their identity, their temperature, the pressure, magnetic field, and gravitational field they find themselves in, their degree of ionization....
And this information can be "read" by perfectly stupid atoms in some other part of the galaxy - all they have to do is match up absorption with the star's emission.

In fact, you are jabbering, jar - you don't understand it at all.btw, you are right, map is not a territory - map is map, and territory is territory... that's correct. The same like window is not house. Again, the MAIN thing for you is to explain me how the meaningful information evolved. And another proof why you don't understand - sure there is nobody who gives meaning to information simple because information without a meaning IS NOT information and that means meaning and information always come together so it is nonsence to teach a difference between meaning and information ! - but that's the question to Percy, because he was talking information and meaning are two different things. He tried to show, how the information was created and thenhow was created a meaning of that information (but strange thing is, that he used the information itself in explanation, and surely, you can't create [first] information using another information - nonsence). So you are right, question should be - Who is that "somebody" who give a meaningful information ? ? ? Or you have a meaningful logical explanation how that information was created itself by accident?? And this is once another clear evidence how you understand it. Of course it is supid! But that's exactly what you teach about accidentally created life - about evolution, jar. That's all against the logic.
Definition of circle by man was created by copying the thing-that-looks-like-circle ....It was copying the existing information. Information is always created (or copied) by another information. Information didn't just appear. There is absolutely no way your mind could create a circle if it haven't seen it before ! Because of this if it created it by accident, it would never knew it is a circle and though would never give it a definition "circle"!! Again - information is copying information... information didn't just appear.GOT IT?If you disagree, spear words like "you are jabbering" and give me meaningful logical explanation how the information evolved. Because this is the main thing you have to explain before talking about creating life itself. Or you would rather like to jump straight to it? No. no. ... it's against the "evolution" itself and that would mean that's the proof the evolution is just bunch of nonsense.

The main thing is that genetic sequence can't be created without information so there had to be meaningful information before created genetic sequence. All Percy was doing, was creating information using another information. Well, you can choose whatever example you like. You should ask Percy, he knows exact difference. ... all I'm saying is meaning and information comes together. ....so if he says creationists don't recognize the meaning and information, that mean, you have to ask him as I am sure they can't exist without each other. .....so you are saying RNA is producing information using another information, that's correct. ....yes, there are a lot of researches running..... but I won't reply (I could) to this post because it's just about "if". And I must say one big NO! THIS MUST BE explained at least theoretically ! .... you can't do a research if you don't know what you want to do a research with, that's sure! ....and now please tell me, why you don't know that? This is a point where theor of evoultion just stops. There can't be done anything, there can't be created anything - there can't be created life !If this is not PROOF , what else should be? ? ?What is the definition of "proof" then?