Can Creationists Show Evolution Never Happened?

Fred,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
1) The code can never change unless there is prior agreement between sender & receiver. I think you are confusing code with message. Some examples of a code are Morse, Basic, C, English language, Chinese language, DNA.

​

---

You have piqued my interest. Isn’t it true that DNA is both code & message? The DNA contains information to create ribosomes, tRNA etc. So what is the receiver?The problem remains that a coded message needs decoding. http://home.wxs.nl/~gkorthof/kortho33.htmThis is a vicious circle: the message and the decode instructions are both encoded. How to start decoding? Yockey does not mention the problem at all. Both biological systems and engineering systems need to solve it. Consider for example a CD-player. The instructions how to translate the information on a CD are not stored on the CD itself, but in the CD-player. Or consider for example the Morse code with its dots and dashes. Could the meaning of the Morse code itself (the meaning of the dots and dashes) be transmitted together with the message? Clearly an impossibility: to decode the decode-instructions one needs the decode-instructions before anything can be decoded. This is solved for the Morse code by sending the decode instructions on a piece of paper, so by a separate channel. Another analogy is the boot process of a computer. Or still another analogy: try to read a Chinese book with a dictionary which is also in Chinese! I don't know how this problem is solved in the biological world. Although the decode instructions are stored in DNA, they are encoded themselves. So the first cells of the embryo still need help to start (boot up). Because only DNA is transmitted according to the textbooks. The only solution seems to be to transmit the tRNA's (the decode instructions) via an extra independent channel. But how? They must be present in every cell of every individual; otherwise no DNA could be translated (or: no message could be decoded). Going back in the life of an individual we end up in the zygote, and going back further: sperm and egg. It seems that the egg is most suitable to 'transmit' those decode instructions from one generation to the next generation. They must be present in the cytoplasm of the egg (outside the nucleus) as ready-to-use translator molecules. Once booted, the translation process produces its own translators. Amazingly this implies that there must be an unbroken chain of transmission of tRNA molecules going back in time to the first organism with a genetic code...Well, Amazingly this implies that there must be an unbroken chain of transmission of tRNA molecules going back in time to the first organism with a genetic code... , ain’t necessarily so. When a new cell is formed, the DNA isn’t just kicked out of the cell to fend for itself. The cell DIVIDES. Meaning tRNA, from the parent DNA, is given to the new cell along with the new DNA. That is to say, that the code (tRNA) is transmitted to the new cell with the DNA. Both are the product of the parent DNA. DNA & tRNA are both transmitted.So, what is the receiver?There doesn’t appear to be one, DNA is a continuous transmission. As there is no receiver, there is no requirement for prior agreement in code change, provided the code change works. The most obvious example of a change in code is that RNA uses Uracil instead of Thymine as a nucleotide. ie DNA nucleotide (ACGT) code is translated to a NEW RNA (ACGU) code for protein synthesis. So, a nucleotide code change isn’t necessarily harmful.Not that code change is particularly required for evolution, I just wanted to argue within your framework.So, I put it to you that the ONLY verification of any genetic code/message change, is the validity of the organism itself.Markps Please define new information------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Ribosomes and their accompanying support structures are indeed encoded in the DNA, a classic chicken & egg problem for evolutionists and an overwhelming testimony to design.

​

---

It isn't chicken & egg, this is a thread about evolution, not abiogenesis.My questions remain,1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?
2/ Please define "new information".Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Mark: 1/ What is the receiver of genetic code?

​

Fred: I already told you. The Ribosome for one (and accompanying structure, to be completely specific). This apparatus (including tRNA) needs to know how to interpret the mRNA to bring about the construction of the desired amino-acid string (protein).

​

---

Very well, ribosomes & accompanying structures it is. I outlined in message 65 that ; The DNA, ribosome etc. are a product of the parent DNA & are part of the same sending, ie cell division. That is to say, The DNA is coded in such a way that it sends itself, plus enough information to begin decoding.To clarify, are you saying the message/code transmission receives itself?Is there any other natural, or non-natural process where a transmission receives itself?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Mark: 2/ Please define "new information.

​

Fred: A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

​

---

This definition of new information is incredibly narrow & specific, & only applies to codons.I’m really after a textbook definition that applies universally. To new information received from the TV, a book, radio, morse code, or even new information that I discover myself by direct observation of my environment, ie, no message whatsoever, if possible please.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-08-2002]

Excuse my ignorance, but whats IC?Also, JP, regarding your Klingons, might I suggest a more abrasive toilet tissue? ------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Quetzal,
I knew what Irreducable complexity was, just never made the connection! Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by John Paul:

​

John Paul:
Who said the Bible was a scientific document? Not I. The Bible is a collection of historical & philosophical documents. And guess what? It has been verified using science. Imagine that!

​

quote:

---

All of it? Or just the bits that happen to correspond with science? The Biblical Flood MOST CERTAINLY HASN'T. Nor has 6 DAY GENESIS. Am I leaving any important bits out?Good grief, what a ridiculous claim.------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Fred,
Thanks for the links, as I say, you piqued my interest, I'll give the sites a good look in to.'Though an absolute "new information" definition I still require, pls.Mark(edited due to drunkeness)------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 01-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string? The intermediate sender is the nucleus, the ultimate sender is a higher intelligence who programmed the DNA.

---

No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place in message 65.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.

​

There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!

​

---

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission. Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.I’ll try again.Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

Fred said;

​

A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

​

This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.

​

---

I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.

​

---

I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition.I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist? Or even information, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

burntdaisy622, Can you prove fairies never did it? No? It's a totally meaningless proposition sans evidence, then. Can you PROVE I didn't fart the earth out after a curry? No? What value do you think we should place on such explanations, then?The point is that "creation" makes direct predictions, especially when accompanied by a flood. Evolution does too, but its predictions are borne out, creations aren't.Please explain why the correlation of ordering of potentially multiple lineages in a cladogram matches evolutionary predictions to the tune of 5.68*10^323:1......568,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 : 1 ....chance of 300 cladograms only enjoying a 60% (as opposed to a 75% corroboration with stratigraphy).
of it occurring by chance.So, you see your problem, no one has to falsify your claim, you have to support it.Look at your little finger, imagine an atom in it, imagine an electron in that atom. The odds of the evolutionary expectation being what they are, are all of the electrons in the known universe : 1 of that happening.Evolution happened, mate.Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-09-2004]

---

"Physical Reality of Matchette’s EVOLUTIONARY zero-atom-unit in a transcendental c/e illusion" - Brad McFall