tjsrex, msg 121 writes:
I had to more clearly explain my "the boy ran fast" and "the boy ran" example later on. ... I was just trying to point out that vegetables are low in one or more of the essential amino acids needed for a protein in animals. You need to eat more then 1 type of vegetable if you are a vegetarian to get the right amount of amino acids for a complete protein in animals.
This seems to be assuming that plants evolved to feed animals (which has been observed in some special cases, but is not the general case), when instead plants (that are not trying to be eaten) evolve to be less {nutritious\palatable} than others (if not outright poisonous).
Animals that have evolved to eat plants have also evolved to obtain those amino acids by other means, or by eating enough to obtain the necessary quantity (like cows eating grass). Humans as omnivores don't need that adaptation as they can and do (normally) obtain the necessary amino acids from the animal proteins in their diet. Talking about human vegetarians would be totally irrelevant.
It really is not relevant to this discussion.
Fine.
It is still a loss of specified information. if the sentence went from 'the boy ran fast' to 'the fast boy ran'.
Sorry, but you are going to have to do better than just make bold assertions.
Although it could be benefitial that "the boy can do several things fast".
Explain how
in this case that there must be a "a loss of specified information" as we now have the boy capable of doing something he wasn't able to do before.
Failure to explain this will mean that you cannot refute that this would be a gain in information.
But again there is no new information provided. Only a cut-and-paste of already existing code.
Of course this renders the concept of information totally irrelevant because all genetic code is made up of four base units in rather specific patterns, and thus at this level it is ALL just cut and paste.
This means there is no difference in the information content of the DNA of a bacteria and the DNA of a human.
If there is no way to differentiate these with the concept of "information" then the term as used is absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of mental bandwidth. It is semantic salami slamming, whether you observe if your fingertips are getting hairy as you type or not.
This is also like saying that there is nothing new written in any language: it is just cut and paste of {existing words/phrases/sentences} from stuff that has already been written, any new words are just cut and paste of {letters\symbols} from stuff that already existed, and even the symbol used to designate the {artist formerly known as princ} is still cut and pasted from {lines\marks} that existed before.
If NOTHING is new then saying there is no new "specific information" or any other kind of "information" is redundant ridiculous non-sense with no descriptive value to the argument.
"transposition can disrupt genes by direct insertional mutagenesis and can adversely affect transcription... (
http://www.answersingenesis ... junk ...)
"can" does not mean "always" and the problem here is that you need to make it mean "always" or the argument is, once again, absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of mental bandwidth.
tjsrex, msg 125 writes:
If by amount of information you mean amount, as in quantity of code then yes, they more then likely contain the same amount of code.
"More than likely" doesn't cut it. Either they have the same amount of information or they have different amounts. You need to evaluate both conditions if you cannot show that only one condition applies.
Of course if one condition has less information than the other, then when the situation is reversed there must have been a gain in information, so you really have to show that there can only be the same amount of information (and not just claim this to be the case).
Failure to demonstrate this will mean that you cannot refute that there would be a gain in information.
But the one with the ability to produce the wing has more specified complexity.
Sorry, we were talking about information. Let's stick to one undefined concept at a time to show that it is either (a) useful or (b) useless.
So far you are at (b) useless.
I am talking about the switch gene. not the gene's that makeup the wing itself.
I am talking about the switch gene (and assuming for now that the information to build or not to build the wings is kept by both states) and I am also talking about the "information" that
it (the switch gene) contains: in one case it turns the wing on and in anther it turns the wing off, So either it has two different levels of information or ... it gets turned off and on by another gene ...
The problem you have is that the gene is being switched and in one case it makes wings and in the other it doesn't: either information was added to the switch gene to turn the wing off or information was added to the switch gene to turn the wing on ...
... or the concept of "information" as used here is absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of bandwidth.
If you are talking about the stick bugs then that is more tehn likely the case
"More than likely the case" doesn't cut it. You need to evaluate all possible conditions if you cannot show that only one condition applies.
Failure to demonstrate this will mean that you cannot refute that this would be a gain in information.
If it went from specified complexity, to complexity, and then back to its original specified complexity.
Sorry, we were talking about information. Let's stick to one undefined concept at a time to show that it is either (a) useful or (b) useless.
So far you are still at (b) useless. Or should I say "absolutely pointless, irrelevant, and a waste of bandwidth."
The rest of the post now being about "complexity" instead of "information" will be ignored until we settle the "information" issue.
Ummm...buddy "Lucy" was an Ape that walked on all fours,
False. The evidence is otherwise, from the head to the toes to the footprints at Laetoli. Denial of evidence doesn't make it go away nor change the universe from it's course.
if you want to consider yourself a monkey go ahead
I consider myself an ape, one that has evolved from ancestor apes that walked on all fours and even climbed trees. I have no ego problem with that concept.
Now Adam and Eve had perfect information and rich value. Since they are Human and my ancestors.
With absolutely no evidence thereof, either the existence, the "perfect-ness" of the "information" or the "richness" of the "value" -- not in fossils, not in genetics.
And if we go by the story, Eve is a clone made out of Adam and then transgendered, so that he could mate with himself.
Im done posting here its to pointless. I have to repeat myself to much.
Is this another declare victory and gallop from the field waving the banners act? Rather than repeat yourself, you could try actually making some definition of a term so that it would mean anything.
Define information as used to differentiate bacteria from human. Quantify the "information" content so that it can be measured, and then show that one has more (and how much more) information than the other.
{{added by edit}}
tjsrex, msg 129 writes:
Ok this will be my last post. I need to remove this site from my favorites. It makes it to tempting to reply when I see obvious mistakes.
Yep it is the run from the field while declaring victory creationist super-shuffle.
In other words you cannot answer the points that refute your argument. I understand.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 09*03*2005 11:37 PM
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel
AAmerican
.Zen
[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
™ Version 4.2