PROOF against evolution

ya know, YtalyaI don't think you;d get your 747 in the age of the universe even at that rate.
The real reason the anaology is wrong is that:
1) we don't know what the first things "living" were. They were NOT as complex as a 747 or current life is pretty sure.
2) there wasn't just ONE thing that would have been a "success" there are probable a bunch of different results that would work. like anything that would fly, glide or even not fall like a complete stone coming out of the junkyard would be a success.
3) No "rachet", even with non living things there would be a chance that there would be a chemical direction to the changes and one could build on another
4)it is pretty certainly NOT purely random like the junkyard. The chemistry is such that some things are much more likley than others. Like, in the analogy, an engine may tend to assemble from the parts more easily than other combinations and maybe even easily if you bring the parst together.

quote:

---

In the junkyard analogy the idea of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and creating a 747 is presented. To make this analogy more fitting, have the tornado sweep through the junkyard once a second for millions of years, and have the pieces that connect properly stay connected. You will find that you will most likely have your 747.

---

Are miriads of tornadoes going to cut the pieces precisely, apply and tighten each bolt, form the fuel tanks so as not to leak and design, assemble and program each instrument, computer, wiring and hydraulics and so forth? I don't think so. Not in all eternity. Not even a partical of a chance for even one instrument to come out right. Kind of like how impossible to create all the complexity of DNA by mere chance, more complex than a computer built by intelligent humans.
It is estimated that a single human cell contains three or four times as much DNA information as is in a 30 volumn set of Encyclopedia Britannica.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-04-2003]

Buz, did you read my previous post?

By the same definition of "information" you appear to be using, a 30 volume set of randomly generated characters contains as much information as your encyclopedias.

quote:

---

By the same definition of "information" you appear to be using, a 30 volume set of randomly generated characters contains as much information as your encyclopedias.

---

"Information theory teaches us that neither random nor repetitive structures carry high levels of information."Nancy R Pearcey, Fellow and Policy Director of the Wilberforce Forum and coauthor with Charles Thaxton of 'The Soul of Science' (Crossway)Even if one might argue that the structure of a human cell could eventually evolve, to argue that all that information could randomly evolve into the DNA of the cell, would be contrary to science.Nancy goes on to say, "We also know from information theory, how codes work. Encoded messages are independent of the physical medium used to store and transmit them."

quote:

---

Buz, did you read my previous post?

---

Yes I did. I submitted mine before I read yours and my comments add some to the reasoning.

Buz,The real point is that evolution, ie RM&NS isn't random, the mutations might be, but the functional product is honed by NS.Consider Hall 1982. He effectively destroyed the lac operon in a bacteria (a functional complex of several genes that facilitate the metabolisation of lactose), only to see a new lactase enzyme, a new protease (aiding movement of lactose into the cell), & an expression control system evolve under lab conditions. This directly contradicts above claim, or at the very least shows that you have misunderstood it. Adaptive evolution contains a component that isn't random, meaning high infomation content can occur naturally in DNA, & indeed, Hall showed it. Unless you think that complex function of the genes involved isn't a "high level of information", of course.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

Your source is using some definition of "information" that is NOT what information theory uses. Shannon's definition of information assigns a high information content to a random string.You need to supply the definition of information used by your source. (I've read part of it and couldn't find any rigorous definition in there maybe you can supply it). Shannon's definition is what is used by what I understand to be "information theory". I'm afraid you are making asserstions and/or believing sources on topics which you, again, know nothing.And you have jumped off to something new without answering many other points raised previously. If you want to keep hoping around and expect people to respond you have to be intellectually honest enough to close off previous discussions by acknowleging your errors. Your batting average so far is pretty close to 000.

You read the post and didn't get just why the junkyard analogy is very silly?Your comments don't add to it's quality at all.Living things show that they are not made up of parts that are designed for the purpose. They are cobbled together out of what is available and twisted and force fitted to work well enough be only just well enough.

for you information Oxygen hasn't always been common in the atmosphere... I mean there was some but it wasn't like it is today...
As a matter of fact Life created the Oxygen in the atmosphere today...(life before that didn't need it many things went extinct when the atmosphere was changing) so Life Evolved with ALOT less oxygen then today.... I mean think about life appearing this way the Universe is huge! ok so I see all the time Odds of life happening all the time on Creationist sites! and those Numbers may very Well be correct.. just Because its EXTREMELY rare doesn't make it unlikely. this most likely isn't this first time it happened, and it most likely isn't the last time it will. The Universe is so Big life can be being born right now an Unthinkable number of times. even using you unlikely odds. too me a God existing is less likely then Life..... I mean where did this God come from?

quote:

---

The real point is that evolution, ie RM&NS isn't random, the mutations might be, but the functional product is honed by NS.

---

Random mutation is just that, mutation supposedly effected randomly without design, plan or any involvement of inteligence from any source. Natural selection is also supposedly effected without design, plan or any involvement of inteligence from any source. So how can something which supposedly functions in and of itself, void of intelligence and information naturally program itself to hone a random process?[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Living things show that they are not made up of parts that are designed for the purpose. They are cobbled together out of what is available and twisted and force fitted to work well enough be only just well enough.

---

Oh, I see. So the human DNA, containing three times the information contained in a thirty volumn set of the Encylopedia Brittanica, which so intricately and precisely program and control the cell, compiled (cobbled up) itself out of twisted and force fitted sources to emerge into the wonderful complex computer like substance we are observing it to be today.Ok, ok.........so now I'm learning the stuff I would've learned with a PHD in physics in the schools of higher knowledge. Thanks........thanks, but no thanks, my friend.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

Oh, then when you equated DNA to the encyclopedia you weren't talking about the majority of DNA, which is either random or repetitive. Too bad DNA isn't strictly a code, per se, it's a system for the physical catalysis of polypeptide chains, and, as such, is highly dependant on the physical medium. I've always suspected information theory had nothing to do with life, and your quotes have really proved it for me, thanks.

quote:

---

Oh, then when you equated DNA to the encyclopedia you weren't talking about the majority of DNA, which is either random or repetitive.

---

We know that all DNA were not created equal. Some contain more information than others. Human DNA, I would assume, are the most complex, containing the most information. So some of lower forms of life contain less, maybe one set of encyclopedia's thirty volumn's worhth rather than three? I don't know, but regardless, the point is that more information is involved in DNA perse, than natural and random processes would ever be able to achieve. Natural processes tend to be more repetitive than evolutionary, simply because new information is not being evolved into them.[This message has been edited by buzsaw, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Too bad DNA isn't strictly a code, per se, it's a system for the physical catalysis of polypeptide chains, and, as such, is highly dependant on the physical medium. I've always suspected information theory had nothing to do with life, and your quotes have really proved it for me, thanks.

---

Well, of course, it is assumed the DNA is more than a code of information. As with our PCs there's this box we purchase with these physical boards, wires and chips in them. That's all physical. But then what would these pieces of plastic and wire be without the intelligent imput intelligent programers feed into them to give them purpose and value in our lives? Give them a billion years and they're never going to program themselves, though all the necessary stuff is in place for receiving information. This's why scientists are hard pressed to explain the volumn of information now known to be present in living cells in the context of RM/NS.