|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolving New Information | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
This is the second place I've seen where you've posted the same reference to a self-published book. Are you flogging your own book by any chance? Sales slow? Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hid content, added banner. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Although I would have thought 'evolution in action' would have been an addition of information...
Evolution doesn't require new information, only a change in information. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Noise degrades information exactly as 2ndLaw degrades the universe.
Are you basing your opinion/worldview of both entropy and "no new information" on the mythical "Fall?" Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
A good argument against ID should be a good argument for Darwinism. No a good argument against ID should be a good argument against ID, "darwinism" not withstanding. Disproving one idea in no way makes the other correct. Its largely the same as creation "science," with the main difference being that the creationism is hidden in the hope of fooling school boards and state legislatures. Otherwise the goal is the same -- religious apologetics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Information cannot be created by noise. But information can be created by random change and by eliminating everything that is not information. Get some alphabet dice; roll 'em; arrange them into words, if possible; if not, roll some or all again. It won't be long until you have words. I bet even you won't try to claim that those words are not information. That is as simple as I can make an analogy to the genome as acted upon by mutation and natural selection. But I bet the real reason you are so against "new information" is religious, not scientific. Something to do with "the fall" and devolution, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
To create new information is counter entropic. This is what you guys have to try explain with known laws of nature. More nonsense. The "laws of nature" allow entropy to go both ways. It is only creation "scientists" who have problems accepting those laws because the results are counter to their religious beliefs. In this case (back to the topic of the thread) creation "scientists" torture information theory to try to make the answers come out they way they believe. Doesn't work, of course, but try convincing them of that! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
We know that beneficial mutations can occur Show me one This "sickle cell" provides some protection against malaria. Accordingly, in areas in which malaria is endemic, this is a beneficial mutation. And don't bother trying to hand wave this away, or deny it. Your religious belief that there are no beneficial mutations is simply wrong and you'll just have to get used to that fact. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Coyote writes: OK, there it is. This "sickle cell" provides some protection against malaria. Accordingly, in areas in which malaria is endemic, this is a beneficial mutation. And don't bother trying to hand wave this away, or deny it. Your religious belief that there are no beneficial mutations is simply wrong and you'll just have to get used to that fact. Sickle cell anemia is a disease Coyote. It reduces the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood, it leads to organ failure and death. How can you claim that this is beneficial. Besides, it adds NO NEW INFORMATION. It's got nothing to do with my world view Coyote, it's observable science. 1) Sickle cells are caused by a mutation. That is evidence of a beneficial mutation in relation to malaria, although the same mutation is not beneficial in some other circumstances. Adds no new information? That is patently false, and if you weren't blinded by the religiously-based need to claim "no new information" in all circumstances you'd see your error. Those who have sickle cells are subject to anemia and a number of other problems. That is definitely "new" and not a part of the normal human condition. Likewise, those who have sickle cells have some protection from malaria. That also is "new" and not a part of the human condition. And your worldview does not necessarily coincide with "observable science." We have seen many examples where your worldview overshadows that science has learned, causing you to deny what is clear to almost everyone else. We have two examples in your post: no beneficial mutations and no new information. These are both examples of where your worldview (religious belief) prevents you from accepting what science has observed. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Since natural processes simply cannot account for what we observe then the supernatual is the only obvious answer. So since we don't know how something is done (yet) then your deity is the only possible answer? Remember, at one time lightning was thought to be created by deities. Those gaps are getting smaller, eh? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2126 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Could we get this set up as a new thread?
We've got a live one here! Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024