|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Devolution (from The Fall) and "No New Information" | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
ANecdotes are fun and all that but they are not evidence of anything.
Of course, the process of aging is one of them, because as you get older, you not only get uglier haha but you also become less capable, always on a downhill until you die. This is fallacious on the face of it. Are you saying that a 3 year old has gone downhill form a newborn? How do you define downhill?
Knowing that the DNA code, if left replicating on its own, will break down and go 'downhill', it is rather 'Can natural selection effectively turn that tedency from downhill to uphill? Evidence please and again define downhill. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I just wanted to precise that there is a difference (a very important one) between neutral and nearly-neutral mutations. Like how? I'd determine the neutrality of a mutation by whether or not the environment selectively pressures it and since, when you get down to the gnat's ass, its going to be so blurry that you can't really tell if there's pressure on every particular mutation or not then I'd claim that you are unable to tell if mutations really are neutral or not in every case. Maybe in some specific cases, but I don't see where you're going to define this very important difference between neutral and non-neutral. And I don't see how its important at all unless you want to disbelieve in evolution. In Message 15 you wrote:
There are things in nature which seem to say everything is going downhill. And there are things in nature that prove that not everything is going downhill. For the first 18 or so years of our lives we are going uphill. When a snowflake forms or when salt crystals grow. When populations evolve.
Knowing that the DNA code, if left replicating on its own, will break down and go 'downhill', I don't believe you.
it is rather 'Can natural selection effectively turn that tedency from downhill to uphill? We can easily see that this is a big YES by taking a trip to the zoo and seeing the variety in the species that has evolved. But really, for the purpose of this thread, you've already answered it:
quote: So yeah, genes can add new information. Science fails to recognize the single most potent element of human existence. Letting the reigns go to the unfolding is faith, faith, faith, faith. Science has failed our world. Science has failed our Mother Earth. -System of a Down, "Science" He who makes a beast out of himself, gets rid of the pain of being a man.-Avenged Sevenfold, "Bat Country"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:By reading a lot obviously. quote:Not my problem. Mainstrem science is not my religion so I won't blindly follow it like you. quote:Where did I hear about genetic entropy? From Sanford's book. quote:What evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:It will, but what's the point?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Yeah, but like I said, that you have to have an IQ of at least 20 to be able to extrapolate that this leads to genetic meltdown in the long run. An nothing short of genetic modification will help. quote:Actually it does, since we all mutate. quote:Yes, he does. But he is wrong. The only reason he wrote that is because he thinks mutations add new information to the genome. They don't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Yes they do. quote:But these mutations are accumulating and and they are deteriorating the genome. So we can conclude that no information can be created by mutations. quote:No. I say that mutations do not produce new information, because it has never been observed. quote:What religion are you talking about? Do you have any evidence in what I believe? quote:Evidence to the contrarry? quote:This is just meaningless. You are attacking the source not the argument.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2135 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
On another thread Smooth Operator wrote:
The rotation of the unverse is enough to keep the Earth in the center, and that other gravitational forces can not move it. I started this thread to explore why you choose to believe in such things as this. The overwhelming mass of evidence against this view is such that it is about as far out on the fringe as you can get without falling off the edge of a flat earth. Now I don't want a bunch of your evidence in reply. I didn't start this thread to explore evidence. I am asking why you choose to follow such a fringe idea when science discarded it centuries ago. What's in it for you to be so far out on the fringe? You clearly relish that position. Tell me why. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:What evidence are you talking about? Show me the evidence. quote:But I already replied in that way since that's the only logical reply. If you dont' want this kind of reply, than why bring up the idea that there is evidence agains it. I haven't seen it. So your point doesn't hold. quote:Again, this is a stupid question that does not want a valid answer. First of all it is an assumption that there is evidence against my views. If there are any, than I want you to show them to me. The only reason I accept geocentrism is becasue the evidence for it, and none for helicentrism. quote:Becasue I'm interested in the truth. Since nobody knows the truth, I'll settle for the best scientific explanation we can get. And for me that is geocentrism. And I do not accept arguments from majority or authority. It matters nothing to me if the mojority of scientists think otherwise. Majority opinion does not equal truth. Edited by Smooth Operator, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9201 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.2 |
And I do not accept arguments from majority or authority. It matters nothing to me if the mojority of scientists think otherwise. Majority opinion does not equal truth But you accept Bouwe uncritcally?
quote: Gerardus Bouwe, Why Geocentricity? It is amazing you claim not to be a christian, but you uncritically accept the writings of a man whose whole outlook on life is guided by his religion and what is said in the bible. Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:No of course I don't. I try to research for myself as much as I can. quote:What's so amazing about it? MY source is simply my sourse, not my mentor. When I argue about evolution I can quote christian sources, secular sources, or muslim sources, like Harun Yahya. Does that make me any of those three?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3266 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
What evidence are you talking about? Show me the evidence. What do you consider evidence? It seems to me, as I read through your threads, that what you can see, the way things seem simply by looking at them, is considered the higest level of evidence to you. The claim that the sun moves around the Earth is ultimately "proven" by the fact that it looks that way from where you stand. The fact that it would look that way to someone standing on any of the other planets, and in fact, it does look exactly that way to the rovers on Mars, would suggest that the way things look are often not the way they really are.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:Yes they do. Gee, what a great debate we're having here Don't you see whay the rules say not to debate with bare links and instead to qute the related material?
quote:But these mutations are accumulating and and they are deteriorating the genome. So we can conclude that no information can be created by mutations. No, not logically. Me showing you three red tomatoes doesn't prove that green tomatoes don't exist. In the same way, you showing deleterious mutations doesn't prove that genes cannot product new information.
quote:No. I say that mutations do not produce new information, because it has never been observed. Not true. Besides, in other threads, you said that the examples of new information couldn't be true because genes cannot produce new information and now your saying that because there's no example of it, then genes can't product new information. You're circularly reasoning because your belief does follow from observation of the evidence, you have accepted that genes don't produce new information beforehand and now all you have is apologetics to try to support that position.
quote:What religion are you talking about? Do you have any evidence in what I believe? It matters not what you actually believe, we can see from your links that the positions you advocate are derived from religious beliefs...the beliefs are based on religion wether you, yourself personally, follow that religion or not. People have lied to you and tricked you into thinking that their positions are derived from science instead of their religious beliefs, and you've swallowed it...hook, line and sinker.
quote:Evidence to the contrarry? This thread and your failure to provide the scientific evidence that leads to the belief that genes cannot product new information and the fact that we know the only reason people ever come up with that position is to keep the Bible's story of The Fall of mankind inerrant.
quote:This is just meaningless. You are attacking the source not the argument. Yeah, the source is religious belief and you've been tricked into thinking it has been derived from science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:Some scientific articles or a book, or something. quote:Or it could mean that Mars is simply orbiting around the Sun.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Smooth Operator Member (Idle past 5143 days) Posts: 630 Joined: |
quote:What exactly do they say. Tell me what do all three of them say. quote:But gain in information has never been observed. And since all we have observed is loss, so the logical conclusion is that the genome has been deteriorating this whole time. quote:Evidence? quote:Well it's both. They can't produce it becasue they are only matter, and matter has got no ability to think in advance. It has no teleology. And you need that ability to produce information. And of course, it has never been observed that genes gained information on their own. quote:It's very important becasue my sources have strictly been scientific. Yes, some do have religious arguments, but I only quote scientifc ones. So my basis for this is scientific. quote:Oh, really, how do you know you have not been lied to? quote:I showed you evidence in three papaers which talk about degeneration in the genomes. And they do not quote the Bible. quote:And how do you know your stance is not religious? Can you prove it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
quote:What exactly do they say. Tell me what do all three of them say. Nope, not my problem. They're your sources not mine. You have to show me where they say that genes cannot product new information.
quote:But gain in information has never been observed. And since all we have observed is loss, so the logical conclusion is that the genome has been deteriorating this whole time. quote:Evidence? Since all you can do is gainsaying and handwaving, I'm not going to waste my time finding a bunch of papers for you so and since you're such a fan of bear links, I'll just provide you with that: CB102: Mutations adding information If you're truely following the evidence and not just trying to support you preconceived notion, then you can find the information you need there. Or you can watch this youtube video:
How Evolution Causes an Increase in Information, Part I Well it's both. They can't produce it becasue they are only matter, and matter has got no ability to think in advance. It has no teleology. And you need that ability to produce information. And of course, it has never been observed that genes gained information on their own. Oh, so you're already convinces of the contrary and nothing can convince you otherwise. Your whole argument relies on an unaccepted definition of the word "information". Total apologetics to maintain a preconceived belief in the face of contadictory evidence.
It's very important becasue my sources have strictly been scientific. Yes, some do have religious arguments, but I only quote scientifc ones. So my basis for this is scientific. That's the thing, though... they aren't scientific. They are scientific-looking and you've been tricked into believing they are legitimate. they do that to hide the religious aspects.
Oh, really, how do you know you have not been lied to? Here we go with the "everything you know is wrong" approach. I'm not paranoid enough to believe in conspiracies.
I showed you evidence in three papaers which talk about degeneration in the genomes. And they do not quote the Bible. But they do not scientifically and logically support the position that genes cannot produce new information. That belief comes from the idea that mankind must be degenerating, which comes from The Fall, which comes from the Bible.
And how do you know your stance is not religious? Can you prove it? I'm not taking a stance here. I'm waiting for you to show that your belief that genes cannot product new infomration is based on science and not religion... and I'm still waiting.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024