Problems with evolution? Submit your questions.

They haven't.

OK, so I suppose in the biological case the sender is evolution, the message is the genomes ... and the receivers, I guess, are the ribosomes.

Also, remember that the reason that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt were hypothesized is that we know that new inner-solar-system comets are coming from somewhere.An astronomer explains: New comets turn up. The hypotheses of Oort and Kuiper try to explain where they come from, but the creationist argument is shot down by the fact that they do.---This was one of the first YEC arguments I came across. Short orbit comets, I was told, can only go fifty times round the Sun before evaporating completely.So I googled to find out the comet with the shortest known orbit. It's Enke's Comet, and it has a period of 3.3 years. If comets only get fifty trips round the Sun, and if you can use them to date the solar system ... then the solar system was created in 1845, tops.The alternative explanation is that it only recently became a short-orbit comet, and used to be further out. Unless you believe that the solar system was created eighteen-and-a-half centuries after Christ, you have to believe that explanation.So whether it came from the Oort cloud, from the Kuiper belt, from the depths of galactic space, or from giant space aliens having a snowball fight, is immaterial to the question of whether you can use such comets to date the solar system. Clearly, you can't.

The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that bananas are the atheist's worst nightmare. But monkeys don't believe in God, because they have no souls. So why are there still monkeys?

Given the rate at which evolution occurs, the notion that all present species were produced by evolutionary mechanisms from a common ancestor predicts that the Earth is old (and therefore that the solar system is old, and therefore that the universe is old).This prediction has been independently confirmed by geologists, physicists, and cosmologists, which is a score for Darwin.Proof that the universe is only a few thousand years old would falsify this prediction.I think this is why the vast majority of creationists are YECs. If they can manage to be wrong about the age of the Earth, they don't need to be wrong about anything else. (Of course, they are, but that would suffice.)Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Uh ... by evolution being the producer of the information? But as I understood your post, evolution is the sender.Try to be more specific.

By producing new information. This is the reason why people wanted you to be more precise in your definition. Yeah, the human genome.I can beg the question just as much as you can. Bite me.

My question was where does all this information come from? ​ If evolution produces this information, how does it produce it?

By selection and drift acting on random mutations, recombination, lateral gene transfer, and so forth.You may disagree with the answer that scientists give to your question, but don't go around pretending that you don't know what their answer is. You know perfectly well.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Well, that depends what you mean by "created".If you mean "caused to begin to exist", then the answer is NO.If you mean "poofed into existence out of nothing by an invisible magical fairy in the sky who doesn't actually exist", then the answer is YES.

You are to my knowledge the first creationist honest enough to admit that information comes from natural causes rather than an invisible fairy who lives in the sky.I salute you.

But why should it be?The way to test a theory is to see whether our observations match its predictions.Now, the concept of evolution does not in any way predict that we should be able to map the genomes of long-extinct species. This is something that we wouldn't be able to do no matter how true or false neo-Darwinism is.As such it can have no bearing on the correctness of the theory.One might as well argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because we can't describe the orbits of the bodies in the gravitational field of Aldebaran. To be sure, this is a gravity-related question, and one that we can't answer, but the theory does not in any way imply that we should be able to answer it --- so it is not a test of the theory.

It's already plenty falsifiable; and creationists will come up with bad arguments under any conceivable set of circumstances.

I'll start a thread, hold on.

What does your theory predict if you:(a) Isolate people from the fragrance of apples by putting them in an environment where they only breathe "scrubbed" air, as in a clean room?(b) Expose them to extra-large quantities of the esters in question?(c) Put them in scuba suits breathing an artificial oxygen-helium mix and send them diving?(d) Observe an anosmic person to see if they have emotions?Bear in mind that for an idea to count as a theory at all it must be falsifiable. Bear in mind also that a theory is judged by the sum total of its predictions --- obviously one is not allowed to cherry-pick.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

So, your "theory" is not a theory, because it makes no testable predictions whatsoever.Thank you for playing.