Reproductive Cost problem more devastating than ever

Glad you're back, Fred, please can you now answer this old post (slight adjustments), where we left it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Are you denying the ribosome and its accompanying support structure deciphers the genetic code to produce an amino-acid string?

---

No, I don’t deny it, I made the point in the first place.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission.
There are countless examples of products of transmission of code that are receivers; in fact, ALL receivers are products of transmission of code! There are NO exceptions! If you can find one, then by golly you will surely get a nobel prize!

​

---

The ribosome is not a transmission, it is the product of a transmission. Good point, I should have chosen my words more carefully.I’ll try again.Are there any natural or non-natural examples where the product of a transmission is received by, & decoded by the same transmission product, not involving genetic material?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

Fred said;
A new codon instruction that performs some function intended by the sender. For example, if a new codon arose that caused DNA transcription to jump to some other specific part of the genome to perform a useful function (a ‘JUMP’ codon), that would be new information.

​

This definition I used does not only apply to codons. It applies to anything that is a code: morse, C++, PowerPC machine language, english language, etc.

---

I know I’m being pedantic, but this definition doesn’t apply to anything other than codons/DNA.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:

​

It is not possible to define all aspects of information in short posts to discussion boards on the internet. Information theory requires books to understand, and there are different levels of information. That is the reason I chose to focus on a specific aspect of information, a code, that is more easily understood by the layman. There is not an information scientist in the world who disputes that a code represents complex information.

---

I don’t need to understand all information theory, I’m just after a definition of new information.I’ve checked your links, although interesting, don’t answer my question. This conversation can’t really progress unless we have an absolute definition of what new information actually is. The links you provided don’t even define information, except in a contextual way, let alone new information.Are you really telling me that a single, all encompassing definition of new information doesn’t exist? Or even information, I understand that there are levels of information, but it is still information. Such a definition may have to be general, but can still be accurate.After all, life exists as a single cell bacteria to a blue whale, but life can still be defined in a paragraph. Electrons can be accurately described in such a way that is contemporaneous to the Bohr level, & quantum physical level. Why not "new information"?An absolute definition, that pervades all levels of information would include, how I would recieve new information by Morse code, English text, language, pictures, etc, etc......Lastly, if I leave my house, open the front gate, & there is a pattern of twigs on the floor that say EAT, I then dutifully carry out this instruction by going inside & fixing a sandwich. How is this not message/information?So, please define new information.Thanks,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]

​

[This message has been edited by mark24, 02-08-2002]

A Christian, I have asked for support to your assertion that information has been omitted here.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

A Christian, Assertions? I thought it was information that was your problem? Why would any untestable unfalsifiable assertion be taught in school? Especially a science class? I assert that the Galactic Goat sneezed the universe out of His bottom. I demand it be taught in school. If you can do it, so can I. Such as? It seems this information isn't available even to you, so how can it have been ignored? There is already an area of science called Taphonomy that deals with fossilisation, & there's no information there that contradicts the ToE.BTW, rapid burial occurs today, you aren't trying to infer a global flood because some fossils show evidence of rapid burial, are you? Many do not, some show evidence of dessication before burial, or slow burial in anoxic, sterile environments, hardly events that would jive with a global flood So what? A lack of information isn't information. This is a classic argument from ignorance. Because Precambrian unambiguous metazoan fossil precursors haven't been found, they therefore don't exist. With the emphasis on "unambiguous", there are potential candidates, & plenty of Precambrian fossils to boot.I have whole books dedicated to the Cambrian explosion, it doesn't seem to me like it's been ignored, in fact it appears to be an area of healthy study.The Cambrian explosion isn't/does-not-contain information that falsifies the ToE. Again, this isn't information that has been ignored, it just isn't information at all. This question provides no positive evidence that falsifies evolution. Speciation has been observed numerous times. Regardless, this statement contains no information that falsifies the ToE. It's that argument from ignorance, again.So where is this information that has been ignored? Essentially we are talking about evidence that would point to a different conclusion, or directly falsify the ToE. Where is it, I ask?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

A Christian, Whoa, hang on a minute? I thought you agreed that a theory has to be consistent with ALL observations? Your claim basically inferred that evolution was ignoring evidence. The ToE is ENTIRELY consistent with the Cambrian explosion. If you have a better hypothesis that is testable, falsiably, AND consistent with all other knowledge, bring it on. Otherwise the ToE is the best explanation for the extant diversity of life today, & at any other time you choose.What "theory of the Precambrian period" are you talking about?For a theory to be "resonable" in my eyes it has to have supporting evidence & be consistent with all other knowledge, as such it automatically selects itself as the best explanation. The ToE does this. Tell me, is something reasonable to you when it is contradicted by other data, & is unverifiable when compared to my idea of a reasonable theory? A strange turn of events if it is, since you were the one who thought MY theory was holding out against evidence (yet you still haven't shown what)! LOL! Yeah, unverifiable. Shouldn't science be VERIFIABLE?Whether I agree with it has absolutely no bearing on whether it should be taught in science classrooms. To be considered science, there must be an observation, predictions (ie supporting evidence), & potential falsifications (must be able to be shown as knowably false. Creationism possesses none of these qualities & is therefore not science, & therefore, pretty obviously shouldn't be allowed within a thousand miles of a school, let alone a science classroom. In fact, creationism is on the evidential same par as unicorns, tooth fairies, the Galactic Goat, leprechauns, Norse creation myth, Hindu creation myth, Roman pantheons creation myth, Ancient Greek creation myth, or any other creation myth you care to note. Or do you think they should get a hearing in a science classroom too?Anyhoo, you are moving the goalposts. YOu are supposed to be providing evidence/information that the ToE has ignored. Where is it?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]

A Christian, But I don't have to provide you with facts, you have to provide me with them. You are supposed to me piling all the evidence you possess onto the funeral pyre of evolutionary theory. So far, not one scrap.
ie. Support your original assertion that evolution is based on supposition. I'm not supposed to furnish you with anything. Nothing. You support your own argument, it's not my job to refute you.You have have failed, you have provided nothing to refute.You obviously are convinced the ToE is false, yet I am left wondering why?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-08-2003]