Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8950 total)
31 online now:
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 867,272 Year: 22,308/19,786 Month: 871/1,834 Week: 371/500 Day: 4/66 Hour: 2/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolving New Information
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 13 of 458 (508583)
05-14-2009 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by OriginLifeandDeath
05-14-2009 9:30 PM


Flogging your book?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by OriginLifeandDeath, posted 05-14-2009 9:30 PM OriginLifeandDeath has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 19 of 458 (509017)
05-18-2009 4:38 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by slevesque
05-18-2009 1:39 AM


New information
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by slevesque, posted 05-18-2009 1:39 AM slevesque has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 160 of 458 (519577)
08-15-2009 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by LucyTheApe
08-15-2009 12:00 AM


Re: What is information?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by LucyTheApe, posted 08-15-2009 12:00 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 279 of 458 (522487)
09-03-2009 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by bluescat48
09-03-2009 3:43 PM


Re: and yet you go there (yes I do)
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.


Arguments such as we have seen here are clear evidence that ID is not a science in its own right, but rather an effort by believers in a particular view of religion to combat the evils of "Darwinism." It is also becoming clear that ID can't even exist without "Darwinism" -- as combatting "Darwinism" is its entire focus.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by bluescat48, posted 09-03-2009 3:43 PM bluescat48 has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 292 of 458 (522769)
09-04-2009 6:29 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by LucyTheApe
09-04-2009 5:51 PM


Re: What is (new) information? (Its what creationists can't handle)
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-04-2009 5:51 PM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-04-2009 6:57 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 304 of 458 (522853)
09-05-2009 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 302 by LucyTheApe
09-05-2009 11:45 AM


More nonsense
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 302 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-05-2009 11:45 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 349 of 458 (523623)
09-11-2009 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 343 by LucyTheApe
09-11-2009 11:17 AM


Re: Genetics of melanism
We know that beneficial mutations can occur

Show me one


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.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 343 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-11-2009 11:17 AM LucyTheApe has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 352 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-18-2009 5:19 AM Coyote has responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 357 of 458 (524737)
09-18-2009 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 352 by LucyTheApe
09-18-2009 5:19 AM


Beneficial mutation--and your worldview
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.


Since you didn't seem to read my post, let me repeat:

1) Sickle cells are caused by a mutation.

2) That mutation carries some protection against malaria.

3) In areas in which malaria is endemic that is a beneficial 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 352 by LucyTheApe, posted 09-18-2009 5:19 AM LucyTheApe has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 358 by greyseal, posted 09-18-2009 10:40 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-18-2009 10:46 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 383 of 458 (526895)
09-29-2009 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 381 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 2:48 PM


Re: Gaps
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 381 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 2:48 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 385 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 3:09 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 449 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 396 of 458 (526943)
09-29-2009 6:43 PM
Reply to: Message 395 by Calypsis4
09-29-2009 6:14 PM


Re: Evolved or Made
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 395 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 6:14 PM Calypsis4 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 397 by Calypsis4, posted 09-29-2009 7:39 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019