Greyseal says "You've said that getting random chatter in a sentence, turning (for example) "have a nice day" into "have aalser niceslekjrs dayawer" isn't "adding information"...but it is. The fact that it's nonsense is of no interest. The fact is that's still not how genetics works.
It works more like "chinese whispers" (otherwise known as "telephone"). Get about 30 kids together, whisper some phrase to the first child, get that child to whisper to his neighbour and so on.
See what comes out the other side!"
Sorry this doesn't solve the problem. You still have the problem that the kids are using a language that already exists. Yes, you might get a more spectacular sentence but this doesn't mean that you've created anything new, you are still limited to the vocab the kids posess in the first place. One kid might add some gibberish but this doesn't help the message as none of the kids will be able to understand what it means. It just makes things more confusing and distorts the message. It becomes useless (yes, it may serve for some amusement, but generally I'd say most cells in an organism don't tend to make up gibberish to entertain their neighbouring cells ) btw this is my first post, so HI, just a quick question, how do you quote other posts?
Come on bro, drop the chinese whispers analogy You still haven't explained how new info arises in your analogy.
quote:A successful mutation (and every one of us is a mutated copy of our parents) results in the next generation.
mutations (and changes) add up...and hey presto.
Not saying that changes can't be made to the "whisper", but that if these mutations are carried on then this is because they have meaning in the language. The mutations may also be corrected by the next kid or just not expressed. Also if there are more negative mutations than positive ones then overall as they add up, the message becomes more nonsense than meaningful. Still not sure where this is going, but is amusing enough
In my opinion the whole moth thing should be avoided. There are far better examples of natural selection an/or mutational changes than discussing a controversial one. The point is (as far as i am aware) that the way the research was carried out was somewhat dodgy.
quote:But if IDist/creationists were reasonable people we wouldn't keep having these same debates over and over again.
I believe greyseal brought up this topic in message 163 and as far as I can gather he is not a creationist.
exactly, i'm not saying that natural selection didn't occur, but rather because of the controversial nature of the way the research was carried out I think it is best to stick to examples where the research isn't so controversial.
What the...??? All that I was saying was that as many of you have pointed out already, some aspects of the research were dodgy. Can we agree on that. There has been plenty of research on natural selection that was carried out competently. So I was just saying, let's not get sidetracked on whether moths were stuck on trees or not, I don't care too much either way. Instead let's get back on topic. As I remember It wasn't creationists debating whether or not they were stuck on trees but rather it was a debate going on betweeen everyone else. So yes, it was a bit controversial even between evolutionists. As i have said before I am not suggesting that natural selection didn't happen in this instance. I am not attacking evolution in writing this but rather think that we are getting sidetracked. So lets not get up in arms about everything that a creationist writes. Hope this helps