Suppose a DNA sequence which specified some trait were laid out as follows. IWILLCREATEAHAIRFOLLICLE. Then it mutates or replicates and mutates. ILLEICRSKDLFIELCKSHEIATEID Have you created any infromation?
Yes, if I use the only rigorous definition of information I know of. Do you have a definition of informtition where there isn't additional information? There have been numerous times where creationists or IDers (if there is a difference) have been asked for a definition of information that is useful to determine the answer to your above question. However, none is forthcoming.
BTW
Message 55 was a request for the nature of the answer that you seek. You haven't gotten to it yet.
However, naturalism and evolution have made it "far more comfortable to be an intellectually fufilled athiest" according to Richard Dawkins
Yes, this is when the argument from design was nullified since a process that can produce design-like results has been shown.
Evolution will fall not because of creationism's triumph, but simply because the mechanism is seriously flawed and cannot produce the complexity and vast amounts of information on our planet.
Since it has been shown that the mechanism can produce "informtion" and "complexity" (with some uncertainty about what you mean by those terms) what is it that limits the mechanism to producing ever larger amounts? You have made a blanket assertion here. I suspect it is one that you have been feed and have no clue how one might support it since you never thought to ask for support for it. This is know as an argument from incredulity and is a very weak argument indeed.
Actual evolution tends to go toward greater complexity, species becoming more elaborate in their structure and behavior, though the process can also go in reverse, toward simplicity. But DNA on its own can go nowhere but toward greater simplicity.
Your discussion here was copied from elsewhere. It is appropriate to give your source when you do that.
This experiment does not show what your source suggests it does. In the experiment outlined the more successful DNA (and I thought it was RNA so I think that might be wrong) was the faster copying. Therefore it was selected. That will, as in nature, move it to "simpler".
In the same way parasites will evolve to be "simpler".
Separately from this DNA can (gene duplication for example) increase in "complexity".
NOTE: all the " " 'd terms must be rigoruously defined before the discussion can continue. The ID'ers make use of these terms but do no t know what they mean to themselves or anyone else.
{qsEvolution is directional. Look at where you start and look at what we have. Less Complex to more complex. While you may want to apply this to a smaller subset of events, or get philosophical, evolution is nothing without the ability to produce increasingly complexity. Otherrwise, you and I don't exist my friend, and that would get very philosophical.[/qs]
while you are suggesting books I would suggest Gould's "Full House" for a discussion of the apparent direction in evolution.
As noted the process can produce more of whatever it is you are talking about.
Do you seriously believe that life sprang from non life? Is it probable in your mind? Was it clay templates and billions of years, hot vents on the bottom of the sea floor, panspermia. I don't expect an answer, just an honest assessment
Off topic in a thread about evolution I would say. Why not take it to one of the "Origin Of Life" threads.
Our point is that information does not spring from non information any more than energy can be produced from a perpetual motion machine. Creatures change as the information they pass from generation to the next is recombined, selected, deleted and then conveyed in a new offspring. DNA is a lot more complex than throwing dice. You don't just reconstitute new DNA structures by random processes and create meaningful information.
Please define "information" as you are using it here. By
any definition that I have seen the above is wrong.
™ Version 4.2