Here's my problem, I believe in evolution, and it brings up doubts especially in the OT...

[Loudmouth]

What is the information above? Who knows.

Then even you can't point to information in DNA sequences. If you can't measure information in DNA sequences, then you can't claim that information increases or decreases when mutations change that sequence.

You could have simply just typed random variations of CATG....in which case there is no instruction or useful information.

Then your method of measuring information should show a low amount of information in random sequences. Why don't you show us that method?

So what did you You asked me an unanswerable question.

It is the same question you are asking us.

 

[TLK Valentine]

the environment changes. the change can be random

The reaction to the change is not random. Only two choices on the menu: Survive long enough to pass on your genes... or don't.

 

[TLK Valentine]

What is the information above? Who knows. You could have simply just typed random variations of CATG....in which case there is no instruction or useful information. Then again you may have copied it from some where.

So what did you You asked me an unanswerable question. That's why I scrolled past it last time.

So information only exists not, as you previously claimed, there is an intelligence to create it, but rather, an intelligence to comprehend it.

So if we are limited by your ability to recognize and comprehend information, then you shouldn't be surprised.

 

[TLK Valentine]

For the most part....though I'm sure you could think of some off the wall source then pass it off as normal.

You mean like this?
صباح الخير.

Someone who doesn't read or speak Arabic might dismiss that as random scribblings. We need an objective definition of information, and you've yet to provide one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It was a simple and serious question. I understand your reluctance to answer it. I said natural selection was randon..at least debatable....I then start to delve into the question....and you balk.

No, it was immature and foolish. And now you are making yourself look worse.

Why would you say something as ignorant as you just said? Why don't you try to ask questions properly? If you mess up I will tell you politely so that you can try again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Infomation is derived from intelligence. Such as the information contained in a code. Intelligence is required to write the code and intelligence is required to decipher the code.

And now you are saying that DNA is not intelligence since creatures regularly "write out" and interpret DNA code without any intelligence at all. Though this is not a real definition it also shows how you fail.

 

[-57]

You mean like this?
صباح الخير.

Someone who doesn't read or speak Arabic might dismiss that as random scribblings. We need an objective definition of information, and you've yet to provide one.

You mean like this?
صباح الخير.

Someone who doesn't read or speak Arabic might dismiss that as random scribblings. We need an objective definition of information, and you've yet to provide one.

You havea been presented with several examples....then you act like you haven't. What a strange tactic you're using.

 

[-57]

And now you are saying that DNA is not intelligence since creatures regularly "write out" and interpret DNA code without any intelligence at all. Though this is not a real definition it also shows how you fail.

That reply was strange.

 

[-57]

I'm getting bored of the wishy washy replies of the evo-babblers.
Perhaps I should ask them to show how information can be contained in a code...and read via another mechanism....and a task performed...derived via a process of random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm getting bored of the wishy washy replies of the evo-babblers.

It would seem that you have gone to insults after you failed to measure information in a DNA sequence. Not a good way to have discussions here.

Perhaps I should ask them to show how information can be contained in a code...

We have asked you the same thing, and you have been unable to do it.

 

[-57]

It would seem that you have gone to insults after you failed to measure information in a DNA sequence. Not a good way to have discussions here.


We have asked you the same thing, and you have been unable to do it.

I have to think you are intentially vague or extremely ignorant.

The simple question was....does DNA contain information. Does it? Yes or no. Such a simple question.....yet so hard for the evo.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That reply was strange.

How so? I applied logic to your post. By saying that reply was strange you are saying that the post it responded to was strange. You should really learn how to extrapolate logically from statements made.

And again, when you don't understand politely ask questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have to think you are intentially vague or extremely ignorant.

The simple question was....does DNA contain information. Does it? Yes or no. Such a simple question.....yet so hard for the evo.

And yet you cannot define what you mean by the word "information".

Your use of the word does not seem to be the standard use of the word, that is why we are asking for your definition. If we were to make a definition you may claim that is not the one that you meant and therefore what we proposed would have been a strawman argument. I don't think anyone on our side wants to be guilty of that. That is why we keep asking you what you mean by "information". If is merely an orderly sequence set out by an intelligence, then no, DNA has no information by that definition. But if it is an orderly sequence controlled by the laws of chemistry, then yes, by that definition DNA has information, but so does a snowflake.

So whether DNA has information or not is dependent upon how you define the word "information". So far, by your own definition that you seem to want to use, it does not have information.

 

[Loudmouth]

I have to think you are intentially vague or extremely ignorant.

I gave you a DNA sequence, and you were unable to measure the amount of information in that DNA sequence. You failed to answer your own question.

The simple question was....does DNA contain information. Does it? Yes or no. Such a simple question.....yet so hard for the evo.

It contains as much information as any piece of matter.

 

[Reasoning]

the environment changes. the change can be random

Eh yes, the environmental change is random. Still don't get your point.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

According to what I have heard from creation scientists, the information in our cells can be regarded as having "specified complexity", that is what sets it apart from things like snowflakes because whilst snowflakes are complex, they are also random. Also, according to one creation biologist, the chemicals in our cells are not necessarily behaving according to the laws of chemistry while we are alive, but only begin to do so once we die. For instance, I understand that amino acids have to have the same-handedness, not only in humans, but in all life (and the same apparently goes for proteins), but when a living creature dies, the chemicals start doing what they would naturally do and begin to revert to a racemate, i.e., mixture of right-handed and left-handed molecules. If this is indeed the case, then it's surely another problem for the idea that life can come from non-life by natural means.

Going back to information - is it not merely a message from a sender to a receiver? My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes it thus: "information (on / about sb/sth) facts or details about sb/sth" So I suppose you could argue that the workings of the cell are using facts or details about sb/sth in order to be able to "know" what their respective tasks are to keep the cell alive and therefore they do contain information. Here's a simple summary http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna4.htm

 

[Subduction Zone]

According to what I have heard from creation scientists,

Whoa! It is a bad start to a post when you cannot even finish the first sentence without a glaring error. "Creation scientists" is a bit of an oxymoron. To be a scientist one must follow the scientific method. That means that one cannot demand that an idea is right and work from there. But that is exactly what the so call scientists at every creationist site that I have looked into do. In fact the sites have statements of faith that people agree to that essentially state if the evidence does not support their interpretation of the Bible then that evidence is wrong. This is not science.

the information in our cells can be regarded as having "specified complexity", that is what sets it apart from things like snowflakes because whilst snowflakes are complex, they are also random.

Adding another word does not really help your case. It only makes you sound more "sciency". It fools the ignorant and that is about it.

Also, according to one creation biologist, the chemicals in our cells are not necessarily behaving according to the laws of chemistry while we are alive, but only begin to do so once we die.

Then that creation "biologist" is not much of a biologist. If the cells in our body did not follow the laws of chemistry that would be a big plus for your side. Guess, what? They do.

For instance, I understand that amino acids have to have the same-handedness, not only in humans, but in all life (and the same apparently goes for proteins), but when a living creature dies, the chemicals start doing what they would naturally do and begin to revert to a racemate, i.e., mixture of right-handed and left-handed molecules. If this is indeed the case, then it's surely another problem for the idea that life can come from non-life by natural means.

And I am sure that they racemate at the same rate before we die. Our bodies have ways of getting rid of "bad" molecules. I would suggest that you try to support this claim with links to articles by real scientists. I am fairly sure that you will find that you cannot.

Going back to information - is it not merely a message from a sender to a receiver? My Oxford Advanced Learners Dictionary describes it thus: "information (on / about sb/sth) facts or details about sb/sth" So I suppose you could argue that the workings of the cell are using facts or details about sb/sth in order to be able to "know" what their respective tasks are to keep the cell alive and therefore they do contain information. Here's a simple summary http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/cellular-microscopic/dna4.htm

Then DNA is not information by that standard since there is no sender nor receiver in that sense. Like I said, either the definition of "information" will eliminate DNA as being information or it will include the possibility of DNA gaining information through natural means. I have yet to see a creationist violate this.

 

[-57]

And yet you cannot define what you mean by the word "information".

Your use of the word does not seem to be the standard use of the word, that is why we are asking for your definition. If we were to make a definition you may claim that is not the one that you meant and therefore what we proposed would have been a strawman argument. I don't think anyone on our side wants to be guilty of that. That is why we keep asking you what you mean by "information". If is merely an orderly sequence set out by an intelligence, then no, DNA has no information by that definition. But if it is an orderly sequence controlled by the laws of chemistry, then yes, by that definition DNA has information, but so does a snowflake.

So whether DNA has information or not is dependent upon how you define the word "information". So far, by your own definition that you seem to want to use, it does not have information.

You posted "If is merely an orderly sequence set out by an intelligence, then no, "
..that would mean the computer code running in your computer doesn't contain any information.....me thinks your logic is faulty.

 

[-57]

Eh yes, the environmental change is random. Still don't get your point.

Then I suppose you never will.
Thanks for asking.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

Whoa! It is a bad start to a post when you cannot even finish the first sentence without a glaring error. "Creation scientists"

My mistake, I should have said "Creation-believing scientists" or perhaps "Bible-believing scientists"

Then that creation "biologist" is not much of a biologist.

He has a PhD, and once taught evolution as fact, but later came to recognise the lie that he used to teach when he found God. Maybe the same thing will happen to you one day, you never know!