Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for macro-evolution
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Guy Threepwood" data-source="post: 77540949" data-attributes="member: 423388"><p>If I were to retreat to a Victorian age understanding of the natural world, I'd agree Darwinism looks a lot more plausible, so does phlebotomy, phrenology and steady state. But the problems for each theory grew after their conception.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Which has more specified information in it's DNA; a human being or a bacteria? Take a guess- what did you base that guess on? ideas and feelings? Or some understanding of an objectively quantifiable difference? </p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure, duplications of the same information, followed by mutations of that copy. Neither provides an explanation for the volumes of novel specified information required for macro-evolution.</p><p></p><p>Semantically yes, if you train a chimp to push the big green button on a Xerox- copying a page from War and Peace, did he create new specified information?</p><p></p><p>Yes and no,</p><p></p><p> arguably 'yes' in a broad technical sense,</p><p></p><p>Obviously 'no' in any practical meaningful sense.</p><p></p><p>The practical upshot being; copying and/or randomly corrupting a page of a book, in no way provides an explanation for how the book was or could have been written.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Absolutely, again we have to make the distinction between gain/loss of specified information and the benefit/drawback of that. Two different things.</p><p></p><p>My catalytic converter rusting and falling off my 70's car, was clearly a total failure as it's original purpose.</p><p>But an excellent improvement in exhaust flow and efficiency of the engine.</p><p></p><p>Same problem once again, this loss of purpose through corruption of original design may well be a benefit- in the niche environment of the state I live in which has no emissions testing!, but in no way suggests that the original design could arise by the same process! it's literally the exact opposite process.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Guy Threepwood, post: 77540949, member: 423388"] If I were to retreat to a Victorian age understanding of the natural world, I'd agree Darwinism looks a lot more plausible, so does phlebotomy, phrenology and steady state. But the problems for each theory grew after their conception. Which has more specified information in it's DNA; a human being or a bacteria? Take a guess- what did you base that guess on? ideas and feelings? Or some understanding of an objectively quantifiable difference? Sure, duplications of the same information, followed by mutations of that copy. Neither provides an explanation for the volumes of novel specified information required for macro-evolution. Semantically yes, if you train a chimp to push the big green button on a Xerox- copying a page from War and Peace, did he create new specified information? Yes and no, arguably 'yes' in a broad technical sense, Obviously 'no' in any practical meaningful sense. The practical upshot being; copying and/or randomly corrupting a page of a book, in no way provides an explanation for how the book was or could have been written. Absolutely, again we have to make the distinction between gain/loss of specified information and the benefit/drawback of that. Two different things. My catalytic converter rusting and falling off my 70's car, was clearly a total failure as it's original purpose. But an excellent improvement in exhaust flow and efficiency of the engine. Same problem once again, this loss of purpose through corruption of original design may well be a benefit- in the niche environment of the state I live in which has no emissions testing!, but in no way suggests that the original design could arise by the same process! it's literally the exact opposite process. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
Evidence for macro-evolution
Top
Bottom