Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Considering how you missed the color change quiz...perhaps if you had red bug crawling around in green grass...crawling right next to a green bug...which one would you more than likely step on if you're paying attention?
Tweaking a computer code requires intelligence.
Increasing information in a code requires intelligence
...especially to the point of increased noticed multiple acts of sophistication. Deductive reasoning easily establishes the requirement for intelligence.
The code, information contained in DNA is far more sophisticated than a computer code. The process that developed the code used to construct and manipulate the multiple acts of sophistication must require a level of intelligence.
How big must the change be?
But DNA is not a computer code, and tweaking it requires no intelligence. We see viruses modify DNA regularly, with no indication whatsoever that they were intelligently designed.
No, it doesn't. Not according to the definition provided by Shannon et. al., and if you mean to use a different definition, then you really need to define the term, because I know how computer science defines "information", and if that's the definition we're using, you are very wrong. All that's required to increase the information in a code is to make the code longer or to increase the alphabet involved, both of which are trivially possible without intelligence.
I'm not sure what you mean by "increased noticed multiple acts of sophistication", could you please explain that?
You want a complex, sophisticated code? Decode a rock. The sheer intricacies that go into placing each individual atom are astounding, to the point that it absolutely dwarfs the complexity of DNA. There is so much information there, it must require a level of intelligence! Right?
You don't understand what information means.
Tiny.
The whole thing is worth watching, but if you just want the most important bits, around 3:00, then around 7:20. Even a very small advantage in fitness often is selected for.
The video you so proudly presented was coloring book at best. Nice try though.
The rest of your post was unsupported chatter.
The video you just shrugged off was a computerized simulation of the basic mechanics behind evolution. It showed quite clearly that even given very unforgiving circumstances, natural selection works. It does so simply and elegantly, offering a very clear answer to your question of "how small does a mutation need to be". If you don't trust it, you can download the source code yourself and play around with it.The video you so proudly presented was coloring book at best. Nice try though.
The rest of your post was unsupported chatter.
So you think you are up to a final year undergraduate course? Just before going on to get your PhD like?
I'm just a simple guy seeking entertainment by posting on a forum. I find it rather amusing just how simple it is to squash evolutionism while watching the evo-minded scramble to find an answer that doesn't exist...yet they won't recognize evolutionism fails.
The video you just shrugged off was a computerized simulation of the basic mechanics behind evolution. It showed quite clearly that even given very unforgiving circumstances, natural selection works. It does so simply and elegantly, offering a very clear answer to your question of "how small does a mutation need to be". If you don't trust it, you can download the source code yourself and play around with it.
Huh, funny, you are the one making the unsupported and unsupportable claims that DNA is a computer code, that codes necessarily require intelligence to gain information, and offering nothing to back it up. At least I indicated that what I meant by "information" was the definition provided in Shannon's landmark computer science paper. I have no idea what you mean by information, and quite frankly, I get the feeling neither do you.
Read the Bible. Bible! Bible!!'We want information. Information! Information!!'
Well then I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. It's not meant to be a perfect model of reality. It's simply meant to show how, given the basic situation of evolution, even very minor changes in fitness can propagate through the genome. You know, a clear, direct answer to your question.I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a computer simulation that actually reflects reality.
But when those genomes become "common ancestors," it's time to put those genomes in their place.Well then I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. It's not meant to be a perfect model of reality. It's simply meant to show how, given the basic situation of evolution, even very minor changes in fitness can propagate through the genome. You know, a clear, direct answer to your question.
You're easier than you think to squash.
Well then I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. It's not meant to be a perfect model of reality. It's simply meant to show how, given the basic situation of evolution, even very minor changes in fitness can propagate through the genome. You know, a clear, direct answer to your question.
Well then I'm afraid you've completely missed the point. It's not meant to be a perfect model of reality. It's simply meant to show how, given the basic situation of evolution, even very minor changes in fitness can propagate through the genome. You know, a clear, direct answer to your question.
But when those genomes become "common ancestors," it's time to put those genomes in their place.
That is a poor answer (actually, no answer at all). Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make a reply.That is a very poor analogy. Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make an analogy.
That is a poor answer (actually, no answer at all). Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make a reply.
The "favorable traits" must be a change big enough to be selected. My red word post clearly showed that.
Your loss of fur pigmentation in polar bears....clearly should show that the loss of color change must be huge to give a bear an advantage to survive over another bear.
A slight pigmentation change means nothing...it is within the noise and out of the resolution of natural selection.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?