How an Evangelical Creationist Accepted Evolution

[lesliedellow]

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?

So you are assuming that no mutation could enhance an organism's reproductive success. That is definitely something it is incumbent upon you to demonstrate.

 

[The Cadet]

Tweaking a computer code requires intelligence.

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.

Increasing information in a code requires intelligence

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.

...especially to the point of increased noticed multiple acts of sophistication. Deductive reasoning easily establishes the requirement for intelligence.

I'm not sure what you mean by "increased noticed multiple acts of sophistication", could you please explain that?

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.

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.

How big must the change be?

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.

 

[-57]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

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?

 

[The Cadet]

The video you so proudly presented was coloring book at best. Nice try though.

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 rest of your post was unsupported chatter.

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.

 

[-57]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

You don't come even close, in fact you don't come within a million miles, of "squashing" ToE.

 

[-57]

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.

I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a computer simulation that actually reflects reality.
You simulation acts as if the 8 bit represents 3.5 billion base pairs. Guess what? That's not reality.

it's a joke.

 

[-57]

You don't come even close, in fact you don't come within a million miles, of "squashing" ToE.

You're easier than you think to squash.

 

[Zosimus]

'We want information. Information! Information!!'
'You won't get it.'
'By hook or by crook, we will.'
'Who are you?'
'I am number 2.'
'Who is number 1?'
'You are number 6.'
'I am not a number. I am a free man!'

 

[AV1611VET]

'We want information. Information! Information!!'

Read the Bible. Bible! Bible!!

 

[The Cadet]

I'm still waiting for someone to come out with a computer simulation that actually reflects reality.

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.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

You're easier than you think to squash.

If that's what you want to delude yourself into believing.

 

[lesliedellow]

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.

He missed the point because he wanted to miss the point.

 

[-57]

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.

It's based upon a false platform. Evolutionism doesn't work the way the video suggest.

 

[-57]

But when those genomes become "common ancestors," it's time to put those genomes in their place.

Gnomes should be in their proper place. The garden.

 

[Not_By_Chance]

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.

 

[lesliedellow]

That is a poor answer (actually, no answer at all). Try again. Try to engage your brain when you make a reply.

No, he's right, it doesn't even come close to being a valid analogy for the way Evolution works.

 

[ViaCrucis]

The "favorable traits" must be a change big enough to be selected. My red word post clearly showed that.

Evolution is not changing a font color. So, no, your red word post doesn't show anything.

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.

No, it shows that this particular trait worked in this particular instance. That's all it shows.

A slight pigmentation change means nothing...it is within the noise and out of the resolution of natural selection.

It means something if that slight pigmentation change could result in attracting a mate better, or avoiding predation, or any number of things.

It's also possible that a "big change" can have no measurable effect at all.

-CryptoLutheran