Miracles

[Vene]

I'm curious, which has more information:
AUGCUAUAA
or
AUCGCUAUAA

 

[Gracchus]

Information is generated by any stochastic process, and, when taken together with the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which I know many around here are very fond of referencing) it can be demonstrated that in any closed system the total amount of information can never decrease. It can, however, increase up to the maximum that can be encoded in that system.

The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder source to a warmer sink. It is not about information.

It is true that one form of information theory uses the term "entropy" to refer to signal degradation. The term was co-opted. Signal degradation is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.

 

[guzman]

I'm curious, which has more information:
AUGCUAUAA
or
AUCGCUAUAA

I'm curious what that has to do with creating a limb or organ.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

...
Edited to add: How many structures has creationism/ID explained?

all of them.
god did it.

 

[Vene]

I'm curious what that has to do with creating a limb or organ.

Those are sample genetic sequences, genes 'code' (for lack of a better word) for proteins, proteins are responsible for the formation of all the tissues in the body. Since one of your claims is that mutations can't add information I want to know which sample sequence contains more information.

 

[BrainHertz]

The second law of thermodynamics states that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder source to a warmer sink. It is not about information.

It is true that one form of information theory uses the term "entropy" to refer to signal degradation. The term was co-opted. Signal degradation is not the same thing as thermodynamic entropy.

No, the story about the term being co-opted is apochryphal. They actually are related, and Shannon pointed this out in his paper when he defined the term. There's actually a reference in there to "statistical mechanics". It turns out that entropy as defined by Shannon is linearly related to entropy as defined for statistical thermodynamics. The constant of linearity is Boltzmann's constant.

Edit: I don't think I would interpret information entropy to be about signal degradation, by the way. One needs to be very careful about terms at that point, because the meanings don't necessarily take common meanings.

 

[BrainHertz]

ToE is a materialist theory -- it's a theory of things. DNA, according to evolutionsits are things....therefore these "things" must somehow stand for information to build a body....so if these things stand for information -- such as part of an eye -- the information that coded into genes must have a source....how does a gene "know" to be an iris, for example?

It doesn't "know" anything.

Please start by defining terms. I'm using the only commonly accepted meaning of the term "information", that is, as defined by Shannon. In that context, I can't even parse your grammar above. Do you have a different definition you wish to use?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Let's play like we're all standing in a driveway looking at a nice car, let's say a Chevy Tahoe, just for mental purposes. If you're a creationist, you might believe (if that Tahoe was a lifeform) that a Supernatural Creator miraculously created it fully-formed and fully functional, ready to drive. This scenario, of course, seems, improbable, impossible -- not to mention repulsive -- to evos in here.

A creationist probably would believe that the Chevy Tahoe was a lifeform.

 

[Quantic]

Let's play like we're all standing in a driveway looking at a nice car, let's say a Chevy Tahoe, just for mental purposes.

Oops! There goes your whole argument. Do you know why? Read closely: Chevy Tahoes, in whole or part, do not reproduce!

What do man made objects have to do with biological life?

 

[Cassandra]

Let's play like we're all standing in a driveway looking at a nice car, let's say a Chevy Tahoe, just for mental purposes. If you're a creationist, you might believe (if that Tahoe was a lifeform) that a Supernatural Creator miraculously created it fully-formed and fully functional, ready to drive. This scenario, of course, seems, improbable, impossible -- not to mention repulsive -- to evos in here.

But is the atheist alternative actually less miraculous or more probable?

I just want to make sure of something: Are you saying evolution is an atheistic theory, or are you just arguing against an atheistic version of evolution?

I just want to know if you are totally against evolution or not. Do you accept (or at least don't deny) the possibility of theistic evolution?

Think about it:

Instead of one giant miracle, whereby the whole vehicle appeared miraculously out of seemingly nowhere, what evos expect us to believe is that all the tiny little Tahoe parts somehow appeared out of nowhere, for no reason, at different times throughout history. All the nuts and bolts and engine parts, all the leather and seatbelts and buckles, all the lights and speakers and carpet, all the wires and brake pads and shocks -- all appeared by accident, out of nowhere, and for no purpose. Cute little miracles, all.

First off, this has been pointed out before but a Chevy Tahoe is not a biological lifeform. I know you know this and I understand the point you were trying to make. However, since a biological lifeform and a Tahoe are not analogus(sp?) your analogy is invalid.

 

[TheOutsider]

I said new structures, not features. There are millions of structures to account for in the animal kingdom -- you and ToE can't account for the origin of even one. It's the epitome of pathetic.

now try again.

What is the difference between a structure and a feature? My thesaurus says that they are synonyms. Oh wait... I forgot that this is supersport who absolutely refuses to define his terms. Nevermind.

 

[ReverendDG]

you can't account for any, much less all of them.

ORLY?
read post 12.
and answer my simple question. what is a structure to you?
i believe we have answered the question, its just you don't like that we have

 

[Dal M.]

I said new structures, not features.

Fill in the blank:

Enzymes don't count as structures because ______.

(And no, "they're really tiny" isn't going to cut it here...)

 

[guzman]

What is the difference between a structure and a feature? My thesaurus says that they are synonyms. Oh wait... I forgot that this is supersport who absolutely refuses to define his terms. Nevermind.

a feature can be non-physical, like the ability to digest...a structure is a physical piece of anatomy such as an organ.

 

[Chalnoth]

a feature can be non-physical, like the ability to digest...a structure is a physical piece of anatomy such as an organ.

An enzyme is physical.

 

[guzman]

Fill in the blank:

Enzymes don't count as structures because ______.

(And no, "they're really tiny" isn't going to cut it here...)

Easy..enzymes are molecules. ToE says changes in molecules results in the adding of new anatomical structures, which fueled the physical and anatomical build-up of organisms. But you cannot count the changing of the said molecule itself (a catalyst for change) as a new structure....it's just a molecule and although it may itself change, it does not add new physical structures, which is required for common descent to happen. Life goes physically downhill, not uphill.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/enzyme

Any of numerous proteins or conjugated proteins produced by living organisms and functioning as biochemical catalysts

Too bad your silly theory has no evidence. You are desperate though, aren't you...

 

[Dal M.]

Easy..enzymes are molecules.

So's everything else, Sport. The point is that, due to the mutation, the cell begins to transcribe a different sort of molecule from the one it did before, which has its own unique (here it comes) structure as well as function.

Please don't tell me you're demanding to see a structure that isn't made of molecules. I hope even you can see how silly that is.

 

[Chalnoth]

So's everything else, Sport. The point is that, due to the mutation, the cell begins to transcribe a different sort of molecule from the one it did before, which has its own unique (here it comes) structure as well as function.

Please don't tell me you're demanding to see a structure that isn't made of molecules. I hope even you can see how silly that is.

Besides, it's a mute point anyway. Here's an example of a new structure that evolved in a period of around three decades, cecal valves:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/04/still_just_a_lizard.php

 

[Nathan Poe]

a feature can be non-physical, like the ability to digest...a structure is a physical piece of anatomy such as an organ.

Digestion is not physical?

What is it -- metaphysical?

 

[Vene]

Digestion is not physical?

What is it -- metaphysical?

Maybe he doesn't know how digestion happens.