New argument against Evolution: new information is slow

Assyrian · Aug 12, 2013

Gottservant said:
I thought about it some more and I've decided that your observation is disingenuous. Dead information can't be compared with itself, living information can. There is no need to come up with a separate term, because this much is evident a priori and to give a new term would suggest that there is a progression from the dead to the living, which would only further complicate what is a very simple (albeit advanced) argument.

No, : dead information is old, old information cannot out-force old information.

Yes, : new living information is slow, old information can out-force new information.

Two completely sensible statements, the latter of which refutes radical evolution.

If you want another example, consider limbs of a body. The limbs are new relative to the oldness of the torso, but that doesn't mean that the new limbs outgrow the old torso. Far from it, the new limbs grow only when the torso grows. Why is this so? Because the torso is forceful about what growth it will allow and the new limbs are too slow to demand more growth from the torso, when it is out of keeping with the torso.

Thus we grow limbs that do not destroy us.

It is a principle, that governs all of Creation.

Perhaps you need to understand the genetic mechanisms behind growth and development instead of inventing concepts like the torso being 'forceful'. And what has the concept of a torso being 'forceful' got to do with old and new information? How are the genes that govern limb growth newer information than the genes that govern the growth of the torso? How are cell lines that develop into the limbs newer than the cell lines that develop into the torso?

What you call 'dead information' or 'information' can and has been compared with other forms of ('dead') information. There is a whole science about the subject. At least here you have tried to make an argument base on genetic information. Because you haven't shown how genetic information can be compared to the learning process.

Gottservant · Aug 13, 2013

fascinated with god said:
How do you defining "living" information vs. "dead" information? Your terms are completely subjective, vague and meaningless. They can mean anything you want and could never be objectively tested.

Using totally subjective terms that you made up yourself and have no solid meaning is not the basis for "completely sensible statements" that all would naturally agree on.

The living and the dead are not new concepts, you are not helping.

Gottservant · Aug 13, 2013

Assyrian said:
Perhaps you need to understand the genetic mechanisms behind growth and development instead of inventing concepts like the torso being 'forceful'. And what has the concept of a torso being 'forceful' got to do with old and new information? How are the genes that govern limb growth newer information than the genes that govern the growth of the torso? How are cell lines that develop into the limbs newer than the cell lines that develop into the torso?

What you call 'dead information' or 'information' can and has been compared with other forms of ('dead') information. There is a whole science about the subject. At least here you have tried to make an argument base on genetic information. Because you haven't shown how genetic information can be compared to the learning process.

The torso comes first, I don't know why you don't get that.

And the rules change when comparing dead with dead information, I am not talking about that.

You can't reason in yourself on a matter of principle, that new information doesn't change old structures? How is that?

theFijian · Aug 13, 2013

Gottservant said:
The torso comes first, I don't know why you don't get that.?

Probably because you've just made it up and it's nonsense.

Assyrian · Aug 13, 2013

Gottservant said:
The torso comes first, I don't know why you don't get that.

And the rules change when comparing dead with dead information, I am not talking about that.

You can't reason in yourself on a matter of principle, that new information doesn't change old structures? How is that?

The torso came first but the cell lines that form the limbs are as old as the cell lines in the torso, even if they were originally found within the mass that made up the torso. The genes controlling the limbs are as old as the rest of the genes. It isn't a matter of the information being new or the structure being old, but genes being switched on and off at predetermined times in the development. No hand waving about forceful information or vague claims about new information changing old structures are going to give you a principle that new genetic information is faster or slower than old information. You are talking in vague analogies about processes you don't understand and trying to turn them into principles that contradict evolution. It is meaningless.

toLiJC · Aug 13, 2013

there is no biological or reincarnational evolution, because the true God from the very beginning has permanently set a full unique individuality/personality in every soul so that everyone has its full individuality of its personality in the true God and Jesus, and because He is omnipotent to do all good thing(s) within the eternity, but in return there is a holy mission of salvation in Him unto abundant and everlasting life for all unsaved souls or at least for as many as possible

Blessings

Gottservant · Aug 13, 2013

theFijian said:
Probably because you've just made it up and it's nonsense.

Like you putting a question mark on the end of my quote?

Let me tell you what I did, I made an observation about a "theory", I took that observation and made a "conjecture" and then I asked Wisdom to clarify the nature of the relationship between these two things, with a proverb.

The proverb was inspired, not my work, not my doctrine.

I then compared this proverb with what I knew of principle and reapplied it to the theory, to see if my conjecture held up. The conjecture - deliberately false, that evolution could advance new information into the future - was proved false, on the basis of the principle elucidated in the proverb.

I then thanked God for the revelation and communicated it to you, where you promptly complained, attempting to pass off a very thoughtful and considered process as "nonsense".

Excuse me if your vanity offends me.

Gottservant · Aug 13, 2013

Assyrian said:
The torso came first but the cell lines that form the limbs are as old as the cell lines in the torso

This is incorrect, replication proceeds outwards from the center of an organism until it is fully grown. Every other objection you make stems from this oversight.

You are talking in vague analogies about processes you don't understand and trying to turn them into principles that contradict evolution. It is meaningless.

I find your conclusion flawed.

Read the above reply and weigh seriously whether I am just concocting objections.

Assyrian · Aug 13, 2013

Gottservant said:
This is incorrect, from the center of an organism until it is fully grown. Every other objection you make stems from this oversight.

Even if replication did proceed outwards from the center of an organism it wouldn't help you argument about new and old information being faster or slower or more forceful. I was going to say you description of embryological development is wrong, but your statement about is so vague I don't know what you are talking about. It certainly bears no resemblance to anything I have come across about embryology.

Click to expand...

I find your conclusion flawed.

Read the above reply and weigh seriously whether I am just concocting objections.

I have read it a weighed it and it is meaningless. You should stop trying to use analogies to disprove evolution, especially analogies with processes you don't understand. Analogies can help explain a process, but they cannot disprove anything because analogies are only comparisons and where comparisons brat down they are false analogies.

Gottservant · Aug 14, 2013

Assyrian said:
I have read it a weighed it and it is meaningless. You should stop trying to use analogies to disprove evolution, especially analogies with processes you don't understand. Analogies can help explain a process, but they cannot disprove anything because analogies are only comparisons and where comparisons brat down they are false analogies.

Before you say I should stop, earn the right to even say I should start something.

I showed you my process, it is very logical.

You have shown nothing of the sort.

New argument against Evolution: new information is slow

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

More options

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also

More options

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also

More options

theFijian

Well-Known Member

More options

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

More options

toLiJC

Senior Member

More options

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also

More options

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also

More options

Assyrian

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

More options

Gottservant

God loves your words, may men love them also

More options

Similar threads

New argument against Evolution: new information is slow

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

God loves your words, may men love them also

God loves your words, may men love them also

Well-Known Member

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

Senior Member

God loves your words, may men love them also

God loves your words, may men love them also

Basically pulling an Obama (Thanks Calminian!)

God loves your words, may men love them also

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency