New argument against Evolution: new information is slow

[Gottservant]

Hi there!

This may take a little thinking about before you get it. I will try to make it clear. Basically the argument is that information is slow, so if you are relying on new information, you automatically have to choose the most reliable outcome. It goes like this...

New information is slower, than old information is forceful.

In other words, if a new train leaves the station at A, it will still be derailed by an old train headed for B since the newness of train A does not change the schedule for train B automatically. (And train B has already left the station.)

I said it was hard. In other words, if you know to do something differently, you are still going to have to break your old habits to succeed and in the case of information those habits are going to get harder before they get easier. So in the natural course of events, nothing is going to change its type (aka evolve) in any hurry, because it has to accomodate too much old information to really change anything.

In Christian parlance, this is what we call being predestined. We cannot change our nature, so when we encounter Christ, Christ takes over because He was around before us and will be around after us. Christ has much more force being of old (as it says in the Psalms) than we have "new" strength in sin. The only way to combat this is to rebel constantly, like Judas.

A creature that wants to adopt a new type, is going to have to find speed radically in order to combat the problem of the old information it started with. This is not just a small problem, it is a huge problem. Not only is the new information unknown, because it is unknown it is slower than the forcefulness of the old information which is able to wipe it out.

This leads to what I pointed out to Evolutionists when I said "Mutations are systematically conformed to an old type" (paraphrase). Because every time old information encounters new information and takes over (every time you return to an old habit), the new information becomes less new, less capable. As Christians we understand that the way around this is to put faith in the old information ahead of time, but this has nothing to do with Evolution - Evolution only gets in the way of this.

The thing is I am still not sure if I am explaining this properly, about new information having to escape old information in order to bring about a change. Moreover, for evolution to work, this has to happen not once, but thousands if not millions of times and the whole time it does not happen, things go in the other direction. I think that is what the Evolution camp is continuing to miss actually: that things can go backwards if they are not going forwards. Ever since WWII they have been in a backward slide, not acknowleding a telos but not acknowledging morality either. As such ideas like this are foreign to them, because everything that is not exactly their dogma is foreign.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts, as to whether this could work in debate or whether it is too difficult to explain? I understand it, but only as an argument and only because I have been consistently arguing with Evolutionists about a variety of truths they do not recognize. If you have not heard it before, and you are just reading it on a page, you may not grasp it.

I think the thing is that Evolution wants to claim that it has the integrity to control what is evolved and what isn't, when in reality, it is only the faith - the Christian faith - that puts in the hard yards of preparing the heart, mind and soul for the change that is coming, the Heavenly change. Se la vie! I shall let you comment.

 

[theFijian]

New information is slower, than old information is forceful.

In other words, if a new train leaves the station at A, it will still be derailed by an old train headed for B since the newness of train A does not change the schedule for train B automatically. (And train B has already left the station.)

I said it was hard. In other words, if you know to do something differently, you are still going to have to break your old habits to succeed and in the case of information those habits are going to get harder before they get easier. So in the natural course of events, nothing is going to change its type (aka evolve) in any hurry, because it has to accomodate too much old information to really change anything.

In Christian parlance, this is what we call being predestined. We cannot change our nature, so when we encounter Christ, Christ takes over because He was around before us and will be around after us. Christ has much more force being of old (as it says in the Psalms) than we have "new" strength in sin. The only way to combat this is to rebel constantly, like Judas.

A creature that wants to adopt a new type, is going to have to find speed radically in order to combat the problem of the old information it started with. This is not just a small problem, it is a huge problem. Not only is the new information unknown, because it is unknown it is slower than the forcefulness of the old information which is able to wipe it out.

This leads to what I pointed out to Evolutionists when I said "Mutations are systematically conformed to an old type" (paraphrase). Because every time old information encounters new information and takes over (every time you return to an old habit), the new information becomes less new, less capable. As Christians we understand that the way around this is to put faith in the old information ahead of time, but this has nothing to do with Evolution - Evolution only gets in the way of this.

The thing is I am still not sure if I am explaining this properly, about new information having to escape old information in order to bring about a change. Moreover, for evolution to work, this has to happen not once, but thousands if not millions of times and the whole time it does not happen, things go in the other direction. I think that is what the Evolution camp is continuing to miss actually: that things can go backwards if they are not going forwards. Ever since WWII they have been in a backward slide, not acknowleding a telos but not acknowledging morality either. As such ideas like this are foreign to them, because everything that is not exactly their dogma is foreign.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts, as to whether this could work in debate or whether it is too difficult to explain? I understand it, but only as an argument and only because I have been consistently arguing with Evolutionists about a variety of truths they do not recognize. If you have not heard it before, and you are just reading it on a page, you may not grasp it.

I think the thing is that Evolution wants to claim that it has the integrity to control what is evolved and what isn't, when in reality, it is only the faith - the Christian faith - that puts in the hard yards of preparing the heart, mind and soul for the change that is coming, the Heavenly change. Se la vie! I shall let you comment.

So, what's your basis for saying new information is slow and old information is fast? Why does new information have to escape old information?

What if train A and train B are on different tracks? Or travelling in different directions? What if one has a buffet car?

I'm not sure that you have a handle on what evolution actually is if you think this refutes it in some way.

 

[Gottservant]

It's a fundamental principle.

Just saying you're "evolved now" isn't going to help you escape sin.

You are glutted with old information, just passing on your genes isn't going to change anything.

 

[theFijian]

It's a fundamental principle.

Just saying you're evolved now isn't going to help you escape sin.

You are glutted with old information, just passing on your genes isn't going to change anything.

Who thinks that being evolved helps you escape sin? Why would anyone think that passing on your genes is gong to change anyone's sinful nature?

This is just a bizarre straw man argument.

 

[Gottservant]

There is nothing wrong with a straw man dialogue, it is a valid form of dialectical reasoning.

I used the term sin to refer to the Christian view.

We begin sinners, and anything like evolution that comes along must start from there.

 

[kellhus]

and anything like evolution that comes along must start from there.

This sentence makes no sense at all. Sin and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One is an ecological force. The other is religious doctrine.

 

[theFijian]

There is nothing wrong with a straw man dialogue, it is a valid form of dialectical reasoning.

Dialectical reasoning requires logical arguments, not logical falacies such as your strawmwn.

I used the term sin to refer to the Christian view.

Christian view of what exactly? I still have no idea about what you think you're actualy saying.

We begin sinners, and anything like evolution that comes along must start from there.

This is so vague as to be almost meaningless. What 'we' are you referring to? Who thinks evolution came after sin? In the OP you spent an awful lot of time trying to explain yourself but we're still no closer to what you actually mean.

 

[Papias]

Gottservant, you are an inspiration to me in dealing with your struggles. I hope to you enjoy CF and gain from it in your walk of faith. Though we nearly always disagree, that's OK.

I'm sorry that I tend to stay away from your threads. Since you mentioned that you are in a mental institution, I take your struggles into consideration by giving you latitude in posts - but this means I generally don't post on your threads, because that would mean constantly disagreeing with you.

Papias
P.S. Gottservant, if I've misremembered anything from previous posts, please correct me, I'll apologize. http://www.christianforums.com/t7745943-3/#post63084367

 

[Gottservant]

Except that sin preceeded evolution and evolution attempts to describe creation as if it is not there.

This sentence makes no sense at all. Sin and evolution have absolutely nothing to do with each other. One is an ecological force. The other is religious doctrine.

honestly, you are not helping much.

the issue is DOES NEW INFORMATION VAULT OLD INFORMATION WITH ENOUGH FORCE TO CREATE EVOLUTION

the answer is no

 

[Gottservant]

Dialectical reasoning requires logical arguments, not logical falacies such as your strawmwn.
Christian view of what exactly? I still have no idea about what you think you're actualy saying.


This is so vague as to be almost meaningless. What 'we' are you referring to? Who thinks evolution came after sin? In the OP you spent an awful lot of time trying to explain yourself but we're still no closer to what you actually mean.

You know what forget it, you can go.

Anyone who complains about my posts without quoting them, is wasting everyone's time.

 

[theFijian]

You know what forget it, you can go.

Anyone who complains about my posts without quoting them, is wasting everyone's time.

Except I did quote your post, I answered your points in context. You've asserted claims without evidence and fallacious reasoning. Maybe deal with the questions raised. Or don't bother posting if you can't deal with any issues pointed out.

 

[Gottservant]

So, what's your basis for saying new information is slow and old information is fast? Why does new information have to escape old information?

What if train A and train B are on different tracks? Or travelling in different directions? What if one has a buffet car?

I'm not sure that you have a handle on what evolution actually is if you think this refutes it in some way.

This is just an objection that suggests nothing alternative, in context.

Who thinks that being evolved helps you escape sin? Why would anyone think that passing on your genes is gong to change anyone's sinful nature?

This is just a bizarre straw man argument.

This is just another objection, this time sliding off onto a tangent about whether strawmen arguments were valid and no thanks for relating the topic to Christianity.

Dialectical reasoning requires logical arguments, not logical falacies such as your strawmwn.

Christian view of what exactly? I still have no idea about what you think you're actualy saying.

What 'we' are you referring to? Who thinks evolution came after sin? In the OP you spent an awful lot of time trying to explain yourself but we're still no closer to what you actually mean.

This time you attack my reply to yours out of context of the thread, again with an objection, this time, out of context and complaining that you don't understand.

But you don't say what you don't understand, you don't offer an alternative and you speak as though you expect the conversation to stop with you. Utterly unhelpful. I am using you for an example of what to avoid, for others that want to contribute to the topic at hand.

Strawmen are valid arguments, by the way, because if they were not, saying something is a strawman argument would not be valid either, because it is a strawman. I wonder if you can see that.

 

[theFijian]

I've simply asked how you can demonstrate that new information is fast and old information is slow, or whichever way round it is. When you've done that people can start taking your argument seriously. If you want people to post alternatives then there has to actually be a problem which needs to be addressed. You're presenting a solution to a problem which doesn't exist.

 

[Gottservant]

Common sense tells you that new information is slow, no one gets an idea overnight.

Old information being forceful is as common knowledge as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

Closer examination of the world around you reveals that both these things are true, all the time. Babies take a year to begin to speak and when they do speak they end up sounding just like their parents; puppies take years to join the pack and when they do they end up hunting just like their parents; hatchlings take months to leave the nest and when they do they end up flying just like their parents. I could go on and on.

As to presenting a solution to a problem that doesn't exist, the problem quite simply is the cornerstone of Evolution: transitional lifeforms. I think what you will find is that the evidence doesn't exist.

 

[theFijian]

Common sense tells you that new information is slow, no one gets an idea overnight.

Loads of people do, it's called a Eureka moment.

Old information being forceful is as common knowledge as "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

My mother-in-law at the age of 70 is now a whizz on the iPad and new laptop after being a complete technophobe. Looks like common-sense aint that much use in science.

Closer examination of the world around you reveals that both these things are true, all the time. Babies take a year to begin to speak and when they do speak they end up sounding just like their parents; puppies take years to join the pack and when they do they end up hunting just like their parents; hatchlings take months to leave the nest and when they do they end up flying just like their parents. I could go on and on.

My mates dad is Italian, he speaks nothing like his dad who has a heavy italian accent, also my mate can't speak italian, therefore old information is not mroe forceful. Friday I bought an newspaper and threw Thursday's paper in the bin, therefore new information is actually more forceful. On the news channels they report information on what's been happening recently (ie. new information) not stuff that's happened 6 weeks ago (ie. old information), therefore new information is actually more forceful. I can remember what I had for breakfast today but not what I had for breakfast 291 days ago, therefore new information is actually more forceful.

 

[Assyrian]

Simple experiment, pick three paragraphs of equal length, one from today's newspaper, one from last month's, and one from Caesar's Gallic Wars. Send them in three different e-mails and see how long they take to arrive, rinse and repeat until you have enough samples to be statistically significant.

Or go onto Internet Archive and find books to download of the same file size but different ages. You can't use download times because they could be on differnet servers, Download them to your computer and see how long they take to copy from one disk to another or to a memory stick. It should be easy to see if the new information is slower than the old.

 

[Gottservant]

Loads of people do, it's called a Eureka moment.

That's disingenuous. If there was no build up, the idea would be worthless.

My mother-in-law at the age of 70 is now a whizz on the iPad and new laptop after being a complete technophobe. Looks like common-sense aint that much use in science.

I never said old information cannot assimilate new information. Is your mother-in-law now a man, with huge biceps and a job as a presidential candidate? No? Then the new information hasn't changed her by evolution's standards. That's the discussion here.

When I used the example of teaching an old dog new tricks I was not referring to 70 year olds moving data around. Not only is that hardly a new trick - 70 year olds frequently exchange ideas in conversation actually - but human beings were originally designed to live 800 years old, so 70 is nothing.

My mates dad is Italian, he speaks nothing like his dad who has a heavy italian accent, also my mate can't speak italian, therefore old information is not mroe forceful. Friday I bought an newspaper and threw Thursday's paper in the bin, therefore new information is actually more forceful. On the news channels they report information on what's been happening recently (ie. new information) not stuff that's happened 6 weeks ago (ie. old information), therefore new information is actually more forceful. I can remember what I had for breakfast today but not what I had for breakfast 291 days ago, therefore new information is actually more forceful.

Does your mate use words? Ok, nothing new here. Is the next paper still a paper? Ok, nothing new here. Are you going to remember what you had for breakfast 291 days from now? No? Ok, nothing new here.

What you are doing is making up examples that exchange one value for another and calling that a radical reinterpretation of new information. What I am talking about is the fact that no matter how new the information, it doesn't reinvent the structure of the old information it encounters.

Why you are intent on fighting a very simple observation is beyond me.

 

[Gottservant]

Simple experiment, pick three paragraphs of equal length, one from today's newspaper, one from last month's, and one from Caesar's Gallic Wars. Send them in three different e-mails and see how long they take to arrive, rinse and repeat until you have enough samples to be statistically significant.

Or go onto Internet Archive and find books to download of the same file size but different ages. You can't use download times because they could be on differnet servers, Download them to your computer and see how long they take to copy from one disk to another or to a memory stick. It should be easy to see if the new information is slower than the old.

Equal length is not the same as equal meaning. But you make my point, old information makes the same relative statement as new information in less time and predates the new information. Which is the more authoritative as a sample of the age in which it originates? Clearly the older information. It doesn't matter that the new information is better, it still has to be assimilated.

 

[Assyrian]

Equal length is not the same as equal meaning. But you make my point, old information makes the same relative statement as new information in less time and predates the new information. Which is the more authoritative as a sample of the age in which it originates? Clearly the older information. It doesn't matter that the new information is better, it still has to be assimilated.

If you cannot quantify the amount of information being transferred then you cannot compare the speed old information is transferred at to the speed of new information. Why would a list of daily temperature measurements from the 1850s be any more authoritative or make the same relative statement as new information in less time than temperature measurements from the same weather station the 1950s? What difference does it make that temperature records from the 1850s predate records from the 1950s? Of course it does, but it makes no difference to the speed you can transfer the data. How is Caesar's Gallic Wars more authoritative than The Civil War Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant or We Were Soldiers… by Lt. Gen. Harold Moore?

 

[kellhus]

I is Caesar's Gallic Wars more authoritative than The Civil War Memoirs of Ulysses S. Grant or We Were Soldiers… by Lt. Gen. Harold Moore?

Well. Yes. Have you ever read Gallic Wars? It's awesomesauce. My favorite is the part where some conquered chieftain (forget who) tries to escape and Caesar has him run down like a pig and speared to death while he shouts that he's a free man and a friend of the Roman Senate. Or the part where they are storming the beaches of England and finally an eagle bearer gives a brief pep talk and charges all on his own, dragging the legion along with him.