The Lie of Evolution

[Dawnhammer]

Copying a file creates no new information.

Yes, unfortunately DNA copying is not without mistakes so different sequence of nucleotides is created thus creating a mutation.

Exactly what is so hard to understand in this?

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Yes, unfortunately DNA copying is not without mistakes so different sequence of nucleotides is created thus creating a mutation.

Exactly what is so hard to understand in this?

I don't think you've done your homework yet.

 

[sfs]

ou should do some research on information theory. Copying a file creates no new information. Just a copy. But you'll learn that when you study.

You might want to reconsider your approach, since your knowledge of the subject does not back up your condescension. Copying a file does, in fact, create new information: the information that there are now two copies. If you change various bits in one of the copies, you have now created additional information -- something that happens every time DNA is duplicated and subsequently mutates.

 

[sfs]

That's the 'out of africa' idea, which is not a proven fact, the ages are also assumptions.
The 'out of ararat' (or babel) idea i personally like better, because it also fits with the table of nations, which is considered authoritative in ethnology.

On the other hand, the out of Africa idea has the advantage that it is consistent with a wide range of genetic and paleontological data, while the out of Ararat idea is contradicted by both kinds of data. So yes, they're both ideas, but one of them appears to be right and the other wrong.

 

[sfs]

As for the original question, I'd have to quit my job if I failed to take evolution seriously, since much of what I do only makes sense if evolution is true.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

As for the original question, I'd have to quit my job if I failed to take evolution seriously, since much of what I do only makes sense if evolution is true.

So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

You might want to reconsider your approach, since your knowledge of the subject does not back up your condescension. Copying a file does, in fact, create new information: the information that there are now two copies. If you change various bits in one of the copies, you have now created additional information -- something that happens every time DNA is duplicated and subsequently mutates.

If this is the extent of the typical evolutionist's thinking, I can understand why they believe what they do.

 

[Speedwell]

So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?

I believe he is saying that he must take evolution seriously because that is where science leads, and he could not follow science without it.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

I believe he is saying that he must take evolution seriously because that is where science leads, and he could not follow science without it.

Oh. 'Cause I was hearing "I've got to believe in evolution else I wouldn't have a job and my life's work would be meaningless".

 

[Audacious]

He observed variation within a kind, which is something nobody disputes.

Please give me a solid and exact definition of a "kind". Every time I prove that evolution happens someone moves the goalposts and says kinds didn't change.

It's biology.Nonsense.
Without biology we wouldn't have that.
But in fact vaccination was discovered by accident and has nothing to do with evolution.You keep saying this everywhere, every time, but you ought to know that their consensus is naturalistic and so are their models regarding the origins of things.

Many vaccines are developed using evolutionary theory, dude. It's also why we need to get a new flu shot every year. Here is a fun page for you to read, if you're interested: Viruses and Evolution | History of Vaccines

Biology is studying and discovering how living nature works.Total nonsense.

Part of how living nature works is by evolving.

There are many many more theories that can actually be tested, unlike evolution.Again, that's just nonsense.

I hate to break it to you, but... speciation has been observed already, dude. Speciation in real time

Maybe you mean genetics, which is the actual real science regarding how things work.

Genetics is the study of genes and their structures (IE DNA). It's pretty relevant to evolution.

Where do you get your beliefs anyway?
Who told you this bunk?

I like to learn things and paid attention in high school science classes. Neil Shubin's Your Inner Fish was a pretty great read, too. And Jerry A. Coyne's Why Evolution Is True.

 

[Dawnhammer]

I don't think you've done your homework yet.

Science advice from a Creationist - that’s like definition of irony. Thanks for laughs I guess.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Science advice from a Creationist - that’s like definition of irony. Thanks for laughs I guess.

Any time. Until I read the recent posts from you Evolutionists, I hadn't realized how much you needed a bit of a science lesson.

 

[sfs]

So one might say you have a financial interest in supporting the theory of evolution, irrespective of where the science may lead?

No, because I'd probably make more money doing something else. Would it be fair to say that you've just impugned my motives, irrespective of you knowing anything about them?

 

[sfs]

If this is the extent of the typical evolutionist's thinking, I can understand why they believe what they do.

<Blink> Look, you made the analogy, so the extent of the thinking involved is your issue, not mine. The fact is, even given the limited extent involved, your statement was simply wrong.

 

[sfs]

I believe he is saying that he must take evolution seriously because that is where science leads, and he could not follow science without it.

Exactly.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh. 'Cause I was hearing "I've got to believe in evolution else I wouldn't have a job and my life's work would be meaningless".

Yes--it reminds me of the creationist fantasy that shadowy satanic forces are paying scientists to pretend to believe in evolution.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Yes--it reminds me of the creationist fantasy that shadowy satanic forces are paying scientists to pretend to believe in evolution.

I guess they don't know about Hanlon's razor.

 

[sfs]

I guess they don't know about Hanlon's razor.

Do you have anything substantive to contribute about evolution? So far the only statement you've made with much content was wrong.

 

[Circumcised_Heart]

Do you have anything substantive to contribute about evolution? So far the only statement you've made with much content was wrong.

Actually, you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The statement was right, and you've been unable to refute it other than to insist that it's wrong.

So I don't see a point in progressing the debate. But feel free to introduce your reasoning as to why you believe saying the same thing twice adds more information than the original, and stating thrice adds even more, and so on, and we can continue.

If the above were true, mankind could become more and more knowledgeable simply by printing more copies of the same encyclopedia.

 

[sfs]

Actually, you saying it's wrong doesn't make it wrong. The statement was right, and you've been unable to refute it other than to insist that it's wrong.

How many bits does it take to contain the information in a file? How many bits does it take to contain the information in two files? You can use a specific case, or offer a general solution. Now, how many bits does it take to contain the information in two files, one of which is a copy of the other but with some changes?

In case you are unclear on the topic, the second case requires more bits than the first, and the third case more bits still. Since the information is measured in bits, that means your statement was wrong.

And to repeat my main question: do you have anything substantive to say about evolution? Computer files are not evolution and people saying things is not evolution. You've felt quite free to denigrate scientists. Could you please back up your scorn with some data?