Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

This definition is not a scientific definition you claimed to rely on when you said science proved that information can only be increased by intelligent agents.

Your comprehension skills are terrible.

I NEVER claimed "that information can only be increased by intelligent agents". I said that information only comes from intelligence.

Since you cannot even repeat what people ACTUALLY say, your integrity on other matters is high questionable.

 

[Silent Hunter]

I know what "fake news" is, what is "fake knowledge"?

You say, "DNA is highly complex information", then proceed to cite links stating DNA as a highly evolved data storage device. How confused ARE you?

Information contains data. It's not hard to understand.

According to your links, DNA is a "data storage device" and "information" and "data" are not technically the same thing in that "information" is the interpretation of "data".

Is DNA, data or information? If DNA is data, how is it processed. If DNA is information, how is it measured? Give it a go. Prove you're not a moron.

I said that information only comes from intelligence.

You've been shown this is not true but like every creationist I've ever encountered you CONTINUE to repeat the same lies as if you were never corrected.

 

[gcthomas]

Your comprehension skills are terrible.

I NEVER claimed "that information can only be increased by intelligent agents". I said that information only comes from intelligence.

Since you cannot even repeat what people ACTUALLY say, your integrity on other matters is high questionable.

... Says the man who gives one definition of information when asked but relies on another when claiming science says that the information can't be increased.

Your approach is not honest.

 

[Stripe]

Barbarian observes: Hurricanes have a complex fractal structure and a great deal of information. The remains of a burned house has a great deal of information that tells a perceptive person a great deal about the fire and it's causes.C'mon Stipe. You aren't that dumb. Fire investigation is a science that makes it possible to do arson investigations. A burned house leaves all sorts of information that makes it possible to learn what caused the fire, how it proceded, whether or not an accellerant was used, and so on. Who designs a burned house, Stipe?Did you really not know that?All of which is information. This is how meteorologists can predict where storms will go, how much rain will fall, and how strong winds are likely to get. Who designs the storms, Stipe?And it would have different information. Who designs hurricanes, Stipe?Nope. You have nothing. Everyone knows, Stipe.So things that we can measure and record, like DNA sequences aren't information? You just crawled out on a branch, and then sawed it off.Since you've now concluded that DNA sequences aren't information, is there anything in the universe that you do think is information?

Data, not information.

We know you hate a rational discussion, so you ignore definitions and just make things up as you go.

 

[Stripe]

I think this could be a useful example. But we shouldn't randomly change letters. What we should randomly change is the actual instructions: how much of each ingredient, which ingredients, oven temperature and so on.

Nope. That would be specified changes, not random mutations.

DNA doesn't have instructions with specific switches or meters that are the only things changed; mutations can arise throughout it.

If we did that, we would have a system to evolve better cakes.

Nope. You'd have a controlled system that would generate the most popular recipe. The cakes would just stay cakes. You'd never get a cookie.

This is no analogy for evolution, but is for design.

Once random mutations were interested, all you'd get would be degradation.

 

[Stripe]

Could one of the creationists here explain how the "kinds" concept helps in your belief system? After all, you still have Evolution, just with a different mechanism. How does that help?

Darwinists want everything to be evolution.

There is no mechanism and there is no evolution. God created distinct kinds and they have adapted to new environments.

 

[Stripe]

You've spent years shifting between definitions of information.

Nope.

I've spent years trying to get Darwinists to stick to one or the other.

How are you defining information?

The same way I defined it earlier in this thread.

It takes people to infer meaning from information, but that isn't what we are talking about, is it?

Information must have meaning or else it's not information.

However, information and meaning are separate concepts.

Tell you what, look at my longer post where I show how mutations can create information, and you try to critique it?

Already have.

 

[Stripe]

Why would you think that the lungfish genome has less information than a human's?

Try to respond to what I said, not what you imagine I think.

 

[Stripe]

That's how people used to design things.

Nope.

The design technique is that a man builds a car. Nothing involving random mutations or natural selection. Then when the car is built, he puts it in a wind tunnel and changes the foil configurations, perhaps randomly. He does this because he is seeking the optimal wind resistance readings.

The car was designed and the wind tunnel testing involves intent.

None of this is analogous to evolution. It is all design.

 

[Stripe]

It looks like my post defining information got lost somehow. :noid:

Information: Data designed to allow an agent to build according to its instructions.

 

[chair]

Nope. That would be specified changes, not random mutations.

DNA doesn't have instructions with specific switches or meters that are the only things changed; mutations can arise throughout it.



Nope. You'd have a controlled system that would generate the most popular recipe. The cakes would just stay cakes. You'd never get a cookie.

This is no analogy for evolution, but is for design.

Once random mutations were interested, all you'd get would be degradation.

Of course- as soon as a human is involved in the selection- you'd claim that it was no longer a good analogy. Note: it was your analogy, not mine. So maybe you should retract it.

And you could get a cookie- why not? Maybe through a cupcake stage.

Getting back to natural selection for a minute:

Let's take an example- sheep. let's look at two possibilities:
1. The shepherd eats the short haired sheep, leaving the longer haired ones alive to breed. Over time the herd has longer hair.
2. Cold weather kills the short haired sheep, leaving the longer haired ones alive to breed. Over time the herd has longer hair.

Is there a real difference between the two? (yes,yes- I know you will cry "microevolution"- but let's look just at the selection process.)

 

[chair]

... God created distinct kinds and they have adapted to new environments.

This is evolution. Is is not the current scientific theory called "evolution". But it is evolution.

 

[Stripe]

Of course- as soon as a human is involved in the selection- you'd claim that it was no longer a good analogy.

Of course.

The people in your example are making specific changes with intent. Neither of those exist in evolution.

Note: it was your analogy, not mine. So maybe you should retract it.

Then stick with how I presented it. :up:

And you could get a cookie- why not? Maybe through a cupcake stage.

Sticking to my example, random changes would produce a bad cake long before a cookie would emerge.

Getting back to natural selection for a minute:Let's take an example- sheep. let's look at two possibilities:1. The shepherd eats the short haired sheep, leaving the longer haired ones alive to breed. Over time the herd has longer hair.2. Cold weather kills the short haired sheep, leaving the longer haired ones alive to breed. Over time the herd has longer hair.Is there a real difference between the two? (yes,yes- I know you will cry "microevolution"- but let's look just at the selection process.)

There is possibly a difference. Organisms respond to their environment with no evolution at play.

However, the bigger issue is the one of intent. In your reworking of my baking analogy, you had the chef mess with specific attributes of the recipe, which would translate to DNA manipulation by the shepherds.

 

[chair]

Of course.

The people in your example are making specific changes with intent. Neither of those exist in evolution.

Then stick with how I presented it. :up:

Sticking to my example, random changes would produce a bad cake long before a cookie would emerge.

Of course. But you don't have just one cake recipe. You have a million. The bad recipes woudl get thrown out, and the good ones will survive....

There is possibly a difference. Organisms respond to their environment with no evolution at play.
...

Can you define "respond to their environment" a little more precisely? If the response is over generations, then it is evolution. No matter what the mechanism.

 

[Stripe]

Of course. But you don't have just one cake recipe. You have a million. The bad recipes woudl get thrown out, and the good ones will survive....

The good ones will be cakes. Good cakes. Those that move more toward being a cookie will be bad cakes. Selection will eliminate those that you need to step toward a cookie.

Can you define "respond to their environment" a little more precisely? If the response is over generations, then it is evolution. No matter what the mechanism.

Nope. This is the game evolutionists play. They want everything to be evolution. Evolution is the idea that all things are descended from a universal common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. Organisms can adapt to their environment in just a few generations, even just one. This means adaptation sans evolution.

For example, lizards moved to a new environment underwent "rapid and large-scale evolutionary changes" in fewer than 36 years.

And before you play the source game that Darwinists love: Yes, that article says they "evolved."

That's what we disagree with. They clearly did not evolve. Thirty-six years is nowhere near enough time for random mutations and natural selection to produce what is seen. Hence it was adaptation sans evolution.

This sort of thing would be easy to confirm in a lab.

 

[chair]

Darwinists want everything to be evolution.

There is no mechanism and there is no evolution. God created distinct kinds and they have adapted to new environments.

You don't call it evolution, because that is a naughty word in your lexicon. But that is what it is.

 

[chair]

The good ones will be cakes. Good cakes. Those that move more toward being a cookie will be bad cakes. Selection will eliminate those that you need to step toward a cookie.

If the environment )i.e. the tasters) like cookies- then sure- we could get to cookies. Why not?

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

It looks like my post defining information got lost somehow. :noid:

Information: Data designed to allow an agent to build according to its instructions.

So wait a minute, do you now say that DNA isn't information ?????
I'm a bit confused.




also, it's nice that you consider "adaptation" to be a thing. I wonder do you reckon it's being driven by "natural selection" which favours those individuals better "suited for their environment"?

 

[JudgeRightly]

So wait a minute, do you now say that DNA isn't information ?????
I'm a bit confused.




also, it's nice that you consider "adaptation" to be a thing. I wonder do you reckon it's being driven by "natural selection" which favours those individuals better "suited for their environment"?

TIMUN, Question for you:

Is ink inside of a pen information? is it data?

What happens when you use that ink to draw a line? is it information then? data?

What about when you write a letter of the alphabet? is the ink itself information? data? Or is the letter itself information or data, and the ink just a way to show it?

 

[SUTG]

If the environment )i.e. the tasters) like cookies- then sure- we could get to cookies. Why not?

I don't think Stripe's thought experiment is going to lead where he wants it to.

It's pretty much analogous to artificial selection through breeding.