Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[ThisIsMyUserName]

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?

How is any of this related to my post?
I was commenting on the definition that was used by Stripe.



To answer your loaded question: when we talk about DNA we talk about the structure, not the building blocks themselves. So we're all on the same page here.

 

[Stripe]

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

Nope.

Darwinists want everything to be evolution.

 

[Stripe]

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

Because the items would become bad cakes and not be selected long before they became cookies.

 

[Stripe]

I'm a bit confused.

That's not surprising.

 

[Stripe]

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

It was a response to your disapproval of the statement that random changes can never produce information. You've managed to steer the conversation well away from that.

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

And what new information arises from that?

 

[JudgeRightly]

How is any of this related to my post?

I'm using an analogy, could you answer my questions?

I was commenting on the definition that was used by Stripe.

I am aware of that, and I was trying to help you understand his position (and mine) better.

To answer your loaded question: when we talk about DNA we talk about the structure, not the building blocks themselves. So we're all on the same page here.

It's not a loaded question. I'm simply curious as to where you draw the line between a medium and information assigned to the medium.

 

[6days]

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.

3. A heat wave occurs and eliminates the entire population since selection has eliminated pre-existing genetic info for the short haired sheep.

 

[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.

Sorry. I assumed you'd understand the language.

'Intelligent agent' simply means 'something able to apply intelligence' to situations. I think you accusation of lack of integrity just shows your lack of comprehension. Again, that is my fault in using technical language.

 

[gcthomas]

Since my proof that mutations can both change and create information in a genome had not been challenged, I will assume no one will continue to assert that such a thing is impossible (apart from Stripe, who will troll the thread regardless).

Link to post: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5182886&viewfull=1#post5182886

So we have mutations providing genotypic variations that selection can act on to change the frequency of alleles in the gene pool. This has not been challenged.

Can any creationists come up with a reason why lots of small evolutionary changes cannot build up into a big change?

 

[SUTG]

It was a response to your disapproval of the statement that random changes can never produce information.

It was? I was looking for a proof of your statement that random changes can never produce information. It is a mathematical statement, requiring a mathematical proof - not your musings about cake recipes.

You've managed to steer the conversation well away from that.

Let's steer it back. You're up!

ABSTRACT: Random changes can never produce information. As proven by TOL Internet user Stripe.

 

[chair]

Because the items would become bad cakes and not be selected long before they became cookies.

You want to play the "missing link" game? From full size cake to cupcake to cupcake that didn't rise enough to...cookie?

 

[Stripe]

Since my proof that mutations can both change and create information in a genome had not been challenged, I will assume no one will continue to assert that such a thing is impossible.

:darwinsm:

Darwinists love asserting the truth of their religion and hate a challenge.

So we have mutations providing genotypic variations that selection can act on to change the frequency of alleles in the gene pool. This has not been challenged.

Of course it has.

Can any creationists come up with a reason why lots of small evolutionary changes cannot build up into a big change?

Many.

The main one is that random changes only ever degrade information.

 

[Stripe]

It was?

Yip. I made the assertion, you said: "Says you."

I wrote the analogy to show that I back up my assertions with reason.

I was looking for a proof of your statement that random changes can never produce information. It is a mathematical statement, requiring a mathematical proof - not your musings about cake recipes.

Maths?

Sure. Get an Excel spreadsheet, write in a recipe, build a function that will replace random letters and run it 1 billion times. From the trial, pick the best 1,000 offspring and mutate those. Repeat as many times as you like.

It's a more mathy way to run the same thought experiment, but there won't be a strict proof of my concept.

 

[Right Divider]

Sorry. I assumed you'd understand the language.

'Intelligent agent' simply means 'something able to apply intelligence' to situations. I think you accusation of lack of integrity just shows your lack of comprehension. Again, that is my fault in using technical language.

That you seem to think that chemicals can magically self-organize shows that your technical science skills are lacking.

 

[Stripe]

You want to play the "missing link" game? From full size cake to cupcake to cupcake that didn't rise enough to...cookie?

Sure.

A cupcake recipe is fairly similar to a cake recipe, just a smaller serving. It might be reasonable to think that a mutation at the right number would produce a cupcake.

A cookie recipe requires a whole set of new instructions for preparing the things to go into the oven. Those will never be produced.

 

[Stripe]

Link to post: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...-legs-evolve&p=5182886&viewfull=1#post5182886

This was answered at the time and ignored the preceding posts.

Variability is a sign that the genome has degraded.

Hey, whaddyaknow? There my definition is! I'm not going crazy.

Genetic information is the same as any other form of information: It is the capacity to produce instructions from which a separate entity can build.

Random changes to the instructions are always bad for information.

 

[gcthomas]

That you seem to think that chemicals can magically self-organize shows that your technical science skills are lacking.

We were talking about mutations in DNA increasing the information content, a fact which you have not yet tried to refute. Don't you remember?

 

[gcthomas]

This was answered at the time and ignored the preceding posts.

Lying for Jesus again. I hope he is in a forgiving mood when you meet. Only insults and assertions were offered.

Let's see:

Quote Originally Posted by Stripe View Post
Variability is a sign that the genome has degraded.

Hey, whaddyaknow? There my definition is! I'm not going crazy.

Genetic information is the same as any other form of information: It is the capacity to produce instructions from which a separate entity can build.

Random changes to the instructions are always bad for information.

Is that what you think a refutation is? Looks awfully like plain assertion to me, without dealing with any of the points raised.

Question: You haven't presented any definition of information that could generate a measure of the stuff, so your claims can hold no water. How do you measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

 

[Right Divider]

We were talking about mutations in DNA increasing the information content, a fact which you have not yet tried to refute. Don't you remember?

Information cannot increase where there is none.

You think that information just creates itself. That is incredibly unscientific.

 

[gcthomas]

Information cannot increase where there is none.

You think that information just creates itself. That is incredibly unscientific.

Your earlier argument was that mutations cannot cause information to increase — are you rowing back on that one? That would be sensible, well done.

And no, information doesn't create itself, that is for the mutations to do as I showed you earlier. If you are moving the discussion to abiogenesis, then you might want to start a new thread, as this one is clearly an evolution one.