Evolutionists: How did legs evolve?

[Right Divider]

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

The don't. They mess with the information that was already there.

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.

No, mutation does not create information. That's silly and unscientific.

Something that does not exist cannot evolve. In your world-view... chemicals just magically come alive. That's a fairy tale.

 

[chair]

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.

Don't do much baking, do you?

 

[Stripe]

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

Suit yourself. :idunno:

Let's see:

Oh, you're interested now?

Go back and read what I posted. :up:

You haven't presented any definition of information.

Sure, I have.

that could generate a measure of the stuff.

Measurement techniques would be qualitative, not quantitative, for what I define as information.

You can measure information if you use the definition you implied.

so your claims can hold no water.

:darwinsm:

Whatever helps you sleep.

How do you measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

Don't know.

Darwinists are always demanding that definitions be measurement techniques.

 

[gcthomas]

The don't. They mess with the information that was already there.


No, mutation does not create information. That's silly and unscientific.

Something that does not exist cannot evolve. In your world-view... chemicals just magically come alive. That's a fairy tale.

Science says mutations can change and create information, so your objection is to the scientific view. What you are after is a less scientific view that matches your faith requirements. That's all fine, but don't pretend it's science.

 

[Stripe]

Don't do much baking, do you?

I think that's the nicest thing anyone has ever said about me.

 

[Stripe]

Science ays mutations can change and create information.

Nope. The theory of evolution implies such.

Evolution isn't science; it's just a theory.

So your objection is to the scientific view.

Nope.

Our objection is to evolution.

Darwinists want everything to be evolution so it can be protected from scrutiny.

 

[Right Divider]

Science days mutations can change and create information, so your objection is to the scientific view.

Change: Yes.
Create: No.
Damage: Yes.

What you are after is a less scientific view that matches your faith requirements. That's all fine, but don't pretend it's science.

That's funny stuff, right there.

You're the one that thinks that chemicals just magically come to life. Talk about unscientific!

 

[Stripe]

Change: Yes.
Create: No.
Damage: Yes.

Change necessitates damage.

 

[Jonahdog]

Nope. The theory of evolution implies such.

Evolution isn't science; it's just a theory.

Nope.

Our objection is to evolution.

Darwinists want everything to be evolution so it can be protected from scrutiny.

Yep, evolution is a theory. And nope, evolution does not need to be protected from scrutiny. Let all those creation scientists have at it. Find that chemical or physical barrier to real change. No guts no glory.

Yet question the accuracy of the Bible and its banishment.

Spectacular lack of intellectual curiosity and courage on the part of religious fundamentalists.

 

[ThisIsMyUserName]

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

Ink is neither.
Line/letter could be data, could also be info, or nothing.

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.

Hey, I don't mind using various different definitions where it's suitable.
IMO the easiest way to distinguish info in general is when you have a clear intent to convey a message.

The problem with the entire DNA discussion (just look at the rest of the thread) is that the definition and meaning of 'information' is shifted all over the place by YECs. Hence my comment.

 

[Stripe]

The problem with the entire DNA discussion (just look at the rest of the thread) is that the definition and meaning of 'information' is shifted all over the place by YECs. Hence my comment.

Nope.

I've provided a definition. That's the only one on the table so far.

 

[gcthomas]

Nope.

I've provided a definition. That's the only one on the table so far.

Without being able to measure it your assertions that mutations decrease it are all rather baseless. I know a vague and undefined term suits your aims at obfuscation, but you have pretensions to be scientific.

Other information measures presented allow measurement, such as Shannon's information entropy, but you could go for Kullback–Leibler's information divergence, or, derived from this, the mutual information measure. WHatever: measures are available and your assertions do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, as I showed earlier with the Shannon entropy (which is particularly useful for discrete data, like DNA).

So, how do you scientifically measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

 

[Stripe]

Without being able to measure it your assertions that mutations decrease it are all rather baseless.

Who said it can't be measured? :idunno:

And an item doesn't need to be measurable for a statement about it to be shown true.

Your objections are nonsense.

I know a vague and undefined term suits your aims at obfuscation, but you have pretensions to be scientific.

:darwinsm:

Other information [definitions] presented allow measurement, such as Shannon's information entropy, but you could go for Kullback–Leibler's information divergence, or, derived from this, the mutual information measure.

I know.

However, they limit the usefulness of the word information with their definitions.

Your assertions do not stand up to scientific scrutiny, as I showed earlier with the Shannon entropy (which is particularly useful for discrete data, like DNA).

You've shown exactly nothing.

 

[gcthomas]

So, how do you scientifically measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

Who said it can't be measured? :idunno:

OK, so how do you scientifically measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

And an item doesn't need to be measurable for a statement about it to be shown true.

So are you saying it can't be measured now?!

You are wriggling hard — why don't you just answer simple questions about your assertions? Your refusal to elaborate on unsubstantiated claims is the reason I assume that you have no answers. Simples.

 

[6days]

Ink is neither.
Line/letter could be data, could also be info, or nothing.

Ink is not a code...although intelligence can use ink to create a code. Codes that transmit information requiring to be transcribed and acted upon ALWAYS have a code maker.

 

[gcthomas]

Ink is not a code...although intelligence can use ink to create a code. Codes that transmit information requiring to be transcribed and acted upon ALWAYS have a code maker.

DNA 'code' isn't the sort of code that needs a code maker, since no codebook is used to transcribe it. The transcription of DNA into RNA is simple chemistry, and unlike every human code, there is no arbitrariness in the transcriptions.

These sorts of codes, that depend on chemistry rather than a codebook, DON'T need a code maker to have created the codebook.

(An aside: the presence of ink in my pen is information, since it informs me of whether I need to refill it or not. It represents exactly one 'bit' of information, corresponding to the answer to exactly one question.)

 

[6days]

Without being able to measure it your assertions that mutations decrease it are all rather baseless.......as I showed earlier with the Shannon entropy (which is particularly useful for discrete data, like DNA).

I didn't see your argument for Shannon, but surely you don't think Shannon is useful in biology? If you start adding random letters into a textbook, you don't end up with more useful information.


As to measuring useful info, this has been answered, and geneticists have various answers. We can look at individual mutations which generally are all considered to nearly neutral, or slightly deleterious.... they destroy pre-existing info. Or, we can look at how diversity is lost within populations... Many articles, even those from the evolutionary belief system will say something like "In all populations, genetic drift occurs constantly—species gradually lose genetic variation".https://phys.org/news/2015-04-genetic-variation-necessity.html

How do they measure (different researchers have different answers)... why aren't you concerned?

 

[gcthomas]

[MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION], it is interesting that you assert that virtually all mutations are deleterious, then present a wrote about genetic drift. Your references also don't refer to loss of information, so I don't know where you got that idea.

The paper says this; "We have known for some time that genetic variation is an absolute necessity in order for species to be able to thrive." Where do got think this variation in populations comes from if it isn't mutations?

 

[Stripe]

OK, so how do you scientifically measure 'capacity to produce instructions'?

This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, right?

So are you saying it can't be measured now?!

:sigh:

 

[gcthomas]

This whole reading thing is a bit beyond you, right?

:sigh:

I can only read what is written, Stripey. You have a track record of lying about answering in some unspecified past post, so that dishonesty won't work. When you present a way to measure information based on your woolly description, then we will have something to discuss here. But I won't hold my breadth given your modus operandus.