The Theory of Evolution

[Vangelovski]

LOL...as opposed to creationists who have irrefutable 'proof' of their position in the debate.

The burden of proof lies with those postulating the theory. When creationists start postulating theories of evolution, then we'll try to provide credible explanations backed by empirical evidence. Until then, its up to evolutionists to back up their claims.

[vicsinad]

How do you know that the "original soup" contained all the necessary information? Did you observe or have you been able to reproduce it? What information did it contain?

Here's how I know. People (not just evolutionists) have studied what humans are made up of. They have studied what bacteria has been made up of. Air. Water. Rocks. And guess what? All the same stuff -- elements on the periodic table.

Still, I didn't need to have observed the transition from one group of chemicals to know that evolution science is true the same way I don't need to observe how the Earth came to be to know that geological sciences are true.

Further, you want me to show how we have gone from molecule to man. The question is the problem, not the answer. For man is just molecules. No new information was added.

[vicsinad]

We described how dogs would get to wings. It doesn't need new information of the sort your suggestion. It just needs the same information to do something else.

The way you're using "information" is not necessary for evolution to be true.

[Vangelovski]

Here's how I know. People (not just evolutionists) have studied what humans are made up of. They have studied what bacteria has been made up of. Air. Water. Rocks. And guess what? All the same stuff -- elements on the periodic table.

Still, I didn't need to have observed the transition from one group of chemicals to know that evolution science is true the same way I don't need to observe how the Earth came to be to know that geological sciences are true.

Further, you want me to show how we have gone from molecule to man. The question is the problem, not the answer. For man is just molecules. No new information was added.

Are you now denying the need for genetic information? This is a new one.

[vicsinad]

Are you now denying the need for genetic information? This is a new one.

Where did I say that?

Genetic information is just chemicals. The stuff that leads to genetic information is just chemicals. Thus, no new information is created.

It's not my problem, as you alluded to earlier, you have trouble understanding basic sciences.

[Vangelovski]

Where did I say that?

Genetic information is just chemicals. The stuff that leads to genetic information is just chemicals. Thus, no new information is created.

It's not my problem, as you alluded to earlier, you have trouble understanding basic sciences.

Information is just chemicals? Is that what you said? Life does not lie in chemical ingredients, but with the organisational arrangement of the molecules.

At least we agree that no new information can be produced and hence evolution from a single cell molecule to the mind-boggling complexity of all living things is impossible. Your claim that all the necessary information already existed in the primordial soup is ridiculous - if it did, we would not need evolution to produce different living creatures, plants etc. Further, this claim is nothing more than fantasy - for a theory that claims to be scientific, it can't meet the most basic scientific standards - you can't observe this soup, you can't measure this soup and you cannot recreate this soup.

How quickly evolution crumbles. And I only touched the surface. Its a nice religion you hold dear Victor.

[vicsinad]

Information is just chemicals? Is that what you said?

At least we agree that no new information can be produced and hence evolution from a single cell molecule to the mind-boggling complexity of all living things is impossible. Your claim that all the necessary information already existed in the primordial soup is ridiculous - if it did, we would not need evolution to produce different living creatures, plants etc. Further, this claim is nothing more than fantasy - for a theory that claims to be scientific, it can't meet the most basic scientific standards - you can't observe this soup, you can't measure this soup and you cannot recreate this soup.

How quickly evolution crumbles. And I only touched the surface. Its a nice religion you hold dear Victor.

Your problem is with your ever-changing definition of information. And no, we don't agree...especially with your constantly changing definition of information.


Again. Everyone with basic knowledge will acknowledge that water is different than both Hydrogen and Oxygen.: it has different properties and can do different things. However, it's only made of H's and an O. Huh! How in the world is the new information (characteristics) made? Ahh...only then do we realize we need to understand what we mean by information. For water has the same information that H and O have. But it's different and does something different. So you can keep on jumping between definitions of information if you never want your question to be answered.

And that's the problem. You don't want the question to be answered. So you'll redefine it so it never is.

H2O is just H and O. It's the same for genes.

You can't understand basic chemistry, and thus you can't understand basic biology and evolution.

[vicsinad]

[QUOTE=Vangelovski;155606]Information is just chemicals? Is that what you said? Life does not lie in chemical ingredients, but with the organisational arrangement of the molecules.

[QUOTE]

Molecules are chemicals.

[Vangelovski]

Your problem is with your ever-changing definition of information. And no, we don't agree...especially with your constantly changing definition of information.


Again. Everyone with basic knowledge will acknowledge that water is different than both Hydrogen and Oxygen.: it has different properties and can do different things. However, it's only made of H's and an O. Huh! How in the world is the new information (characteristics) made? Ahh...only then do we realize we need to understand what we mean by information. For water has the same information that H and O have. But it's different and does something different. So you can keep on jumping between definitions of information if you never want your question to be answered.

And that's the problem. You don't want the question to be answered. So you'll redefine it so it never is.

H2O is just H and O. It's the same for genes.

You can't understand basic chemistry, and thus you can't understand basic biology and evolution.

I've never changed my definition of information. An honest evolutionist would admit that they don't know how new information could be produced but that one day they might. You have so much zeal for evolution that you can't accept supposed basic scientific principles that if a theory is unworkable, then you should either revise it or drop it.

You want us to believe that all living things evolved from one single cell molecule with no addition of any new information in between. That is the most ludicrous argument I have ever come across and one that I have yet to see an evolutionist make. Is this something you came up with yourself or is there a wider following of this "theory"? Even evolutionary zealots like Dawkins accepted that new information was needed for evolution and attempted to develop theories of how new information may have been produced, but you just claim that no new information is needed in the transition from molecule to dinosaur.

ajflakfjdlakjfaklfjds

Did anyone understand the above? No. Why? Because information isn't just chemicals. In the example above, the letters need to be conceived of in the first place by intelligence, a message needs to be formulated, again by intelligence and then the letters need to be arranged exactly, again, by intelligence. Chemicals can't do anything without information to direct them. Evolutionists can't say where this information came from in the first place or how new information is produced in addition to existing information to allow for evolution itself.

[Vangelovski]

Molecules are chemicals.

I know, that's why I used the terms interchangeably in that instance.

[Nikolaj]

Far out guys, I HAVE UNI WORK TO DO! #procrastination

Now i'm just going to end up reading everything in this thread and start posting my own opinions on things

[Philosopher]

In the book "Signature in the Cell" by Stephen C. Meyer, he states on page 347

Our uniform experience affirms that specified information-whether inscribed hieroglyphics, written in a book, encoded in a radio signal, or produced in a simulation experiment-always arises from an intelligent source, from a mind and not a strictly material process.

This is a reasonable statement. Contrast this to the idea that a mindless, unguided, and undirected natural processes produced information, and not just information, but highly sophisticated information far more advanced than any modern computer software program.

This signature in the cell is the signature of the Logos.

[Philosopher]

Here is some good information from an online article by Meyer:

For example, consider two sequences of characters:"Four score and seven years ago"

"nenen ytawoi jll sn mekhdx nnx"

Both of these sequences have an equal number of characters. Since both are composed of the same 26-letter English alphabet, the probability of producing each of those two sequences at random is identical. Therefore, both sequences have an equal amount of information as measured by Shannon's theory. Nevertheless, the first of these sequences performs a communication function, while the second does not.

When discussing information in a biological context, we must distinguish sequences of characters that are (a) merely improbable from (b) sequences that are improbable and also specifically arranged so as to perform a function. Following Francis Crick himself, I show that DNA-base sequences do not just possess "information" in the strictly mathematical sense of Shannon's theory. Instead, DNA contains information in the richer and more ordinary sense of "alternative sequences or arrangements of characters that produce a specific effect." DNA-base sequences convey assembly instructions. They perform functions in virtue of their specific arrangements. Thus, they do not possess mere "Shannon information," but instead "specified" or "functional information." Indeed, like the precisely arranged zeros and ones in a computer program, the chemical bases in DNA convey instructions in virtue of their "specificity."

http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/10/of_molecules_and_straw_men_a_r051601.html

[Constellation]

find it cool how you're creating topics I have degrees in.

Then can you please explain to us why your arguments thus far have been founding wanting?

[vicsinad]

I've never changed my definition of information.

Maybe because you never defined it clearly.

An honest evolutionist would admit that they don't know how new information could be produced but that one day they might

.

An honest evolutionist admits that they do know how new information, in the context of genes and phenotypes, is produced. They also admit, as I have, that they don't know precisely how the information we have in this world originated; but they also admit that that is not necessary to know in order to understand evolution.

You have so much zeal for evolution that you can't accept supposed basic scientific principles that if a theory is unworkable, then you should either revise it or drop it.

You're the one who admitted you didn't understand the articles I posted and needed a dumbing down. I dumbed it down the best I could and you still don't understand. Maybe you should spent some effort in schooling yourself?

You want us to believe that all living things evolved from one single cell molecule with no addition of any new information in between.

No. I want you to accept that all the same elements that have existed prior to life are all the same elements that exist with the origins of life.
Still, this hinges on your definition of new information. If, by new information, you really do mean a hand or a penis or a brain, I am telling you that it needs no different elements or chemicals than already existed prior to their development. It is about the organization, as you have alluded to, and the interactions of those elements that allows "new" information in the form of "different" genes. Yet, these genes do not contain anything new.

Even evolutionary zealots like Dawkins accepted that new information was needed for evolution and attempted to develop theories of how new information may have been produced, but you just claim that no new information is needed in the transition from molecule to dinosaur.

Again, you don't even know the definition of "information" that you or Dawkins are alluding to.

ajflakfjdlakjfaklfjds

Did anyone understand the above? No. Why? Because information isn't just chemicals.

In the example above, the letters need to be conceived of in the first place by intelligence,

Again, evolution is not concerned with how the letters came to be.

a message needs to be formulated, again by intelligence

Evolution is not driven by any purpose or meaning. A chemical message doesn't have to be formulated -- it just was formulated.

But to use your simplistic and unrelated example of random letters:

fadatrhaqhfar

I just pressed random keys on my computer. The beginnings of a so-called message are there...I recognize two thins: fad and far. Still, it doesn't mean anything because you're assuming that evolution has intentions. It doesn't.

and then the letters need to be arranged exactly, again, by intelligence.

No, they do not, not according to evolution. You're also ignoring the fact that letters (elements) have certain properties that will not cause them to act in ways outside the boundaries of their properties. Also, what you're arguing here is not the creation, but the arrangement and organization. The evidence exists for this in genetics and evolutionary processes, as you have acknowledged previously.

Chemicals can't do anything without information to direct them.

As I wrote above, each element has unique properties. These unique properties limit what an element will do and how it will interact with other elements. Chemists don't need to know why, or how, each element got its properties to understand chemistry. Because genetics really is just chemistry on the molecular level, evolutionists do not need to understand how each element got its properties to understand genes.

Evolutionists can't say where this information came from in the first place

Again, you're interchanging how you use the word information. Evolution does not need to, and has never claimed, they know the origins of elements.

or how new information is produced in addition to existing information to allow for evolution itself.

Again, how "new" information, in the sense of genes and phenotypes, has been explained.