Creationists

[cbirch2]

I would stray away from abstracting the idea of a code too much, everyone.

I would call DNA a code just like binary. Binary code seems like a strange concept to most people; they dont usually understand how 0's and 1's can construct the complex things you do on a computer. But these 0's and 1's arent abstract concepts: They're actually represented by the electrons, or lack thereof, inside the millions of capacitors of the memory/CPU of your computer. So everything that we think of as an abstract code is ultimately broken down into physical concepts.

Similarly, DNA is an abstract code derived from physical concepts. Groups of nucleotides, which are just rings of carbon atoms with some extras, are used as templates for the ultimate creation of proteins by enzymes. Genes arent abstract any more than a computer program is abstract.

Electrons in capacitors make up a single bit, a group of 8 bits make up a byte. Nucleotides in a DNA strand make up a single piece of information, you could call it a bit. And a group of 3 nucleotides made up a codon, just like how 8 bits make a byte.

These concepts are only abstract if you dont take them time to think about how the supposedly abstract concept translates into physical atoms and particles. I suspect YWC makes this mistake a lot.

By Mayo Clinic staff
Genetic testing involves examining your DNA, the chemical database that carries instructions for your body's functions. Genetic testing can reveal changes or alterations in your genes that may cause illness or disease.

Genetic testing - MayoClinic.com

I think these guys agree with what I am saying.

So I will ask again name one language,code,or a form of communication that came about naturally, absent of intelligence ?

The problem is your definition of intelligence.

Obviously, language and intelligence developed at the same time. Even animals are somewhat intelligent, and even animals have some form of communication.

You realize human language is not that complex, right? Vowels are just the sounds you can say with your resonators (throat, mouth, and diaphragm), consonants require the use of enunciators (teeth, lips, tongue, jaw). Is "A" really that complex of a sound. Language certainly evolved naturally, it was not passed down by god.

Besides, you cant just say "this code seems made by god so it is". Its just rings of carbon, remember?

 

[cbirch2]

No difference from the morse code.

Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".

Thats sort of a massive cop out.

Wrong,my point is no form of communicating or language and code could come through a natural means which shows we are a product of design not a natural process.

Yea thats just an opinion.

In realize we just have 26 sounds divided up into vowels and consonants based on what vocal instruments we use to say them. Language is a natural development.

 

[cbirch2]

You can believe as you wish.

No, thats not the end of the argument. Before you were talking about how if you make a statement, you have to prove it. Every person weve every seen with leprosy has this bacteria, we know its caused by this bacteria. If your going to claim something else then either prove it or stop talking about it.

Your side admits the disease can only be traced back to 3 or 4 thousand years before Christ where in the bible the disease shows up in genesis. What a coincedence and God said this disease would stay in a family line that was cursed with it.

Then in the book of leviticus God explains the disease in detail and tells the people how to deal with the disease and how to keep it from spreading to the innocent.

Because most record keeping goes back about that far, there werent very many comprehensive civilizations before that point. Of course your idiotic creation myth dates back to the time of ignorance, when coherent groups of people from different lands were all trying to figure out our origin.

Basically, religion relies on thinking a goat herder knew more than we do.

Your not addressing the factual argument, once again. Do people sin get leprosy? Were all bacteria and viruses created like this, randomly by god? I assume god create aids in the 70's too, right? 4000 years ago bacteria spread just like they do now.

 

[daws101]

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.



No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today. I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.


Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?


Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

After searching around and not very far I found that Crick absolutely believed in abiogenesis, he just thought that it would be a very rare event in the universe and once abiogenesis happened it would be seeded throughout the universe and life would survive, where it would. A hypothesis called panspermia. Crick also absolutely believed in evolution and had more disdain for christianity than probably any poster on this message board. The quote also cannot be confirmed as coming from him and has been attributed to over a dozen different scientists. Stop letting people deceive you and think for yourself.

So you are suggesting crick was lying ?

"To produce a really good biological theory one must try to see through the clutter produced by evolution to the basic mechanisms lying beneath them, realizing that they are likely to be overlaid by other, secondary mechanisms. What seems to physicists to be a hopelessly complicated process may have been what nature found simplest, because nature could only build on what was already there. "- Francis Crick

 

[cbirch2]

No difference from the morse code.

Well, to be fair you cant just compare it to any code and say "see goddidit".

Thats sort of a massive cop out.

No it's not. British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive to say the least.

Way to quote a statement that is now about 30 years old and has since been retracted

Basically hes saying he was overly pessimistic about the chances of life forming because things like ribozymes had not yet been discovered (which solves his original protein-RNA chicken-egg problem).

 

[cbirch2]

Watch the discovery channel and you will see i am right they won't teach much of this stuff in secular schools.

Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.

No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.

Moron. Do you say that because you did bad in school? They arent brainwashing our young just because your too stupid to understand.

What parts of school are right, and which parts are wrong? Is physics wrong? Maybe the value of avagodros number that was given to my by my chemistry teacher is a liberal lie. Lol. god damn.

 

[daws101]

Because schools are not corporations that make money off entertaining idiots.

No, schools have become a way to brainwash our young.

Moron. Do you say that because you did bad in school? They arent brainwashing our young just because your too stupid to understand.

What parts of school are right, and which parts are wrong? Is physics wrong? Maybe the value of avagodros number that was given to my by my chemistry teacher is a liberal lie. Lol. god damn.

I guess what ywc means is it was OK when when public schools were "brainwashing kids to be racist ,sexiest, homophobic god fearing Americans.
anything other than that is the work of Satan!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Two things.

1. Discovery channel is showing american chopper right now. Sorry but i preferred to take my history right after chemistry class, not right after the "sons of guns" marathon. Wow.

2. Islam and secularism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You are no better than the fundamentalist muslims.

Mohammed Yusuf (Boko Haram) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <<This man says that if the koran says the earth is not a sphere, that it is not a sphere. He also does not believe that rain is evaporated water, he believes god creates it in the sky.

Thinking god creates water in the sky and makes it rain is no different than thinking god gives someone the Mycobacterium that causes leprosy. It just shows that you dont understand biology like that man doesnt understand rain.

Well I have several different discovery channels,and I have watched shows that cover the universe and shows that show secularlist archaeologist digging for biblical ruins To verify .there is a lot evidence from bible that hey have confirmed then you know of.

King david has been confirmed and the walls of Jericho just to name a few.

"I have watched shows that cover the universe"

That must be why you say things like "a spinning rock exploded", and cant understand the concept of mass-energy equivalence and the significance of particle physics at the moment of the big bang. If you dont understand the 12 fermions, the 4 bosons that carry force, and the higgs boson as well, then you cant have an actual understanding of the big bang.

And you totally ignored the fact that you think god gives people leprosy, once again.

Are you trying to duck the questions I'm asking ? By trying to change the subject. And I did show you according to the scriptures God did punish with the disease of leprosy. Don't you kind of find it funny that your side says they can track it back only so far and it just happens to be in agreement with the bible.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Most of the facts the humanity has held, and that were then proved wrong, were religious doctrines.

Some scientific theories have been improved upon, but generally every specific science has been successful since its start. Physics has been sucessful since newton, although einstein had to improve it for light-speed and high-gravity, things newton didnt know about. Biology came along later, but since the creation of the microscope, and when biology became a real science, it has had tremendous success. Chemistry is only a hundred or so years old, the structure of the atom hasnt been known for that long. Yet we have a total understanding of chemistry.

On the whole science has an amazing record and religion has a horrible one. The story of humanity has been smart people continually overturning idiotic dogma.

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I am still waiting for someone to provide a code or language or some form of communication with empirical evidence that it cane in to existence naturally absent of intelligence ? How bout mutations being the same thing as noise to a electronic signal and the questions I asked.

 

[LOki]

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ?

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.

That is disengenious at the highest degree.

Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.

This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.

What a douche.

No real scientist accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.

Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if they assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."

More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.

I am gonna give this to you to but I am gonna add something else for you.

I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.

British scientist Francis Crick who helped in discovering the structure of DNA,believed that human genes could not have evolved by chance.

I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, SO WHAT? Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

Of course it is not true that mankind is evolving at the moment only by natural selection. Ever since man was able to communicate and form societies, another form of evolution has been taking place-social evolution, which is very much faster and in many ways more effective. Nevertheless, much in our nature has evolved under the pressure of natural selection alone, and these pressures still exist today.

And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

The age of the earth is now established beyond any reasonable doubt as very great, yet in the United States millions of Fundamentalists still stoutly defend the naive view that it is relatively short, an opinion deduced from reading the Christian Bible too literally. They also usually deny that animals and plants have evolved and changed radically over such long periods, although this is equally well established. This gives one little confidence that what they have to say about the process of natural selection is likely to be unbiased, since their views are predetermined by a slavish adherence to religious dogmas."

Crick said you would be more likely to assemble a jumbo jet by passing a hurricane through a junk yard then to assemble a DNA molecule by chance in any kind of primeval soup in 5 or 6 hundred million years. He said it's just not possible.

An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that, in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going. But this should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that it could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions.
(Life Itself, Its Origin and Nature, 1981, p. 88)

It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?

Then asked the question, if it could not have happened naturally how did it happen ?

It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Sounds like he was open to an intelligent creator or in your words Goddidit. If you check his background it is pretty impressive.

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.

Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon.

Claude Shannon said Random Mutations in DNA does exactly the same as Noise in an electrical communication system.

SO WHAT?

So here are the questions.

Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality?

Yes. SO WHAT?

Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?

Yes, again. Again, SO FUCKING WHAT?.

Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.

Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No. I just have a problem with their Creator superstition.

No. I dismiss their superstition for being nothing but superstition.

Got any valid and verifiable evidence to back that up? Any valid logic?

Didn't think so.

Pretty much.

Do you realize how many of the things you believe are meaningless in reality, because your beliefs are faith? Probably not. The answer is that ALL of your beliefs that are faith are meaningless; many of them are--in fact of objective reality--just wrong.

Since scientists are, in fact of reality, currently testing, studying, and/or observing the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution despite your manifestly retarded denial of reality; no, I see nothing wrong with that. I find it to be a virtue of science and scientists, that with improving understanding of the origins of the universe, the origins of life, and macro-evolution consequent from the testing, studying, and/or observing performed by scientists leads them to revisions and/or adjustments of their conclusions.

The notion you are struggling to identify and grasp is the virtue of "integrity of intellectual honesty." The reason you are struggling Youwerecreated, is that you--just like your fellow Christian Creationists--just don't have it.

If you did have integrity of intellectual honesty, you'd be appalled at your insistence that your beliefs--your convictions in your (absolute) certainty of the reality of some thing(s)--are validated solely upon the meaningless basis that you believe your beliefs to be valid.


Nonsense. Basing one's beliefs upon verifiable evidence and valid logic; validating those beliefs against valid logic applied to the verifiable evidence; admitting to uncertainties and qualifying one's conclusions accordingly; admitting to errors when discovered in the light of better or more complete information, and adjusting one's beliefs in accord with valid logic and verifiable evidence so they conform more closely to objective reality, is in no manner disingenuous.

Let me explain to you what "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is. It is holding your preconceptions as unassailably valid without any basis or foundation in validly verifiable evidence and/or valid logic; it is validating your convictions of absolute certainty by through obtuse denials of any and all contradicting evidences and/or valid logic; it is validating your evidences against your conclusions, rather than validating you conclusions against valid logic applied to verifiable evidence; it is invalidating evidence and arguments solely on the basis that they contradict your baseless preconceived conclusions.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" is your insistence upon the validity of logical fallacies to "prove" your point; it is refusing to bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point, or refusing to admit that you cannot bring verifiable evidence AND valid logic to support your point; it is your denial of the reality of the appurtenances of an objectively real existence; it is your demand that "nothing" is really "some(objectively real)thing" that explains everything.

What "disingenuous at the highest degree" really is, is your shameless misrepresentations of your opponent's positions, the claims and assertions of opposing experts, and the actual descriptions, claims and predictions made by the scientific theories you oppose. It is your adamant refusal to honestly provide the exact same specificity of explanation regarding the mechanisms of your Creation "theory" that you require evolution scientists to provide when they explain their claims--including the means by which you can test and verify the claims you make regarding your "theory."

The unrevised and/or unadjusted status of your Creationism has nothing to do with its eternal consistency with reality; rather, you Creationists have imbued--without valid basis--eternal consistency in this invented Creator of yours, and you reject the validity of any reason to adjust and/or revise your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions on the basis of that invalidly asserted eternal consistency with reality. The point here is that you and the Christian Creationism community, all in agreement on your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions, assert your preconceived "explanations" and conclusions as unassailable facts of reality without any regard to valid logic applied to verifiable evidence--most especially when valid logic applied to verifiable evidence demonstrates otherwise.

"Disingenuous at the highest degree" really is YOU.

I guess you have no answers to the questions asked nor a response for the actual scientists that disagree with your so called valid logic and evidence.

This is laughable. You are literally denying that I answered your questions as you blockquote the very answers you deny exist.

What a douche.

Right. Superstitiously anthropomorphizing retards might embrace a theory where a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today", and you have certainly been laying that bullshit strawman at the feet of those who embrace the Theory of Evolution as if they assert a belief that a "cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today," but no real, valid scientist actually "accepts any theory that has been given that tries to explain how the first cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today."

More importantly, no real scientist--no rational person with integrity of intellectual honesty--accepts your intellectually dishonest Christian Creationist misrepresentations of Evolution proponents and the Theory of Evolution, to say they assert that a cell created itself and then evolved it's way into what we see today.

I don't accept your misrepresentations as valid or your gifts as genuine; I don't need any favors from the likes of you.

I'm pretty sure you are misrepresenting Francis Crick's actual belief, ... but even if you aren't, SO WHAT? Francis Crick still accepted the validity of the Theory of Evolution:

​

And he found very little validity in the alternative you present:

​

​

It looks like he didn't express that he thought it was "just not possible," and it also looks like you're still full of shit.

How about that?

It seems his actual answer was that his position "... should not be taken to imply that there are good reasons to believe that [life] could not have started on the earth by a perfectly reasonable sequence of fairly ordinary chemical reactions."

Not at all surprising. I have pointed this out to you before, and i will point it out to you once again, without any fear that you will refuse to understand what is being explained to you.

Scientists--real scientists, practicing actual valid science--allow for the possibility that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything they observe; applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence simply does not currently point to that conclusion. However, there is no ontological barrier that would prevent a real scientist--practicing actual valid science--from concluding that a creator is responsible for the existence of everything he observes if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

Christian Creationists, on the other hand, having already presumed the absolute certainty of the existence of this invented Creator of theirs, simply dismiss any verifiable evidence that contradicts their baseless preconceptions, on the basis that such evidence does not support their baseless conclusions. Christian Creationists have imposed upon themselves an intellectually dishonest denial of the significant validity of select evidence and logically valid arguments that do not conform to, validate, or support their conclusions. Christian Creationists have sanctimoniously, without basis in any valid reasoning, for the purposes of promoting the illusion of their intellectual/spiritual/moral superiority, imposed upon themselves an ontological barrier preventing them from concluding that a Christian Creator is not necessary for the existence of everything they observe; especially if applying valid logic to the verifiable evidence points to that conclusion.

The reason Christian Creationists look at the same evidence and come to different conclusions is that Christian Creationists are intentionally intellectually dishonest superstitious retards.

SO WHAT?

Yes. SO WHAT?

Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?

Yes, again. Again, SO FUCKING WHAT?.

Look at the kind of rational scientist that rejects your theory the way it is taught.

Now catch up with the thread.

No rational person could accept the strawman version of Evolution you present. Certainly, rational scientists with integrity of intellectual honesty most certainly reject disingenuous misrepresentations of the Theory of Evolution offered by intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists when they misrepresent rational scientists as rejecting the actual valid Theory of Evolution.

Actual, rational scientists (like Crick and Shannon) most likely find the actual valid theory of Evolution taught and/or presented by rational folks with integrity of intellectual honesty to be easily and substantially acceptable on intellectually valid grounds.

Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.

Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.

Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.

Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .


Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

That is the &#8220;math&#8221; of evolution. Whether we&#8217;re considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).

Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.

That&#8217;s what Darwinism says. It&#8217;s elegantly simple. Almost intuitively obvious.

Can it be verified?

No, and yes.

One of the difficulties with Darwinism is that it evidently takes millions of years and many billions of falcons to produce significant change over time. This makes it very hard to empirically prove Darwinism in the short lifetime of a human being. Practically speaking, Darwinism doesn&#8217;t even provide us with very many testable hypotheses. Thus the vast majority of the evidence for evolution is anecdotal.

Anecdotal evidence is unreliable evidence based on personal experience that has not been empirically tested, and which is often used in an argument as if it had been scientifically or statistically proven. The person using anecdotal evidence may or may not be aware of the fact that, by doing so, they are generalizing. (&#8211;From Wikipedia) An example of anecdotal evidence would be &#8220;My grandma smoked and drank whiskey every day and she lived to be 95, so cigarettes and whiskey are good for you.&#8221; Not all anecdotal evidence is misleading, of course, but it&#8217;s not proof.

But with Darwin, the principle itself should be easy enough to demonstrate. I know as an engineer with a strong math background that in principle it should be easy enough to statistically answer the question:

Is the formula

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

Mathematically true, or false?

Hey, if we&#8217;re going to get answers to these questions, we have to ask questions that actually have a possibility of being answered in the first place. Most arguments for and against evolution are argued at an intuitive level, with only anecdotal evidence. The way most questions are asked in the origins debate, they are unanswerable. The question as I posed it is much, much simpler and can certainly be verified.

Is Natural Selection Valid?

I shouldn&#8217;t have to spend much time defending the idea that Natural Selection is a perfectly valid concept that we see proven all the time. We all know and observe every day that winners win and losers lose. We know that babies with severe birth defects often do not survive, much less thrive. We know that Natural Selection weeds out losers. Natural Selection works.

The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners? Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon? Does it add information to the code of DNA? That&#8217;s the question I set out to answer.

Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life. It&#8217;s a code and a language. It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything. So the question is:

Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?

I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language? Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?

My reasoning was this: Even if Darwinism couldn&#8217;t be empirically proven in the lab (since we don&#8217;t have millions of years available to conduct an experiment), we should still be able to investigate some other part of the world where languages and codes are used.

We should be able to experimentally determine if Random Mutations add information. This could come from any number of fields &#8211; linguistics, digital signal processing, computer networking, computer aided design, language translation.

Information Theory Sheds Light on this: 1948

The questions I&#8217;m asking here are answered in a field known as &#8220;Information theory&#8221; which really began with a paper written by Bell Labs scientist Claude Shannon in 1948. His paper was called &#8220;The Mathematical Theory of Communication&#8221; and it&#8217;s one of the most important papers ever published in the history of Electrical Engineering and electronic communication. Shannon&#8217;s paper literally gave birth to the digital age we now live in &#8211; not because Shannon invented digital communication, but because he defined what it was capable of.

Claude Shannon&#8217;s paper tells you how much hi-fidelity music you can put on a CD (74 minutes), or how much data you can squeeze through a 56K computer modem (not much). It tells you how much information you can successfully transmit, given a certain amount of noise and a certain speed of sending your data. It discusses error correction schemes and even defines something called &#8220;Information entropy&#8221; which is the degradation that happens when you add noise to a signal.

Shannon&#8217;s book is not for the layman, but certain parts of it are understandable by anyone and it deals with things that most people are at least somewhat familiar with. He defines various &#8220;layers&#8221; of information &#8211; which in layman&#8217;s terms would be things like alphabet, spelling, grammar and meaning &#8211; and how the upper layers are built on top of the lower layers, and how we can use this knowledge to detect and correct errors.

And in my research into the origins question, I quickly discovered that everything Claude Shannon discusses in his paper applies to DNA. (I have not encountered any geneticist or bio-informatics researcher who disagrees with this.)

DNA is a molecule, a data storage medium and digital communication protocol all rolled into one. It has a certain amount of memory. Your own DNA, in every cell of your body, contains about the same amount of information as a compact disc.

But here&#8217;s where things get interesting: In Claude Shannon&#8217;s world, Random Mutation in DNA is exactly the same as &#8220;Noise&#8221; in an electrical communication system.

This really struck a chord with me because I already knew a great deal about digital communication systems. I spent six years of my life selling exotic networking equipment to factory engineers, I&#8217;ve published dozens and dozens of magazine articles about communication networks, and In 2002 I published the book Industrial Ethernet. Now in its 2nd edition, this book explains the operation of Ethernet networks, TCP/IP protocol (the language that runs the Internet), and various networking languages that are used in modern equipment installations.

The world of electronic communication is a world of languages and codes. Every different kind of file on your computer &#8211; a Microsoft WORD document, an Excel spreadsheet, a web page in HTML, a JPG or GIF image &#8211; the difference between all these things is the language they&#8217;re written in. Microsoft WORD isn&#8217;t just a brand, it&#8217;s a language that&#8217;s been defined by Microsoft, for writing and storing documents. Same with everything else on the list &#8211; it&#8217;s a language that&#8217;s been defined by someone for a specific purpose.

So another way of asking the question is this:

&#8220;Is there any instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality? Can adding noise increase the information in a signal?&#8221;

I searched and I searched and I searched.

And the answer to that question, oddly, is a qualified no.

There is no instance in the field of computers, electrical engineering, radio, TV or any other aspect of modern communication where noise is added to a signal to increase its quality. There is no example where noise increases the information in a signal.

None.

But remember, I said the answer is a qualified no. The answer is still yes, sometimes.

Let me explain.

Let&#8217;s take the sentence

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog

I could randomly mutate this sentence, and if I got really lucky, the sentence could become

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog.

(I added a period.)

The period did add information to the sentence; it corrected a grammatical mistake.

Now this sentence is 45 characters long. With the possibility of 26 lower case letters, 26 upper case letters, spaces and periods (excluding numbers and any other characters), there are 54 possible characters.

So how many combinations of letters are possible in this sentence? A probability textbook tells us that there are 4554 possible combinations. If you punch that into your scientific calculator, you get 1.9 x 1089 possibilities. (In other words, a very big number with ninety (!) zeros. Bigger than any number anyone ever uses in everyday life.)

Which is to say that there is one chance in 1.9 x 1089 &#8211; one chance in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion or so &#8211; that a single random mutation could correct the grammar of this short sentence.

So yes, random mutation (noise) can add some information to a signal. Parts per trillion trillion trillion&#8230;

That is the qualification.

Obviously it is a very small qualification &#8211; so small as to be thoroughly trivial.

I thought this was way too simple.

I said to myself, &#8220;Geez, is the answer to the whole evolution question that cut-and-dried? Falcons can&#8217;t evolve because DNA mutations can only destroy information, not increase it? That seems too easy, too obvious.&#8221;

I spent several months hunting for answers all over the place, scouring more books and the Internet, looking for discussion on this topic. Surely there must be more to this question.

Claude Shannon does address it in his book. Not DNA specifically, but noise in general. Shannon says noise causes entropy. In physics, entropy is the process of useful energy becoming useless. Entropy is what happens when a candle burns down to nothing and you can&#8217;t light it anymore.

One of Shannon&#8217;s contributions to science was showing that the math equations for information entropy are exactly the same as for heat entropy. And in both cases, entropy is an irreversible process. In other words, once you add noise to a signal, it is permanently corrupted and cannot be recovered, much less improved.

Noise always degrades a signal. Always.

No exceptions.

Anybody who&#8217;s spent much time recording music knows what I mean. Cassette tapes are going out of vogue, but back in the day we used to record our CD&#8217;s onto cassettes so we could listen on our Walkman or in our car. Cassettes always add noise (tape hiss) to the music.

Companies like Dolby and DBX devised ingenious methods of noise reduction &#8211; Dolby B, Dolby C and so on &#8211; to combat this problem. They were fairly effective, but never perfect. Actually the way noise reduction works is this: The signal is boosted and equalized before it&#8217;s put on tape, then it&#8217;s equalized the opposite way and cut back to its original volume when you play it back. All it does is lessen the effects of the tape hiss; it doesn&#8217;t actually take it away.

And again, once the noise is there, it is absolutely impossible to get it back out.

And I&#8217;ve never met any engineer who ever said the signal could be better after you added noise to it. The only exception to this is something called dither which does add noise to the signal before it&#8217;s recorded, but that is done to neutralize distortions in the recording equipment. It&#8217;s &#8220;dither&#8221; in digital recording, and &#8220;bias&#8221; in analog recording. But it does not increase the information; it degrades the signal, albeit in a useful way.

So I&#8217;m hunting for a flaw in this theory. Can anyone show that noise increases the useful information in a signal?

Now I am far from the first person to discover or discuss this, and I did find people debating this topic. I found some interesting misconceptions.

For example, Claude Shannon discusses how the addition of noise increases the information in a signal. But you have to be very careful to understand what he means when he says this.

Let&#8217;s say you take your favorite CD and record it onto a cassette tape. Now you have added some noise to your favorite music. You can hear the tape hiss when you play it.

Well let&#8217;s say you get a CD burner and you play the tape back and copy the taped version back to a new CD. Now you have a CD of a tape of a CD. A copy of a copy, with tape hiss thrown in.

Well the new CD does actually have more information than the old one. It has not only the music, but the tape hiss too. Instead of silence between the songs, you&#8217;ve added tape hiss. Of course the CD player doesn&#8217;t care what it is, it just plays it. From the CD player&#8217;s point of view (CD players being totally dumb objects), yes, there is more information to send to the speakers.

But from a human point of view, there is obviously less useful information. The useful information has been compromised. Fine details you used to be able to hear are covered up by the tape hiss, never to be recovered.

All arguments you may find that cite Claude Shannon in saying that noise increases information are really saying that the tape hiss is an increase in information. Well obviously it&#8217;s an increase in useless information &#8211; at the expense of the useful information.

So What is Darwinism Really Saying?

If we go back to the falcon question, what Darwinian theory is saying is this:

Noise gets added to the signal in the DNA of billions of falcons.

Most of the time, it produces harmful mutations.

Some of the time, it adds useful information.

Natural selection weeds out the harmful mutations and only the useful ones are left.

The useful mutations make the new falcons more fit to survive.

They proliferate and then more mutations make their progeny better adapted, more competitive, with enhanced features and ability to survive.

And the evolutionary dance continues.

Sounds pretty plausible, right? I certainly thought it did.

But let&#8217;s use an analogy of something more familiar: Those cassette tapes.

You have a CD, and you make billions of cassette tape copies of it. Each copy is slightly different, because each one has different microscopic bits of tape hiss.

Most of the time the tape hiss is bad, but sometimes it is good.

People buy the good copies and return the bad ones to the music store, so only the good ones survive.

Billions more copies are made of the good ones, and the process repeats. Every few thousand generations of tapes and tape hiss, a new musical feature is added, so primitive tribal music evolves into modern jazz fusion.

Do you buy that?

I don&#8217;t.

We could make a very similar analogy with photocopies. We&#8217;ve all seen documents that were a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy. They look horrible. After enough generations, they become unreadable. A copy of a copy of a copy of instructions on how to get to my house never evolve into a superior plan for getting to my house.

Information is only destroyed by noise, never enhanced by it. (Devolution, not evolution.)

So if noise is bad for music and photocopies and FM radio, how can it be good for falcon DNA?

DNA, Computers, Human Language Have Error Correction Built-In

You&#8217;d be interested to know that virtually all communication systems, including DNA, have error correction mechanisms built in. The English language is about 50% redundant &#8211; if half the words and letters are missing, you can still read it and figure out what is being said. Ethernet and TCP/IP have sophisticated error detection / correction mechanisms. If you&#8217;re downloading a file and some of the bits get corrupted, your computer detects that and tells the other computer on the Internet to re-send those bits. And DNA has sophisticated error correction mechanisms, too. Errors are always bad, never good. DNA is designed to detect mutations and correct them.

I Start Presenting This Challenge to Darwinists

There are still a whole bunch of questions we haven&#8217;t really discussed yet, but this in itself gets down to the bottom of what Darwinian evolution claims to be true. So has any advocate of Darwinian evolution ever proven that random mutation can increase information? I wanted to find out.

So in addition to extensive searching and reading, I started having email exchanges with proponents of Darwinism. I would say &#8220;Show me an example where random mutation actually increases information&#8221; and they would try. And Boy, would they ever try!

The conversation would go something like this:

They would say, &#8220;Richard Dawkins shows how evolution works in his &#8216;methinks it is like a weasel&#8217; evolutionary computer program.&#8221; (Dawkins, in his book The Blind Watchmaker, shows how a random letter generator can evolve a complete sentence, if the computer program rejects erroneous letters and accepts correct ones, and it only takes 30-40 steps to do so.)

I&#8217;d say &#8220;But the desired result is pre-programmed into the experiment in the first place. All he has demonstrated is that his computer works properly, that&#8217;s all.&#8221;

So the conversation would turn to all sorts of other &#8220;Genetic Programs&#8221; which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.

But that&#8217;s not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is

Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design

But genetic programs work on this formula:

Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design

Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing. Look, if the falcons could say &#8220;Let&#8217;s randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and let&#8217;s just keep the ones that pass a quality control test&#8221; then it would work. But that&#8217;s not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.

Darwinism: The Math Just Doesn&#8217;t Work

In these debates we would go back and forth about this, and sometimes the conversations would get quite emotional as the person I was talking too kept hitting dead ends in their argument.

Sometimes they&#8217;d finally sigh and say &#8220;Just because we haven&#8217;t discovered the answer to this question doesn&#8217;t mean we won&#8217;t someday.&#8221;

My reply would be &#8220;Yes, that&#8217;s absolutely right, nobody can predict what science may discover tomorrow. But for right now I can&#8217;t see how the fundamental premise of Darwinian evolution can even be said to be scientific, because the math simply does not work.&#8221;

Most of the time I&#8217;d eventually get silence. Much as we tried to make these conversations factual and friendly (they were rarely hostile), eventually the person would just stop replying to my emails. They were stumped.

Dawkins Can&#8217;t Answer It, Either

It&#8217;s interesting to note that the fanatical atheist Richard Dawkins, perhaps the most famous living proponent of Evolutionary theory, has never answered this question either &#8211; in fact he has studiously avoided it. There&#8217;s an article http://trueorigins.org/dawkinfo.asp where this question was posed to Dawkins, and even though six years have gone by, he never answers it. The answer he does give is a smoke-and-mirrors example at best.

There is a lot of material on this particular web page and there is a great deal of discussion about it. I did a bunch of backwards searching on Google to find every last reference to this article on the entire Internet, and nobody has successfully answered the question that it raises: &#8220;Can you produce an example of a mutation or evolutionary process that led to an increase in information?&#8221;

Many do claim to have answered it with genetic programs and the like, but if you examine their experiments carefully, you will see that none of these programs are actually examples of true Darwinian evolution. All of them without exception (including the much ballyhooed Avida softare program) use un-random mutation or un-natural selection in some way. Genetic programs are extremely useful, instructive, well worth studying. But all are examples of intelligent design, not evolution

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/darwin-half-right/

 

[Montrovant]

You have a real problem with scientist that believed in a creator don't you ? So you just dismiss guys like Sir Isaac Newton ?

And you are wrong. Do you realize how many things had to be revised out of secular textbooks ? The point is the science community when in agreement on evidence believe the evidence and teach as fact until proven otherwise.

You don't see something wrong with that ? That is disengenious at the highest degree. When they still can't test ,study,and observe the origins of the universe or the origins of life,and they sure as heck can't test ,study,and observe macro-evolution.

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

So, you only consider religious science real? Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?

 

[Montrovant]

YWC - first, wall of text again!

Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory. You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.

So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point. When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else. And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?

Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.

 

[LOki]

Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.

You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point. Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.

Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.

Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.

Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.

Prove adding noise to a signal adds information to a signal.

Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.

But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg"]VooDoo Chile[/ame]

Prove adding noise to a signal can improve the signal .

If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

That is the “math” of evolution.

No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.

Whether we’re considering the evolution of falcons or any other organism, the changes over time have to come from changes in the DNA. The entire plan for a falcon is contained in its DNA, a molecule with a 4-letter alphabet. A strand of DNA can have anywhere from 500 thousand letters (in the case of the smallest known parasite) to 3 billion letters (man and large animals).

Darwinism says that Random Mutation (copying errors in the DNA alphabet) produce modified falcons, and that natural selection (survival of the fittest as inferior falcons die out and superior falcons dominate) weeds out the losers. What remains is new innovations in falcon design.

That’s what Darwinism says.

It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.

There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is NO FUCKING DESIGN!

--RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED--
​

Is the formula

Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design

Mathematically true, or false?

Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.

--MORE CRAP SNIPPED--​

The real question is, does Random Mutation produce winners?

Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.

Does it create plans for new muscles in the eye of the falcon?

No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.

Does it add information to the code of DNA?

Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.

That’s the question I set out to answer.

Well, now you got it.

Like I said, DNA is a blueprint for life.

No. It's LIKE a blueprint for life.

It’s a code and a language.

No. It's LIKE a code; it's LIKE a language.

It has an alphabet (A = Adenine, G = Guanine, T = Thymine, C = Cytosine) and that alphabet spells out the instructions for everything.

No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.

In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.

So the question is:

Can Random Mutation add information to DNA?

For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!

I decided the best way to answer this question is to make it more general: Can random mutation add information to any code or language?

Well no, not ANY code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.

However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.

Can it make it more meaningful, such that Natural Selection will weed out the garbage and leave us with better and better information?

Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."

We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.

The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.

--SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED--​

... “Genetic Programs” which is an entire category of software where random mutations generate variations which are then selected according to certain criteria and improvements are observed. Fascinating stuff.

But that’s not the Darwinian math formula. Remember, the Darwinian formula is

Random mutation + natural selection + time = Design

Remember, it's really not.​

But genetic programs work on this formula:

Random mutation + deliberate selection + time = Design

Deliberate selection and natural selection are not the same thing.

Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.

Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.

Look, if the falcons could say “Let’s randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and let’s just keep the ones that pass a quality control test” then it would work. But that’s not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.

Yet, EVOLUTION (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.

Darwinism: The Math Just Doesn’t Work

Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."

--MORE CRAP SNIPPED--​

 

[Youwerecreated]

Remember my post about how DNA is a code? Only someone that doesnt understand how the abstract translates into the physical nucleotides would deny evolution.

Sure, science has retracted some things. Evolution wont be one of those things, because its stood up against all types of attacks for 150 years. People that understand how it works laugh off the things your saying, theyre mostly just a total ignorance of the process.

And now i think were to the root of the problem. You just dont like science because it takes the role of your god in stating facts. What parts of science would you deny friend, besides evolution? Chemistry? Particle physics? Gravity? Projectile motion? Medicine? Surgery? Electricity?

Hmmm??

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

So, you only consider religious science real? Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?

I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.

I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.

I reject Any science that rejects design.

You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are experiencing entropy.

Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

YWC - first, wall of text again!

Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory. You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.

So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point. When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else. And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?

Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.

I accept evolution but not macro-evolution.

The point is the guy was such an atheist even though he knows that not one DNA molecule could have come in to existence on it's own still did not want to believe in that designer of that and many DNA molecules.

It just goes to show atheist will believe anything so they don't have to believe in the creator. What a tool, he can believe on one hand there is no way it happened naturally and then turn and defend abogenesis. What credibility do some scientists possess ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then you have no idea what the theory of abiogenesis is.

You can always be counted upon to apply fallacious reasoning in an attempt to advance your retarded point. Considering the verifiable evidence already presented, there is little doubt that I have are far more accurate and intellectually honest understanding of the theory abiogenesis than you do.

Crick was directly quoted from one of his books.

Since I was quoting him, and providing the citation for the quote, it's a wonder to all thoughtful human beings why you'd point this out.

Particularly since the quote directly refuted your claim that Crick said the formation of DNA molecules by chance in any kind of primeval soup is just not possible.

Noise stops being noise the instant it has meaning to us; it is then considered information. Perceptually we may make a distinction, but if "noise" becomes "information" simply by virtue of having meaning assigned to it by someone, then objectively, noise is information. It may be unwanted information; it may be uninteresting information; it may be distracting information; it may be annoying information; it may be misunderstood information; it may be contextually meaningless information; it may be information with some combination of any and/or all of these characteristics, but it is still information--and adding information to a signal is adding information to a signal.

But you don't have to take my word for it; Jimi Hendrix proved it:[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WoAXW30mMAg"]VooDoo Chile[/ame]

If noise is really just unwanted signal, you can add the inverse of "noise" (which itself is "noise") to a signal, what is left over is a signal improved by having the noise cancelled out.

No it's not. You're just making that shit up. It's just another strawman you've constructed because you cannot refute actual Evolution, and you cannot tolerate the undeniable objective superiority as an explanation for the diversity of life that the Theory of Evolution objectively enjoys over your retarded superstition.


It does not, you stupid, superstitious, anthropomorphizing retard.

There is no actual plan involved, there is no actual alphabet involved, and there is NO FUCKING DESIGN!

--RATIONALIZATIONS BASED ON FAULTY PREMISES SNIPPED--
​

Neither. It is mathematically and argumentatively meaningless.

--MORE CRAP SNIPPED--​

Not necessarily, and certainly not through the deliberate application of a process/methodology, or any exercise of will of intent to attain a pre-specified goal.

No. Mutation--random or otherwise--does not plan or create.

Setting aside momentarily the predictable abuse of the term "code"; Absolutely.


Well, now you got it.


No. It's LIKE a blueprint for life.


No. It's LIKE a code; it's LIKE a language.

No. Words, letters, phrases, codes, etc. can have any meaning we assign to them; they are SYMBOLS. Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine ARE NOT symbols. We do not determine their meaning or their relevance. The manner and consequences of their interactions ARE NOT DETERMINED by any meaning or significance we assign to those interactions and/or consequences.

In this manner, DNA is NOTHING AT ALL LIKE an alphabet, language, code, plan, or blueprint.

For the last fucking time, absolutely YES!

Well no, not ANY code or language. If you were to apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language, then no.

However, the meanings you wish to apply to terms are irrelevant to the case of the relationship between random mutation, DNA, genetics, and the development of an organism.

Sure, provided you wish to honestly anthropomorphize Natural Selection such that it (and not you) assigns meaning, and it (not you) makes the judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information."

We both know that's not what you're engaged in, but rather, you wish to assert YOUR notions of meaning and meaningfulness, and assert YOUR judgments regarding what constitutes "garbage" and what constitutes "better and better information" as you apply the meaning, "cannot add information" to the term, "random mutation" when it is used in a code or language to convey information about an organism and assign judgment regarding the quality of that information.

The fact that you assign the term "noise" to a signal that is meaningless to you, or is unwanted by you; or is distracting to you, or is uninteresting to you, ... does not change the fact that what you're judging is still information. Since your judgment that "random mutation" is "noise" is not actually relevant to what "random mutation" is or its nature as information, it's pointless to go on discussing "random mutation" as if it is being applied to a process of our own design, to achieve pre-specified goals of our own choosing.

--SINCE THE PREMISES APPURTENANT TO CODES AND LANGUAGES DON'T EVEN APPLY ... IRRELEVANT CRAP SNIPPED--​

Well, "Natural Selection" and "random selection" are not the same thing either.

Natural Selection is NOT random, so it's entirely legitimate to use another non-random selection criteria in an "un-natural" environment to illustrate the effect of Natural Selection in a natural environment.

Look, if the falcons could say &#8220;Let&#8217;s randomly mutate only the small part of our DNA that designs our eyeball muscles and nothing else for a few million years, and let&#8217;s just keep the ones that pass a quality control test&#8221; then it would work. But that&#8217;s not how evolution is claimed to work. Mutations (noise) are not selective about where they occur.

Yet, EVOLUTION (through natural Selection) is selective about which mutations propagate. The effect is that in fact, "the [random mutations] that pass a quality control test" are the [random mutations] that are kept.

Darwinism: The Math Just Doesn&#8217;t Work

Really, it just turns out that the crap "math" based upon the crap premises that intellectually dishonest Christian Creationists assign to the Theory of Evolution, is the math "that just doesn't work."

--MORE CRAP SNIPPED--​

I don't find much in your posts to respond to.

But you just admitted that natural selection is a thinking process and it is not,eliminates the weak. Thank God for that or we would all die from harmful mutations since they do cause more harm then good. I ask you to prove otherwise,I know because I saw the efffects of mutations up close.

But that is just more evidence of design because without natural selection bad genes would spread through the whole population and we would all be deformed or dead. Why is this so hard for you people to grasp ?

But not just natural selection do we have eliminating bad genes but we have a mechanism that works to correct these errors.Then if that don't work nature eliminates them through natural selection. So God gave us a back up plan.

It's funny you guys think that these mechanisms only work to eliminate harmful mutations.

Mutations can and do mess with the information just like the noise on your radio or T.V. Mutations mess with the signal get it ?

 

[FurthurBB]

YWC - first, wall of text again!

Second, you seem to have ignored the multiple people who have pointed out quotes by Crick which show his acceptance of evolutionary theory. You hold him up as someone helping to show your view is valid, then ignore or misread when someone points out that the man does, in fact, seem to hold with the very theory you are trying to argue against.

So he's a man with an impressive background who we should listen to when you think he is making your point. When the things he say instead oppose your point, you ignore them or pretend they say something else. And then you complain about other people not answering your questions or responding to your points?

Even if your perspective is correct, you do such a poor job of explaining/defending it, it almost doesn't matter if it is right or wrong.

I do not know how anyone can read those walls of text. I guess when you do not understand even high school level biology you have to depend on other people to do your thinking for you and that is why you need a wall of text, but it is ridiculous.

 

[FurthurBB]

I love real science,not secular science that denies real evidence to hold on to their secular views.

So, you only consider religious science real? Science that deals with the supernatural, rather than the observable?

I guess you could say that, Because real science will not go against the creator of all things.

I reject Any science that tries to explain that things came in to existence naturally.

I reject Any science that rejects design.

You may argue things are not perfect that is correct. Since the fall of man we and everything thing that exists are experiencing entropy.

Macro-evolution has never ever been observed and you are calling me cuckoo for beliving in a being with supernatural powers to create and because you have not observed this being? But yet you believe in something that has never been observed and is contradicted by what we do observe.

Why do you keep posting this lie? Do you think god needs you to lie for him/it/her/them?