crazy-tiger Posted April 28, 2006 Share Posted April 28, 2006 Now look... do I have to pull out some very embarassing pics of you? I'm trying to think of any, and I'm drawing a blank, so.. quite frankly dear, I'm looking forward to seeing them as much as the next person *cheats and removes the large pic of your ass...* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redneck22 Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 What puzzles me about the definition of evolution is that if something changes then its evolved, but if the change is a result of loss of information or degeneration (as is nearly always the case in the empirical science of biological evolution) then how can it add information. You don’t get rich by loosing money. Sigh... once more we see the inherent mistake people make when they assume that the STRAWMAN OF EVOLUTION THAT CREATIONISTS KEEP SPOUTING is in fact evolution... For instance... the whole "information" concept. It doesn't work like that in biology... what you should be wondering about is changes in information, not a change in the amount of information... See... this "0000110001" is a certain amount of information... this "0001010001" is the same amount of information. Is it the same information? (bear with me since this is very simplified) If that is not enough change, (note how no information has been lost or added, just altered) how about this... "1010000100" It's completely different information... in essense, it's "new" information. Degeneration is alway a change in the information itself, almost always without any loss of information. and to use your anology, the movement of information can create new information... just like moving wealth around create new wealth... Would you like to deal with evolution now, or stick with the lies you trotted out? I can see your analogy would explain something like the change in allele frequency, but this assumes changes in alleles that already exist and can be re-arranged. It doesn't explain how "010" or "101" got to "0000110001". You maybe impling from your post that we firstly "evolved" from a creature that had the 3,000,000,000 base pairs and these have been rearranged by evolution. BTW whats a strawman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I can see your analogy would explain something like the change in allele frequency, but this assumes changes in alleles that already exist and can be re-arranged. It doesn't explain how "010" or "101" got to "0000110001". From what I understand it has been studied in the Caribbean Anole lizards. And Xaru, sorry I called your Xanu. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 It doesn't explain how "010" or "101" got to "0000110001". You maybe impling from your post that we firstly "evolved" from a creature that had the 3,000,000,000 base pairs and these have been rearranged by evolution. Ironically, I think you answered this yourself in your initial post: “DOG BREED SECRETS REVEALED, as described in ScienceNOW, 14 Dec 2004. The distinctive features of some dog breeds have been found to be due to alterations in 'tandem repeats' – regions of DNA where the same sequence is repeated many times. When these regions are being copied the machinery that does the copying can sometime lose track of where it is up to and leave out some of the repeated sequences or add in a few extra copies. These "extra copies" that sometimes get inserted into a sequence are the source. Sometimes they are redundant and there's no additional affect (neurtral), sometimes there is and it's detrimental for adaption to the current environment (negative) and sometimes it makes the animal better at surviving in it's current environment (positive). At least, that't how I read it... IMOHO, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Agree. It clearly states, that the machinery lose track where it's at and make some extra copies, hence 101 becomes 101101 or 101101101. After that you have "micro" evolution, and it becomes 101110011, and you have something completely new. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crazy-tiger Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 What puzzles me about the definition of evolution is that if something changes then its evolved, but if the change is a result of loss of information or degeneration (as is nearly always the case in the empirical science of biological evolution) then how can it add information. You don’t get rich by loosing money. Sigh... once more we see the inherent mistake people make when they assume that the STRAWMAN OF EVOLUTION THAT CREATIONISTS KEEP SPOUTING is in fact evolution... For instance... the whole "information" concept. It doesn't work like that in biology... what you should be wondering about is changes in information, not a change in the amount of information... See... this "0000110001" is a certain amount of information... this "0001010001" is the same amount of information. Is it the same information? (bear with me since this is very simplified) If that is not enough change, (note how no information has been lost or added, just altered) how about this... "1010000100" It's completely different information... in essense, it's "new" information. Degeneration is alway a change in the information itself, almost always without any loss of information. and to use your anology, the movement of information can create new information... just like moving wealth around create new wealth... Would you like to deal with evolution now, or stick with the lies you trotted out? I can see your analogy would explain something like the change in allele frequency, but this assumes changes in alleles that already exist and can be re-arranged. It doesn't explain how "010" or "101" got to "0000110001". You maybe impling from your post that we firstly "evolved" from a creature that had the 3,000,000,000 base pairs and these have been rearranged by evolution. Not implying anything of the kind... I told you it was very simplified, didn't I?It was just showing you that change in information DOES NOT equal change in amount of available information... THAT is the major mistake you made and that is what needed correcting. Now, thanks to Han and Skankboy, you have the answer to where all the extra amount of information came from, something that you ALREADY KNEW! Still want to insist that's a problem with evolution, even though you know it isn't? BTW whats a strawman? Oh boy... The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" has the following pattern: Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. I have yet to encounter a single opponent of evolution that didn't use a Strawman argument against it... but I live in hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Lets do a strawman argument against God. God is the same guy as Santa Clause, and every mature and thinking person knows that Santa Claus doesn't exists, so hence God does not exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts