- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompWhen creating a phenomena in the laboratory, you are the intelligent deisgner of the phenomena created in the laboratory. When looking that the phenomena of the universe you cannot help but notice that seeing you were the intelligent designer of the phenomena in the laboratory, the universe also needs an intelligent deisgner, who, by the way was a lot more intelligent than you are, seeing you cannot create a universe in the laboratory.
If looking at a phenomena is consider "intelligent intervention" you ought not to try to intervene in the operation of the universe by deciding it needs an intelligent designer since you consider that to be you.
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerI can however create one in a computer using vrml2 and javascript. and it doesnt take me 6 days either.
When creating a phenomena in the laboratory, you are the intelligent deisgner of the phenomena created in the laboratory. When looking that the phenomena of the universe you cannot help but notice that seeing you were the intelligent designer of the phenomena in the laboratory, the universe also needs an intelligent deisgner, who, by the way was a lot more intelligent than you are, seeing you cannot create a universe in the laboratory.
15 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerWhen looking that the phenomena of the universe you cannot help but notice that seeing you were the intelligent designer of the phenomena in the laboratory, the universe also needs an intelligent deisgner
When creating a phenomena in the laboratory, you are the intelligent deisgner of the phenomena created in the laboratory. When looking that the phenomena of the universe you cannot help but notice that seeing you were the intelligent designer of the phenomena in the laboratory, the universe also needs an intelligent deisgner, who, by the way was a lot more intelligent than you are, seeing you cannot create a universe in the laboratory.
I don't seem to notice that.
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerThe word evidence does not appear in the post you quoted.
Mind presenting the "evidence"?
Let me ask you a question: Do you consider the facts uncovered via scientific investigation to always be caused by intelligence simply because a human is doing the investigating?
I can reference scientific studies as evidence that information increases, but if you refuse to acknowledge that they can show what happens when people aren't around, then there is no evidence I or anyone can ever show you about anything which occurs without intelligent intervention.
If this is the case, there is absolutely zero support for the claim that information cannot increase/move vertically/become more complex/etc without human intervention, and those ID proponents who make these claims are being deceitful and simply making things up.
Dj2becker, would you please answer this simple question:
Do you challenge my claim that information by any reasonable definition can increase without intelligent intervention? Yes, or no, please.
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompHmm. It sounds like you know what you're talking about. I take back any objection I had to your claim as I don't really know what you're talking about.
Are you sure you're not knocking down aaardvarks strawman.
A number of experimental studies seem to indicate that epigenetic inheritance plays a part in the evolution of complex organisms. For example, Tremblay et al. (ref. 3), have shown that methylation differences between maternally and paternally inherited alleles of the mouse H19 gene are p ...[text shortened]... l organsms need to survive before the DNA adapts to the already changing environment.
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by dj2beckerBy the way, I have no problem with Gitt's definition. Anyone can define a word any way they want. What I have a problem with is his claim that DNA has 'information' by his definition.
How would you like to define "information"? You don't seem satisfied with Werner Gitt's definition of information. Do you have a better definition?
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's a bit more technical than the old Lamarckian theory but since it's supported by laboratory test data, it's not as easily dismissed even thought the concepts are very similar. It might well be an integral part of adaptation ,
Hmm. It sounds like you know what you're talking about. I take back any objection I had to your claim as I don't really know what you're talking about.
It also makes logical sense if a species struggle to survive in a changing environmental is what triggers (or plays a part in triggering) the very mutations that make survival possible.
17 Apr 05
1 edit
More examples of this sort of claim by Coletti (italics are mine):
It was a horizontal change in the critter's shape and size. Hardly an example of a creature evolving into a new species or more complex life form...A change within a species in not evolution. Evolution requires a lower species evolving into high more complex species. Not the case by this example. All we have here is a morphological change within a species - and not one that could be called in increase in complexity. Nothing new. We see that all the time.
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=22354&page=%203
I'd like to see rigorous definitions of the italicized words and phrases. I think they are totally made up pseudo scientific phrases that creationists use to sound scientific and mean nothing. Would you like to correct me, Coletti?
By the way, a change within a species is evolution. You are showing ignorance of what evolution is, which makes it understandable that you have flawed beliefs about it.
17 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIt's more than that, really.
More examples of this sort of claim by Coletti (italics are mine):
[b]It was a horizontal change in the critter's shape and size. Hardly an example of a creature evolving into a new species or more complex life form ...[text shortened]... ich makes it understandable that you have flawed beliefs about it.
when one uses a single premise to deduce all things ' they are going to reject any conclusion that doesn't include that premise.
Using inductive reasoning in a discussion with a "deducer" gets pretty frustrating... just picture somebody, hands over their ears, saying : " I don't hear you!"
edit where do the darn italics come from?
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by frogstompItalics are created by [ i ] and [ /i ] (without spaces). If you're having problems with italics (like you are with bolding), it generally is caused by the post you quoted having that text modification and the ending symbol ([ /i ] for italics) being in the part that gets erased and replaced by ... in the quoted post section. Just go to that area and erase one of the [ i ]'s (or [ b ]'s).
It's more than that, really.
when one uses a single premise to deduce all things ' they are going to reject any conclusion that doesn't include that premise.
Using inductive reasoning in a discussion with a "deducer" gets pretty frustrating... just picture somebody, hands over their ears, saying : " I don't hear you!"
edit where do the darn italics come from?
17 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThank you , kind sir
Italics are created by [ i ] and [ /i ] (without spaces). If you're having problems with italics (like you are with bolding), it generally is caused by the post you quoted having that text modification and the ending symbol ([ /i ] for italics) being in the part that gets erased and replaced by ... in the quoted post section. Just go to that area and erase one of the [ i ]'s (or [ b ]'s).
18 Apr 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungIs this your definition of information for this discussion?
So, maybe in this case I'd define the information content of a DNA molecule to be equal to the number of base pairs which are actually part of a gene. So for example, if an organism only had 5 genes of lengths 664, 852, 13, 100 codons, you'd add all these....
You'll have to break it down for me a little.
I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of muscle cell.
Do we know if all the genes are utilized. I understand there is an idea that much of the genes we have a filler. At least, we don't know what the purpose is. But I don't know what the current theory is.
But if a piece of data has no usefulness in the framework in which an "increase in complexity" is being determined, then it is not information. Does that make sense?
Thing of a automobile engine with extra parts bolted on. Compared to another that is identical, except for the extra parts. Is one more complex? I suppose the one with the junk parts is more complex, but to what purpose? Functionally, they are identical.
19 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiI can't count the times that I typed "thing" when I meant to type "think" and vice-versa... are you by any chance borrowing my keyboard? Do you think its a genetic simularity?
Is this your definition of information for this discussion?
You'll have to break it down for me a little.
I think of information as usable data - data that can be used for a purpose - say for the growth of a particular type of muscle cell.
Do we know if all the genes are utilized. I understand there is an idea that much of the genes we have a ...[text shortened]... e with the junk parts is more complex, but to what purpose? Functionally, they are identical.
btw I very carefully typed "think" .
The thing about evolution is a lot of the details are still unsettled among scientists, like the discussion here about the "discredited" Lemarkian Theory , newer much more sophisticated laboratory test are showing that it was a bit premature to toss it out. How that will work out is still an open question. This data these test show will be seen as an alternate to " random selection" although it's probably just one more piece of a very complex puzzle.