Information = ?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Supposing for a moment that we could trace the origins of all to one organism (which we have not), what would the impetus for variety possibly have been?

"Limited attacks on a system" refers to that which will strengthen a system without destroying it. Strength only builds when rest/recuperation is allowed. What thinking part of NS determines the thre ...[text shortened]... t species, evolution's biggest gap remains insurrmountable--- that is, not counting miracles.

First of all I have no idea what a "system" is in your context.

Apart from that, there are so many problems with what you just said. How is "rest/recuperation" relevant to natural selection?Why does strength depend on it? In fact, to make it easier forget the term natural selection. What we describe as natural selection is just the emergence of variations that have more chance of passing on their genes to their progeny.

As for the species turning into another species, I would argue that the definition of a specie is vague. I will just assume you mean an accumulation of variations i.e. that would make one ancestor largely distinguishable from its descendents. There is, of course, no reason to think that this cannot happen. If we observe one mutation, we can infer that millions of mutations can also occur over a larger period of time, thus giving a new "species".

I will maintain that the theory of evolution is not inductively based but deductively based. We do not need to observe it. However, we do examine fossils which substantiate the theory.

Originally posted by KellyJay
1. Organisms have genes. Genes change, vary, mutate.

You have to stop here as far as what is witnessed or recorded.
We all know we have genes, Genes have some small number
of changes, they vary, they mutate. What isn't seen is anything
beyond these statements, such as the good changes adding
up to something new.

2. Bad variations do not survive. ...[text shortened]... nly. A simple matter of faith
in what you believe is going on, thus you have evolution.
Kelly

From my reasoning, its easy to see that evolution will occur from this point onwards. Do you dispute that a human from this point onwards could evolve into another species? Or that a bacterium allowed to develop into a colony could not become more complex?

If you dont, i'm assuming that you mean evolution is based on faith when we apply it to the past (joining the dots, perhaps?). Is that correct?

If that is your argument, then you may as well say all empirical thought is based on faith or that any speculation is faith-based.

Originally posted by Conrau K
First of all I have no idea what a "system" is in your context.

Apart from that, there are so many problems with what you just said. How is "rest/recuperation" relevant to natural selection?Why does strength depend on it? In fact, to make it easier forget the term natural selection. What we describe as natural selection is just the emergence of variatio ...[text shortened]... e do not need to observe it. However, we do examine fossils which substantiate the theory.

First of all I have no idea what a "system" is in your context.
It applies to any system, small to the whole ball of wax.

How is "rest/recuperation" relevant to natural selection?
NS is given the power to "make" organisms (systems) stronger, apparently (among other things) by exposure to other systems which would normally weaken the former. By a build-up of resistance, the first system becomes stronger. However, prolonged exposure of any system to an antithetical one will result in the death of one, the other, or both. Thus, rest/recuperation is an essential aspect of building strength.

There is, of course, no reason to think that this cannot happen.
Except, of course, for that pesky thing called evidence, or proof.

If we observe one mutation, we can infer that millions of mutations can also occur over a larger period of time, thus giving a new "species".
That's the crux of the conclusion to which evolutionists jump and at which point they exit the realm of science and enter the world of faith.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Great analogy. Now all we need is for the fate of all existence to hang in the balance of said 'probability.'

You are Miss de Point.

The odds aginst every hand are the same, yet they all occur.

Originally posted by Conrau K
From my reasoning, its easy to see that evolution will occur from this point onwards. Do you dispute that a human from this point onwards could evolve into another species? Or that a bacterium allowed to develop into a colony could not become more complex?

If you dont, i'm assuming that you mean evolution is based on faith when we apply it to the past (j ...[text shortened]... may as well say all empirical thought is based on faith or that any speculation is faith-based.

You tell me, are you speaking of a process you know has been
doing exactly what your claims are? If all you have is,
"There is no reason to not believe it is happening that way!" you
project the changes you are using faith, based upon your speculation.
Since it isn't anything witnessed or recorded, doesn't mean it right or
real, but it sure isn't a factual statement.

I'm disputing that not only humans are not from this point onwards
evolving into another speices, but bacterium as well. I also doubt
they ever were anything other than what they are now, with some
small changes within our form, like taller, shorter, color, living longer,
shorter and so on. We remain what we always were just as bacterium
has too. Small changes yes, but we start as human we will end as
human, or if we are speaking of bacterium, it starts as bacterium
and it will end as bacterium. Bacterium will through time be the
forefather of a cow or a blade of grass or something along those
lines.
Kelly

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
You are Miss de Point.

The odds aginst every hand are the same, yet they all occur.

That's indisputable. Having success depend upon a specific hand, however...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
That's indisputable. Having success depend upon a specific hand, however...

...and to have that success replicated time after time, however...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]First of all I have no idea what a "system" is in your context.
It applies to any system, small to the whole ball of wax.

How is "rest/recuperation" relevant to natural selection?
NS is given the power to "make" organisms (systems) stronger, apparently (among other things) by exposure to other systems which would normally weaken t ...[text shortened]... ts jump and at which point they exit the realm of science and enter the world of faith.[/b]

It applies to any system, small to the whole ball of wax.

I still dont know what you mean by "system". The terminology is very imprecise.

NS is given the power to "make" organisms (systems) stronger, apparently (among other things) by exposure to other systems which would normally weaken the former. By a build-up of resistance, the first system becomes stronger. However, prolonged exposure of any system to an antithetical one will result in the death of one, the other, or both. Thus, rest/recuperation is an essential aspect of building strength.


Again, your terminolgy is imprecise. NS is not given any power. What is resistance? Again, what is a system? What would be an antithetical system (I thought I could infer what a system was, but this expression completely threw me off)?

As far as I know, NS is a constantly occuring phenomenon. Its just something that logically happens. I dont understand why a "system" should require rest and recuperation.

Except, of course, for that pesky thing called evidence, or proof.

Can you prove that many macro-evolutions cannot occur?

Simply put, if there's no reason to rhink it, dont think it. THere is no reason as to why macroevolution cannot occur. Thus, any stipulation of proof is purely arbitrary. For example, there is no reason to think that the laws of physics change every few thousand years, so why think it?

That's the crux of the conclusion to which evolutionists jump and at which point they exit the realm of science and enter the world of faith.

It is a plausible explanation for the diversity of life. As I have explained, there is no evidence that proves it wrong. It also qualifies as legitimate theory. Care to refute me?

Originally posted by KellyJay
You tell me, are you speaking of a process you know has been
doing exactly what your claims are? If all you have is,
"There is no reason to not believe it is happening that way!" you
project the changes you are using faith, based upon your speculation.
Since it isn't anything witnessed or recorded, doesn't mean it right or
real, but it sure isn't a fa ...[text shortened]... me be the
forefather of a cow or a blade of grass or something along those
lines.
Kelly

I fail to understand why humans can't evolve. We have genes, genes change, good genes survive. I recall reading some years ago, about a tribe on a remote island who after thousands of years had evolved a massive muscle at the back of their necks. The muscle helped support their head as they lugged heavy canoos. This is natural selection at work. I dont see why this tribe couldn't take a new step after a few more thousand years and diverge into a new species.

If you see this as faith, then you are free to make that accusation. However, much of science is speculative. Just read any book on black holes. You'll discover a rich source of obscure, speculative theories. Evolution is just another theory. It is plausible. There is no reason to think that it is wrong. To replace it, you must develop a new theory which a) explains everything evolution can, b) explains something evolution can't, c) demonstrates evolution as wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Supposing for a moment that we could trace the origins of all to one organism (which we have not), what would the impetus for variety possibly have been?

"Limited attacks on a system" refers to that which will strengthen a system without destroying it. Strength only builds when rest/recuperation is allowed. What thinking part of NS determines the thre ...[text shortened]... t species, evolution's biggest gap remains insurrmountable--- that is, not counting miracles.

Supposing for a moment that we could trace the origins of all to one organism (which we have not), what would the impetus for variety possibly have been?

So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments; or, so that different food could be accessed.

"Limited attacks on a system" refers to that which will strengthen a system without destroying it. Strength only builds when rest/recuperation is allowed. What thinking part of NS determines the thresholds?

Nothing determines these "thresholds". Events that will wipe out an entire species are called exctinction events. They happen. This would be I suppose an "unlimited attack on the system".

Unless and until we see (first-hand or otherwise) a member of one species become a member of a different species

We have already seen this.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=23080&page=5

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Supposing for a moment that we could trace the origins of all to one organism (which we have not), what would the impetus for variety possibly have been?

So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments; or, so that different food could be accessed.

"Limited attacks on a system" refers to th ...[text shortened]... seen this.

http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=23080&page=5

So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments
Anticipation or present reality?

so that different food could be accessed.
Cuz not everyone likes vanilla, right?

Nothing determines these "thresholds".
Something kept the hostile environment at bay to allow the thing to come to fruition.

We have already seen this.
Read the thread. Nothing in there pointed to an example of a new species evolving out of existing species, just fruit flies that became sterile fruit flies, but fruit flies nonetheless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]So that the molecules the organism fed on could be accessed in a greater variety of environments
Anticipation or present reality?

so that different food could be accessed.
Cuz not everyone likes vanilla, right?

Nothing determines these "thresholds".
Something kept the hostile environment at bay to allow the thing to com ...[text shortened]... isting species, just fruit flies that became sterile fruit flies, but fruit flies nonetheless.[/b]

here , learn something:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

Originally posted by frogstomp
here , learn something:

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/eldredge.html

Brilliant! I learned something I never knew before. Namely, I learned that paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge is the Curator-in-Chief of the permanent exhibition "Hall of Biodiversity" at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York. Now, that is enlightening.

To the casual reader, frogstomp's post suggests that perhaps the cited link may provide evidence of new species arising from the primordial soup of existing ones. But alas and alack, as with all of the evolutionists' claims, the rabbit trail is empty.

Say! I've an idea. What say we get back to the impetus for the thread, i.e., answering the question of how information comes about?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Brilliant! I learned something I never knew before. Namely, I learned that paleontologist Dr. Niles Eldredge is the Curator-in-Chief of the permanent exhibition "Hall of Biodiversity" at the American Museum of Natural History and adjunct professor at the City University of New York. Now, that is enlightening.

To the casual reader, frogstomp's to the impetus for the thread, i.e., answering the question of how information comes about?

There's so much evidence of intermediate lifeforms it's impossible to ignore.

like Basilosaurus and Rodhocetus

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
For those die-hard evolutionists (who inexplicably choose to hang out in a spirituality forum), here's a link you may wish to check out. The author picks a fight along the lines that information can only result from a mind.

This will be especially interesting to the computer geeks out there; however anyone with an inquiring mind will likely enjoy the j ...[text shortened]... I am expecting any of you to honestly review the material, but it's worth a shot, nonetheless.

oh and here's something you belters should read:

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/People/mgm/complexity.html