Originally posted by Seeker
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
In the Beginning was Information.
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostA 1997 book by Werner Gitt. Is it worth reading, or there are, in your opinion, better and more up-to-date books to be purchased within this type of book? What would you reccomend I buy on the topic of 'information' issues?
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe fault is that it is not a coherent argument at all. It is a shell game without the pea.
In short, an argument by analogy. DNA is arbitrarily declared to be the only exception to such 'codes'. I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way.Last edited by Seeker; 06-29-2019, 11:22 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostA creationist has written the following:
''Gitt has an argument by analogy, where he is basing his assertions about something we don't know on something we do know (origin of genetic information vs. other information), and skeptics try and refute it by arguing that we don't observe the origin of genetic information (which is why it's an argument by analogy), and asserting without cause that genetic information is different to other information''.
I honestly can't find any fault with this argument. Can anyone help?
Sorry but Gitt is just another sad Creationist trying and failing to scientifically justify his religions beliefs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostDon't really like to play Lee Merill style, but why? Let me state the argument in another way: ''There are evolutionary scientists who agree that DNA has the characteristics of a code (message), but claim that the agencies involved were not intentional. The creationist argument is that such codes require intelligence, as far as observation goes.
In short, an argument by analogy. DNA is arbitrarily declared to be the only exception to such 'codes'. I am only playing Devil's Advocate here, by the way.
The only codes which require intelligence are those which use arbitrary symbols as abstractions for other values - things like Morse Code or computer code. That does not include DNA which is a chemical process that naturally encodes information with no abstraction or arbitrary symbols anywhere. Merely being a "code" is not an indication of intelligence.
Comment
-
These are caused the small amount of randomness in chemical reproduction processes. That is new genetic information. The new information which is retained in the species' gene pool is that which is concentrated by selection pressures and/or neutral genetic drift.
Comment
-
Originally posted by HMS_Beagle View PostThat does not include DNA which is a chemical process that naturally encodes information with no abstraction or arbitrary symbols anywhere. Merely being a "code" is not an indication of intelligence.
BTW, thanks for being the only one to answer my questions.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Terraceth View PostI wouldn't have even noticed any if you hadn't said this.
I had no idea of that until you said this.
I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostLOL Fail! I exchanged ''two'' and ''posts''. It should have read ''previous two posts'', not ''previous posts two''.
I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.
Like you I'm not a native speaker of English either, so my opinion doesn't really hold as much weight (although I have spent most of my time on the internet on sites where the discussions have mainly/only been in English), but I would never have guessed that English wasn't your first language either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Chrawnus View PostI didn't even notice you had swapped the two words until you pointed it out, and I suspect neither did Terraceth. And accidentally swapping words so they're in the wrong order is something native speakers of a language do too, so that's hardly indicative of someone who is not at native level proficiency in a language.
Like you I'm not a native speaker of English either, so my opinion doesn't really hold as much weight (although I have spent most of my time on the internet on sites where the discussions have mainly/only been in English), but I would never have guessed that English wasn't your first language either.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostAnd what about the role of mutations in bringing new information?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=DlhpvcgK_28
Just a few obvious examples of new information is gene splicing where a new gene or sequence genes are inserted in the DNA. The other is the doubling of RNA in the formation of new information of DNA as in the evolution of the eye.
The following is more involved reference, but readable: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21578/
Comment
-
Originally posted by Seeker View PostLOL Fail! I exchanged ''two'' and ''posts''. It should have read ''previous two posts'', not ''previous posts two''.
I forgive you if you are being facetious, Terraceth.
As for the "previous posts two" (which is more obvious but wasn't part of the applicable posts), I can't remember if I noticed it or not when I made my post. As I didn't mention it, I either missed it entirely due to not taking as close as look at it as the previous 2 posts or just shrugged it off as an accidental typo not worth mentioning.
Believe me, your English is better than I've seen from a lot of native speakers.
Comment
-
It happens that, when reading rather than examining a text, the reader's background "auto-correct" simply amends what is written to what should have been written*, and it passes completely unnoticed by the reader. That is, unless the writing falls foul of a pet peeve. One that I encountered recently: "viscious." On the first pass, I read it as "viscous" which didn't make sense in context, and re-read it as "vicious" - and still didn't notice the extraneous "s" before the "c."
(* One time I wrote a piece with the kanji for "I" wrongly written - the character doesn't even exist. It completely escaped the teacher's notice.)1Cor 15:34 Come to your senses as you ought and stop sinning; for I say to your shame, there are some who know not God.
.⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Scripture before Tradition:
but that won't prevent others from
taking it upon themselves to deprive you
of the right to call yourself Christian.
⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛⊛
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
0 responses
6 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
05-03-2024, 02:47 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 05-03-2024, 12:33 PM
|
1 response
13 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
05-03-2024, 01:14 PM
|
||
Started by rogue06, 04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
0 responses
12 views
1 like
|
Last Post
by rogue06
04-27-2024, 09:38 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-26-2024, 10:10 PM
|
5 responses
23 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-28-2024, 08:10 AM
|
||
Started by shunyadragon, 04-25-2024, 08:37 PM
|
2 responses
12 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
04-25-2024, 10:21 PM
|
Comment