I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago... (page 7)

cofty

Perhaps my problem is that I have no imagination. - Vidqun

Your problem is a lack of knowledge combined with dogmatism.

A Ha

A ha, I am sorry to say, those are not my ideas, but those put forward by scientists of a new relatively new science, called Information Science. They were actually formulated by the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt Braunschweig).

No, this is incorrect. This made-up definition has been "formulated" by Werner Gitt, who is the former member (and later head of the IT department) of PTB. These definitions were not published by PTB, but by Creation.com and Answers in Genesis. It is also incorrect that these ideas are pushed by "scientists of... Information Science." They are pushed by one retired scientist writing as a young-earth creationist, and he speicifically does not use terms as defined by Information Scientists. In fact he misuses terms and dresses them up in scientific language inappropriately (he claims to be citing theorems that are not theorems, and even all this mumbo-jumbo about "Laws if information" are by definition not laws.)

Tell the truth, Vidqun, you got this information from creation.com, not from PTB.

Edit to link to the article Vidqun is using.

cofty

Priceless!

atomant

l believe in partial evolution and overlapping evolution.

A Ha

You talk of "uncaused events." Would you be so kind as to name a few. As far as I know, there is no such thing.

Oh, I don't know.... perhaps virtual particles popping into existence uncaused? (On the other hand, popping back out of existence afterward seems to have a cause.) Or maybe radioactive decay?

But you're missing the larger point. If you think there can be nothing uncaused, then God cannot exist, since it would be uncaused. If you make an exception that God is allowed to be uncaused, then the beginning of the universe is also allowed to be uncaused. To say you get to name an exception but I can't is special pleading.

That said, you're missing the point. "Uncaused events" are postulated in the topic of cosmology and cosmogeny, not biology and evolution.

And is that not the problem with the theory of evolution? Its proponents reason that the origin of life was an accident. It all happened by chance. Not only did it get kickstarted by itself, it developed into a wide variety of magnificent life forms through the process of evolution.

No, it's not a problem because causation is not the same as randomness. They are not remotely the same thing. A bunch of atoms bumping into each other and reacting, forming molecules, and molecules reacting to form larger molecules... eventually forming organisms, is the result of randomness (random in the sense that we don't know which specific molecules will react, and we can't predict which genes will mutate as a result of radiation, copying errors, etc). Randomness is not non-causality.

ILoveTTATT2

Anyways... so I taught the class some basics of evolution and some proofs of common descent such as endogenous retroviruses.

It was really cool! One person who doubted evolution ended up thanking me for the info! I gotta thank Cofty!!

Vidqun

A ha, wrong. I first got some of the information from here. That is no secret (see previous threads):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35fulERIUnU

The rest of the information I got from two books written by Dr. Werner Gitt, called "In the beginning was information" and "Without Excuse." The books are based on articles he wrote and lectures he gave while appointed Professor and Director at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (1978). He was head of the Department of Information Technology. His biography states: "He has written numerous scientific papers in the field of information science, numerical mathematics and control engineering." I have a list of his articles and lectures for those that are interested. He would write his technical articles and lectures under the auspices of the German Federal Institute. He actually invites all to disseminate the information on information in the interest of truth.

But thanks for the link to the website. It might come in handy for future reference.

The study of information was his life's work and I believe he knows what he is talking about there. Yes, he's not popular because what he says about information is true and the truth hurts. I don't agree with his theology though. As a Young Earth proponent, he insists that God is above His natural laws and that these do not apply to Him. I, on the other hand believe that God follows His natural laws in creation. This I base on results obtained from archaeology, linguistics, carbon dating and the fossil record.

I have not encountered much refutation of his work on information. I believe it is because his logic is impeccable. Not many want to take him on in his own field of expertise, which was his life's work. I am a linguist at heart and his laws on information make 100% sense. Human language, computer language and DNA "language" do not fall out of the air. In each case it would come from an intelligent source, the first from a human being, the second from a computer programmer and the third arose spontaneously (by spontaneous combustion?) from the activities of basic elements, molecules, gases, electrons and energy (heat from the earth, lightning and sunlight). No, the latter must have come from a very intelligent Creator. Not rocket science at all, I'm sorry you don't see it that way. Because of that, you will have a distinct disadvantage in your life and in your studies.

cofty

Human language, computer language and DNA "language"

I am glad you put your third use of the word language in quotes. The first two are actual languages. The third is a metaphor.

I have noticed all of your questions get answered but you ignore questions directed at you. Why?

If our genome so optimal why are there plants with genomes 50 times larger ours? Is a Japonica 50 times as complex as a human?

How about the protozoa known as Amoeba dubia? It has a genome more than 200 times bigger than a human!

Vidqun

Cofty, as I told you. I don't know, I'm not a botanist or zoologist. Not sure why you are harping on this? Look at an Amoeba dubia or Camelia japonica (if that is what you mean by Japonica)? A beautiful flowering plant, yet far removed from us humans. Amoeba is a one-celled organism. Why would their genome be bigger? Good question.

Here’s a possible answer. Might be the fact that the DNA of the single-celled organism happen to be so extensive to have resulted in a limitation of that species' adaptability? A very sloppy little computer program may well serve its simple function even though it is inefficiently written; yet, it is not likely to be useful as the hub for building a more complex program. Perhaps one of the apprentices worked on those two (as well as the cockroach and mosquito), who knows? Makes me think of Terry Pratchett, one of my all-time favorites. Now that’s a gentleman that had a spectacular imagination. Rincewind’s Australian visit is called “The Last Continent.” Do yourself a favor and read it. You need to lighten up. I stand by what I wrote. Compare that to our computers and computer programs. We don't even come close:

... man is undoubtably the most complex information-processing system on earth. The total number of bits handled daily in all information-processing events occurring in the human body is approximately 3 x 10²⁴. This includes all deliberate as well as all involuntary activities, the former comprising the use of language and the information required for controlling voluntary movements, while the latter includes the control of the internal organs and hormonal systems. The number of bits being processed daily in the human body is more than a million times the total amount of human knowledge stored in all the libraries of the world, which is about 10¹⁸ bits.

Quite a few people are six feet tall. If unraveled the DNA molecule of any cell in one’s body is approximately seven feet long. The information in a single DNA strand is the equivalent of many sets of Encyclopedias. Think about it, the fertilized ovum is the size of a pinhead. That nucleus supplies all the information to construct a person.

Some interesting discussions on the Internet, dealing with above two. But it seems, nobody knows for sure.

Here's a few interesting observations by a botanist, Ilia Leitch, Research Scientist at the Jodrell Laboratory at Kew, concerning Paris japonica (Japanese canopy plant): 'We were astounded when we discovered that this small stunning plant had such a large genome - it’s so large that when stretched out it would be taller than the tower of Big Ben.

'Some people may wonder what the consequences are of such a large genome and whether it really matters if one organism has more DNA than another. The answer to this is a resounding “yes, it does”, and the consequences operate at all levels from the cell up to the whole organism and beyond. In plants, research has demonstrated that those with large genomes are at greater risk of extinction, are less adapted to living in polluted soils and are less able to tolerate extreme environmental conditions – all highly relevant in today’s changing world.'

This brings us back to the comparison of the computer programs, large and clunky ones and sleek and compact ones.

cofty

You just demolished your own argument for intelligent design.

I am deeply ashamed that I didn't accept evolution until a few years ago...

Share this