Information theory is an interesting topic and parts of it deal with the physical. The difference between data and information; Data – raw material, unorganized facts. Information – useful data; (Reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information, )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
In The Beginning Was Information:
Online Lecture: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...was-information
Book by Dr. Warner Gitt.
Other book: An Introduction to Information Theory (Paperback)
by John R. Pierce
Some Questions, to open discussion:
1.Is information physical?
2.Does evolution require information?
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
TracerTong
Not necessarily.
Not necessarily.
2.Does evolution require information?
No, but it does PRODUCE information and it is coded into the genes.
Do you concider the various songs of birds music? The croaks of frogs? The chirps of crickets? The howls of wolves? The love taps of a courting spider?
Grumpy
Birds do.
Annnnd.....
Birds do.
Annnnd.....
GIBBON SONGS AND DUETS:
What is a song?
By Thorpe: “What is usually understood by the term song is a series of notes, generally of more than one type, uttered in succession and so related as to form a recognizable sequence or pattern in time,” or a succession of phrases with nonrandom succession probability”
Gibbons produce loud and long song bouts. Depending on species and context, the bouts have an average duration of ten to thirty minutes, but sometimes there are uninterrupted songs bout of a male Hylobates lar with a duration of eighty-six minutes. Songs are preferentially uttered in the early morning hours, with species-specific preferences for specific hours before, around or after dawn.
The songs are stereotyped and species-specific. Species can easily be identified by their songs, and vocal characteristics have been used to assess systematic relationships among hylobatids and reconstruct their phylogeny.
Another specialization is the occurrence of duet singing in all gibbons with the exception of H. klossii and H. moloch. Duets are mostly sung by mated pairs.Typically, mates combine their repertoire in relatively rigid, more or less precisely timed vocal interactions to produce well-patterned duets.
Males of many gibbon species produce one or several distinct types of short phrases that often become gradually more complex as the song bout proceeds. At more or less regular intervals, females insert long, female-specific phrases that are commonly referred to as great calls. In most species, great calls consist of a particularly rhythmic series of long notes uttered with increasing tempo and/or increasing peak frequency. Males usually stop vocalising at the beginning of each great call and provide a special reply phrase to the great call before resuming their more common short phrases. In addition, one or both partners often exhibit an acrobatic display at the climax of the great call, which may be accompanied by piloerection and branch shaking. The combination of the female great call and the male coda is termed a great call sequence, and it may be repeated many times during a single song bout.
Most gibbon species produce sequences other than great call sequences during a song bout. In addition, females of most species contribute phrases other than great calls to the duets, but because great calls (and great call sequences) are so loud and stereotyped, most studies simply ignore the more variable portion of the female repertoire.
In contrast to what might be expected in primates and to what we know about song development in many bird species, the species-specific charac-teristics in gibbons are not learned,asdemonstrated by studies on the vocal repertoire of a large number of various hybrid gibbons. A hybrid raised by its parents in a zoo where no other gibbons are present receives only the male song of one parental species and only the female song of the other parental species as potential templates from which song learning would be possible.
QUOTE
1.Is information physical?
Not necessarily.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1.Is information physical? |
Not necessarily.
2.Does evolution require information?
No, but it does PRODUCE information and it is coded into the genes.
QUOTE
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
Do you concider the various songs of birds music? The croaks of frogs? The chirps of crickets? The howls of wolves? The love taps of a courting spider?
Grumpy
People who write about biology and information should know in the sciences there are various definitions of information, some of which can be measured in bits and some which cannot, and that none of these mathematical definitions is synonymous with 'meaning.'
I would argue that evolution requires information. It's obviously a long term process to allow random mutations select the best characteristics. The environment and success of reproduction are two variables that evolution requires.
In one sense (perhaps a bit of a stretch) but these senses we have that we characterize as "innate" could really just be the expression of this "genetic memory" that we've accumulated though the whole long evolutionary process.
In one sense (perhaps a bit of a stretch) but these senses we have that we characterize as "innate" could really just be the expression of this "genetic memory" that we've accumulated though the whole long evolutionary process.
Well, I think that given some egregious use of multiple, incomplete and inaccurate definitions to make English statements which are not supported by math or evidence, that it would be important to be sure of commonly agreed upon definitions of the terms (and where necessary, clarification) prior to making any argument.
QUOTE (rpenner+May 27 2009, 03:52 AM)
Well, I think that given some egregious use of multiple, incomplete and inaccurate definitions to make English statements which are not supported by math or evidence, that it would be important to be sure of commonly agreed upon definitions of the terms (and where necessary, clarification) prior to making any argument.
You mean when he calls DNA information? I think he means the code itself. There is possibly a logical fallacy or not following arcum's razor in there somewhere. Part 2 talks about the 5 criteria he uses to determine whether or not its information. I imagine a vinn diagram and it helps.
You mean when he calls DNA information? I think he means the code itself. There is possibly a logical fallacy or not following arcum's razor in there somewhere. Part 2 talks about the 5 criteria he uses to determine whether or not its information. I imagine a vinn diagram and it helps.
QUOTE (TracerTong+May 26 2009, 03:01 PM)
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
Not sure what this question means exactly, but the fact that ideas of harmony, consonance and dissonance vary from culture to culture leads me to the conclusion that music is completely a construct of the human mind.
And listening to the current top 40 leads me to the conclusion that it is most definitely NOT intelligently designed.
Not sure what this question means exactly, but the fact that ideas of harmony, consonance and dissonance vary from culture to culture leads me to the conclusion that music is completely a construct of the human mind.
And listening to the current top 40 leads me to the conclusion that it is most definitely NOT intelligently designed.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 27 2009, 05:57 PM)
Not sure what this question means exactly, but the fact that ideas of harmony, consonance and dissonance vary from culture to culture leads me to the conclusion that music is completely a construct of the human mind.
And listening to the current top 40 leads me to the conclusion that it is most definitely NOT intelligently designed.
Monkeys don't make music do they? Or straw men? Praise God! Let everthing that has breath praise the Lord!
And listening to the current top 40 leads me to the conclusion that it is most definitely NOT intelligently designed.
Monkeys don't make music do they? Or straw men? Praise God! Let everthing that has breath praise the Lord!
QUOTE
Monkeys don't make music do they?
Birds do.
Annnnd.....
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Monkeys don't make music do they? |
Birds do.
Annnnd.....
GIBBON SONGS AND DUETS:
What is a song?
By Thorpe: “What is usually understood by the term song is a series of notes, generally of more than one type, uttered in succession and so related as to form a recognizable sequence or pattern in time,” or a succession of phrases with nonrandom succession probability”
Gibbons produce loud and long song bouts. Depending on species and context, the bouts have an average duration of ten to thirty minutes, but sometimes there are uninterrupted songs bout of a male Hylobates lar with a duration of eighty-six minutes. Songs are preferentially uttered in the early morning hours, with species-specific preferences for specific hours before, around or after dawn.
The songs are stereotyped and species-specific. Species can easily be identified by their songs, and vocal characteristics have been used to assess systematic relationships among hylobatids and reconstruct their phylogeny.
Another specialization is the occurrence of duet singing in all gibbons with the exception of H. klossii and H. moloch. Duets are mostly sung by mated pairs.Typically, mates combine their repertoire in relatively rigid, more or less precisely timed vocal interactions to produce well-patterned duets.
Males of many gibbon species produce one or several distinct types of short phrases that often become gradually more complex as the song bout proceeds. At more or less regular intervals, females insert long, female-specific phrases that are commonly referred to as great calls. In most species, great calls consist of a particularly rhythmic series of long notes uttered with increasing tempo and/or increasing peak frequency. Males usually stop vocalising at the beginning of each great call and provide a special reply phrase to the great call before resuming their more common short phrases. In addition, one or both partners often exhibit an acrobatic display at the climax of the great call, which may be accompanied by piloerection and branch shaking. The combination of the female great call and the male coda is termed a great call sequence, and it may be repeated many times during a single song bout.
Most gibbon species produce sequences other than great call sequences during a song bout. In addition, females of most species contribute phrases other than great calls to the duets, but because great calls (and great call sequences) are so loud and stereotyped, most studies simply ignore the more variable portion of the female repertoire.
In contrast to what might be expected in primates and to what we know about song development in many bird species, the species-specific charac-teristics in gibbons are not learned,asdemonstrated by studies on the vocal repertoire of a large number of various hybrid gibbons. A hybrid raised by its parents in a zoo where no other gibbons are present receives only the male song of one parental species and only the female song of the other parental species as potential templates from which song learning would be possible.
QUOTE (TracerTong+May 27 2009, 02:05 PM)
Monkeys don't make music do they? Or straw men? Praise God! Let everthing that has breath praise the Lord!
What's your point?
What's your point?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 27 2009, 07:29 PM)
What's your point?
It said somewhere in the lecture/book along the lines that information requires a sender and receiver. What's communication between birds can be noise to us. My whole point --what I am trying to tell you-- is that God wants to communicate with you.
It said somewhere in the lecture/book along the lines that information requires a sender and receiver. What's communication between birds can be noise to us. My whole point --what I am trying to tell you-- is that God wants to communicate with you.
QUOTE (TracerTong+May 27 2009, 04:36 PM)
It said somewhere in the lecture/book along the lines that information requires a sender and receiver. What's communication between birds can be noise to us. My whole point --what I am trying to tell you-- is that God wants to communicate with you!
She knows what it would take.
She knows what it would take.
I guess since we're thinking evolution (Example: rna replication) is a physical process then talking about the nonphysical information wouldn't make sense.
QUOTE (TracerTong+May 28 2009, 03:24 AM)
I guess since we're thinking evolution (Example: rna replication) is a physical process then talking about the nonphysical information wouldn't make sense.
Information and noise are two ways of looking at the same thing.
Information and noise are two ways of looking at the same thing.
QUOTE (uaafanblog+May 27 2009, 02:50 AM)
I would argue that evolution requires information. It's obviously a long term process to allow random mutations select the best characteristics.
Random mutations do not select the best characteristics.
Random mutations do not select the best characteristics.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 27 2009, 10:12 PM)
Information and noise are two ways of looking at the same thing.
Yes. I/you were mixing metaphors/examples with information (meaningful) and data; music(meaningful noise) and noise; They have specific sender & receiver. If I spoke chinese that info would be useless data to you but not a native Chinese speaker.
Yes. I/you were mixing metaphors/examples with information (meaningful) and data; music(meaningful noise) and noise; They have specific sender & receiver. If I spoke chinese that info would be useless data to you but not a native Chinese speaker.
QUOTE (TracerTong+May 26 2009, 08:01 PM)
Information theory is an interesting topic and parts of it deal with the physical. The difference between data and information; Data – raw material, unorganized facts. Information – useful data; (Reference: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Data_vs_Information, )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
In The Beginning Was Information:
Online Lecture: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...was-information
Book by Dr. Warner Gitt.
Other book: An Introduction to Information Theory (Paperback)
by John R. Pierce
Some Questions, to open discussion:
1.Is information physical?
2.Does evolution require information?
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
Hey Tracer. Good questions. With "information" being hard to define I only describe "memory" where you might say the information is stored.
The memory is physical.
The memory is physical.
2.Does evolution require information?
One of the 4 requirements of intelligence necessary for such molecular complexity is a memory, in this case RNA/DNA.
I would say both.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
In The Beginning Was Information:
Online Lecture: http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/vide...was-information
Book by Dr. Warner Gitt.
Other book: An Introduction to Information Theory (Paperback)
by John R. Pierce
Some Questions, to open discussion:
1.Is information physical?
2.Does evolution require information?
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
Hey Tracer. Good questions. With "information" being hard to define I only describe "memory" where you might say the information is stored.
QUOTE
1.Is information physical?
The memory is physical.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1.Is information physical? |
The memory is physical.
2.Does evolution require information?
One of the 4 requirements of intelligence necessary for such molecular complexity is a memory, in this case RNA/DNA.
QUOTE
3.Is music created, intelligently designed, or does it evolve?
I would say both.
1.Is information physical?
Yes, information represents low probability state, and the state is a physical form. However, this is not information of the form of "a message from one person to another"
2.Does evolution require information?
Yes, evolution requires both new low probability structures (modifications to the DNA) and also natural selection
Yes, information represents low probability state, and the state is a physical form. However, this is not information of the form of "a message from one person to another"
2.Does evolution require information?
Yes, evolution requires both new low probability structures (modifications to the DNA) and also natural selection
QUOTE (TinyTree+Sep 20 2009, 04:39 PM)
1.Is information physical?
Yes, information represents low probability state, and the state is a physical form. However, this is not information of the form of "a message from one person to another"
So the state is in a physical form but not the information. Another way to look at it is: Does an empty blank computer disk weigh less than one that has a story on it?
Yes, information represents low probability state, and the state is a physical form. However, this is not information of the form of "a message from one person to another"
So the state is in a physical form but not the information. Another way to look at it is: Does an empty blank computer disk weigh less than one that has a story on it?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 23 2009, 05:11 PM)
So the state is in a physical form but not the information. Another way to look at it is: Does an empty blank computer disk weigh less than one that has a story on it?
Another way to look at information is -- something that comes from your mind; its said that information requires an intelligent source.
I wonder who gave ATP's in the cell their information/language?
Reference for ATP: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...ages/A/ATP.html
Another way to look at information is -- something that comes from your mind; its said that information requires an intelligent source.
I wonder who gave ATP's in the cell their information/language?
Reference for ATP: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/...ages/A/ATP.html
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 23 2009, 10:04 PM)
it's said that information requires an intelligent source.
That is wrong.
The number of atoms in the solar system is information, and did not require an intelligent source.
That is wrong.
The number of atoms in the solar system is information, and did not require an intelligent source.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 23 2009, 10:37 PM)
That is wrong.
The number of atoms in the solar system is information, and did not require an intelligent source.
You said it? *ducks down*
The number of atoms in the solar system is information, and did not require an intelligent source.
You said it? *ducks down*
QUOTE (TracerTong+Sep 23 2009, 11:10 PM)
You said it? *ducks down*
But I"m not an intelligent source.
Just ask Newguy.
But I"m not an intelligent source.
Just ask Newguy.
QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 23 2009, 11:44 PM)
But I"m not an intelligent source.
Just ask Newguy.
I think thats just data, because its not useful or meaningful. What atoms make up a water molecule? H20, which would mean two hydrogens and one of oxygen. If I gave you the number 7777777777777777 that would be data. but if I gave you 7777-7777-7777-7777 and told you it was a credit card number that is info dude
see try giving me your card # now.
Just ask Newguy.
I think thats just data, because its not useful or meaningful. What atoms make up a water molecule? H20, which would mean two hydrogens and one of oxygen. If I gave you the number 7777777777777777 that would be data. but if I gave you 7777-7777-7777-7777 and told you it was a credit card number that is info dude
see try giving me your card # now.
Information theory while useful for dealing with the large scale combinatorial arrangements and encoding potential of different media from quark sized to universal sizes does not deal with the function or action that is evident in the universe. As in the case of the cell, The dna and the rna do not do anything. The active proteins through enzyme action use the information to control their product.
QUOTE (jehovajah+Sep 28 2009, 02:30 PM)
Information theory while useful for dealing with the large scale combinatorial arrangements and encoding potential of different media from quark sized to universal sizes does not deal with the function or action that is evident in the universe. As in the case of the cell, The dna and the rna do not do anything. The active proteins through enzyme action use the information to control their product.
The active proteins through enzyme action use the information to control their product.
(Assuming your right)Who gave them the information?
The active proteins through enzyme action use the information to control their product.
(Assuming your right)Who gave them the information?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 2 2009, 04:13 PM)
The active proteins through enzyme action use the information to control their product.
(Assuming your right)Who gave them the information?
Who said anybody had to?
(Assuming your right)Who gave them the information?
Who said anybody had to?
Who give the information for water to fall off a cliff?
Who gives the information for fire to burn?
It's a silly premise. Chemicals do what chemicals are wont to do. No one needs to set it up.... how they work is simply based on what they are.
Who gives the information for fire to burn?
It's a silly premise. Chemicals do what chemicals are wont to do. No one needs to set it up.... how they work is simply based on what they are.
Is rain the evolution of clouds?
Is surface tension the DNA that tells the water how big the droplets it forms should be?
Is temperature information that lets the water molecule know when to evaporate?
Are interacting ripples in a pond caused by rain drops music?
[Moderator: Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. Please check out his posting history and tell me if I am wrong.]
Is surface tension the DNA that tells the water how big the droplets it forms should be?
Is temperature information that lets the water molecule know when to evaporate?
Are interacting ripples in a pond caused by rain drops music?
[Moderator: Moderator: Banned 15 days for being non-useful, trolling, being deliberately obtuse and obstructionist, and lazy. Please check out his posting history and tell me if I am wrong.]
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 2 2009, 04:37 PM)
Who give the information for water to fall off a cliff?
Who gives the information for fire to burn?
It's a silly premise. Chemicals do what chemicals are wont to do. No one needs to set it up.... how they work is simply based on what they are.
Who gives the information for fire to burn?
It's a silly premise. Chemicals do what chemicals are wont to do. No one needs to set it up.... how they work is simply based on what they are.
QUOTE (light in the tunnel+)
Is rain the evolution of clouds?
Is surface tension the DNA that tells the water how big the droplets it forms should be?
Is temperature information that lets the water molecule know when to evaporate?
Are interacting ripples in a pond caused by rain drops music?
'they are' is a state of being. This would indicate to me that a truth exists, and you seem to be going back to self assembly without a cause. Hope you don't hit yourself with a hammer and pretend it doesn't hurt. I hope you get breathed into: http://www.myspace.com/dropofred
Which, just like the poster who believes electricity travels faster than light, leaves a credibility gap between your beliefs and millions of observations and experiments.
At a minimum, you have to explain why all the evidence is pointing away from your belief and to give a clear way to come to having your belief. Common descent with modification is a CSI-level scientific fact. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. So all of these positions are adopted as fact. And up against this you have what?
We've already discussed some of this in the: Phylogenetic Orchard Vs. Tree, Makes more sense?: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry395278
I agree with Common descent with modification. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. You know that --
In the CSI Las Vegas episode "Crate n' Burial" from season one, supervisor Gil Grissom (William Petersen) offered a memorable quote, "I tend not to believe people. People lie. The evidence doesn't lie." (You appear to be upset CHILL http://www.youtube.com/user/thorramsey#p/u)
I'll go take a break too
Is surface tension the DNA that tells the water how big the droplets it forms should be?
Is temperature information that lets the water molecule know when to evaporate?
Are interacting ripples in a pond caused by rain drops music?
'they are' is a state of being. This would indicate to me that a truth exists, and you seem to be going back to self assembly without a cause. Hope you don't hit yourself with a hammer and pretend it doesn't hurt. I hope you get breathed into: http://www.myspace.com/dropofred
Tracer Tong
Your last post is incoherent and without any discernible point.
Did you have one or did you just feel like babbling?
Your last post is incoherent and without any discernible point.
Did you have one or did you just feel like babbling?
QUOTE (RobDegraves+Oct 3 2009, 04:04 PM)
Tracer Tong
Your last post is incoherent and without any discernible point.
Did you have one or did you just feel like babbling?
You seemed to be changing subjects in your posts, can you be more specific as to what your talking about? You lost me.
Your last post is incoherent and without any discernible point.
Did you have one or did you just feel like babbling?
You seemed to be changing subjects in your posts, can you be more specific as to what your talking about? You lost me.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 3 2009, 03:51 PM)
[/QUOTE]
'they are' is a state of being. This would indicate to me that a truth exists, and you seem to be going back to self assembly without a cause. Hope you don't hit yourself with a hammer and pretend it doesn't hurt. I hope you get breathed into: http://www.myspace.com/dropofred
Just because there is a truth doesn't mean we can know it.
And not self assembly without a cause.
Self assembly without an intelligence driving it.
Does someone have to hand assemble a snowflake to make it a hexagon?
Nails don't drive themselves in but snowflakes form on their own. So it's not a valid comparison.
The tornado and the 747 is also not a valid comparison to anything.
'they are' is a state of being. This would indicate to me that a truth exists, and you seem to be going back to self assembly without a cause. Hope you don't hit yourself with a hammer and pretend it doesn't hurt. I hope you get breathed into: http://www.myspace.com/dropofred
Just because there is a truth doesn't mean we can know it.
And not self assembly without a cause.
Self assembly without an intelligence driving it.
Does someone have to hand assemble a snowflake to make it a hexagon?
Nails don't drive themselves in but snowflakes form on their own. So it's not a valid comparison.
The tornado and the 747 is also not a valid comparison to anything.
Not only does evolution require information from the gene expression that is acted on through natural selection, but the UNDERSTANDING of evolution requires information of the scientific kind! So many different scientific disciplines all point unerringly to the fact of evolution! 
Everything in the natural sciences like palynology, ethology, taxonomy, anthropology, oceanography, genetics and the rest or in stratigraphy, paleogeography, geology and others would be incomplete without the "grand unification" of evolutionary thought. Those dimwits who deny evolution are the same kinds who could deny the Holocaust! 
There is too much evidence existing everywhere to enable any thinking person to deny either one. 
So many different scientific disciplines all point unerringly to the fact of evolution! Everything in the natural sciences like palynology, ethology, taxonomy, anthropology, oceanography, genetics and the rest or in stratigraphy, paleogeography, geology and others would be incomplete without the "grand unification" of evolutionary thought. Those dimwits who deny evolution are the same kinds who could deny the Holocaust! There is too much evidence existing everywhere to enable any thinking person to deny either one.
QUOTE (photojack+Oct 7 2009, 03:40 PM)
Not only does evolution require information from the gene expression that is acted on through natural selection, but the UNDERSTANDING of evolution requires information of the scientific kind! So many different scientific disciplines all point unerringly to the fact of evolution! Everything in the natural sciences like palynology, ethology, taxonomy, anthropology, oceanography, genetics and the rest or in stratigraphy, paleogeography, geology and others would be incomplete without the "grand unification" of evolutionary thought. Those dimwits who deny evolution are the same kinds who could deny the Holocaust! There is too much evidence existing everywhere to enable any thinking person to deny either one.
Do you mean evolution or Evolution(origin)? If organisms had the same sender and receiver, the info should be able to be decoded and encoded similarily.
So many different scientific disciplines all point unerringly to the fact of evolution! Everything in the natural sciences like palynology, ethology, taxonomy, anthropology, oceanography, genetics and the rest or in stratigraphy, paleogeography, geology and others would be incomplete without the "grand unification" of evolutionary thought. Those dimwits who deny evolution are the same kinds who could deny the Holocaust! There is too much evidence existing everywhere to enable any thinking person to deny either one. Do you mean evolution or Evolution(origin)? If organisms had the same sender and receiver, the info should be able to be decoded and encoded similarily.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 10:44 AM)
Do you mean evolution or Evolution(origin)? If organisms had the same sender and receiver, the info should be able to be decoded and encoded similarily.
You show no signs of even nearly understanding the scope and mechanism of Evolution. If you want to debate the theory of Evolution, learn about it first. It's like debating how to drive a car when you have never been in a car before.
You show no signs of even nearly understanding the scope and mechanism of Evolution. If you want to debate the theory of Evolution, learn about it first. It's like debating how to drive a car when you have never been in a car before.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 13 2009, 03:49 PM)
You show no signs of even nearly understanding the scope and mechanism of Evolution. If you want to debate the theory of Evolution, learn about it first. It's like debating how to drive a car when you have never been in a car before.
I believe we did not evolve from a common ancester, we were created. Yes organisms change over time. I'm talking about the "information" aspect of it which public school/secular Evolutionary biology usually doesn't look at.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 03:59 PM)
I believe we did not evolve from a common ancester, we were created.
But the evidence does not show that.
But the evidence does not show that.
QUOTE (buttershug+Oct 13 2009, 04:03 PM)
But the evidence does not show that.
It depends on the pov you have, they made Lucy out to be a woman. (<--Changing subject)Show what, if E=mc^2 and functions have dependancies, and there are laws in the physical; one thing that seperates data from info is meaning which, requires intellect?
(you have the right(US laws) to believe that)
It depends on the pov you have, they made Lucy out to be a woman. (<--Changing subject)Show what, if E=mc^2 and functions have dependancies, and there are laws in the physical; one thing that seperates data from info is meaning which, requires intellect?
(you have the right(US laws) to believe that)
QUOTE (TracerTong+ Oct 13 2009, 03:59 PM)
I believe we did not evolve from a common ancester, we were created.
Which, just like the poster who believes electricity travels faster than light, leaves a credibility gap between your beliefs and millions of observations and experiments.
At a minimum, you have to explain why all the evidence is pointing away from your belief and to give a clear way to come to having your belief. Common descent with modification is a CSI-level scientific fact. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. So all of these positions are adopted as fact. And up against this you have what?
QUOTE
But the evidence does not show that.
Which, just like the poster who believes electricity travels faster than light, leaves a credibility gap between your beliefs and millions of observations and experiments.
At a minimum, you have to explain why all the evidence is pointing away from your belief and to give a clear way to come to having your belief. Common descent with modification is a CSI-level scientific fact. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. So all of these positions are adopted as fact. And up against this you have what?
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 04:13 PM)
It depends on the pov you have, they made Lucy out to be a woman. (<--Changing subject)Show what, if E=mc^2 and functions have dependancies, and there are laws in the physical one thing that seperates data from info is meaning which, requires intellect?
(you have the right(US laws) to believe that)
You have the right to believe any thing you want.
You do not have the right to protection from criticism for believing things that go against available evidence.
The right to your own opinion does not extend to matters of fact.
(you have the right(US laws) to believe that)
You have the right to believe any thing you want.
You do not have the right to protection from criticism for believing things that go against available evidence.
The right to your own opinion does not extend to matters of fact.
QUOTE (rpenner+Oct 13 2009, 04:13 PM)
Which, just like the poster who believes electricity travels faster than light, leaves a credibility gap between your beliefs and millions of observations and experiments.
At a minimum, you have to explain why all the evidence is pointing away from your belief and to give a clear way to come to having your belief. Common descent with modification is a CSI-level scientific fact. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. So all of these positions are adopted as fact. And up against this you have what?
We've already discussed some of this in the: Phylogenetic Orchard Vs. Tree, Makes more sense?: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtop...=0&#entry395278
I agree with Common descent with modification. Adaptive evolution is well-demonstrated to have the mechanism of natural selection. You know that --
In the CSI Las Vegas episode "Crate n' Burial" from season one, supervisor Gil Grissom (William Petersen) offered a memorable quote, "I tend not to believe people. People lie. The evidence doesn't lie." (You appear to be upset CHILL http://www.youtube.com/user/thorramsey#p/u)
I'll go take a break too
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 12:27 PM)
In the CSI Las Vegas episode "Crate n' Burial" from season one, supervisor Gil Grissom (William Petersen) offered a memorable quote, "I tend not to believe people. People lie. The evidence doesn't lie."
Thank you for that self-incriminating statement.
Thank you for that self-incriminating statement.
QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Oct 13 2009, 04:31 PM)
Thank you for that self-incriminating statement.
The Common descent, I believe -- created by the same Creator.
The Common descent, I believe -- created by the same Creator.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 05:07 PM)
The Common descent, I believe -- created by the same Creator.
That's what people say.
However the evidence says, not.
That's what people say.
However the evidence says, not.
QUOTE (TracerTong+Oct 13 2009, 05:07 PM)
The Common descent, I believe -- created by the same Creator.
Common creator?
OH! By creator you mean, genetic mutations filtered by natural selection.
Common creator?
OH! By creator you mean, genetic mutations filtered by natural selection.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.