Vorkosigan

Post moved by Admin MT: 2/21/02

No, from studies on penicillin resistant bacteria.

[b] No, genes work in concert with other genes in the
genome, just like word order in a sentence. So a genome like "Spot run see" would result in a loss of information because the genes would not be transcripted in the proper sequence.

Automaton

I wonder if Ed knows there's such thing as vancomycin resistant bacteria.

Oolon Colluphid

Resistant?? Some of them feed off the stuff! I'll try and find that thread.

Oolon

Automaton

I chose that strain of bacteria because, as any population geneticist will tell you, from the way it outbreaks in singular, localized cases in certain hospitals it could not have possibly been already existant in the gene pool (its traits must be the result of mutations), and the six-part system it evolved is highly (irreducibly ) complex and can in no way said to be a "loss in information". I purposefully left out any detail in the hope that a creationist would go out and educate themselves, but oh well.

*Just waits for them to come out and say "but it's still just bacteria, not a clam or a rhesus monkey!"*

Oolon Colluphid

Excellent, Automaton! Do you have any more specific details of this 'six-part system' please?

Oolon

lpetrich

Let's see if Ed will follow this thread to its new home. I'll respond to his most recent comments here:

True, there are gaps in our understanding. But such gaps have a tendency to disappear over time as we learn more and more, and these particular gaps may suffer the same fate.

Consider the case of inorganic vs. organic compounds, which started about 2 centuries ago or thereabouts. That division was originally associated with the belief that the latter kind could only be created either from other organic compounds or by living things. This closely parallels Ed's viewpoints about life and personality, that life only comes from life and personality only comes from personality.

However, in the early 19th cy., a chemist took some ammonium cyanate, generally considered inorganic, and produced urea, generally considered organic. This has been followed by numerous other syntheses of organic compounds, and the distinction has been reinterpreted.

There are good reasons, such as biogeography; many islands are inhabited by distinctive species that are often closely related to those in nearby continents -- species that could have naturally arrived at those islands. Thus, the only warm-blooded land animals that one finds are flightless birds, which look as if their ancestors could have flown to those islands. That is because some small rodents (for example) floating in a log would have starved after a few days or weeks as a result of their high metabolic rate, while cold-blooded animals like turtles and lizards could simply slow down for the duration of the voyage.

This is very difficult to explain with the hypothesis of some superpowerful creator -- even such finite ones as extraterrestrial visitors -- except if one subscribes to some version of Philip Gosse's created-appearance hypothesis. This is because such an entity/entities would not be limited by the ability of its creations to travel.

How is that "loss of information"? Loss of function, perhaps, but not loss of bits necessary to specify that sequence.

Oolon Colluphid

Oooh goodie! A design argument!

Perhaps, Ed, you’d care to explain why in humans the 'language' in this code is 95% incomprehensible gibberish? Why the same bits of gibberish are repeated millions and millions of times?

I'll wait to see if he does come here before delving further into that.

Cheers, Oolon

Ed

I really would have preferred to continue this discussion on the other thread but I guess I will transfer everything over here.

Quote:

Rim: I know I promised to break my habit of responding to (Dead Head) Ed, but this is juct to good to resist... Ed: There are numerous books written and some hundreds of pages long explaining the Trinity and its biblical evidence in the original languages. Contrary to the JWs translation. I will provide you with some titles if you want but otherwise I dont have the time or the inclination to write a huge thesis on this site distilling that research done by much more learned men than I. Rim: I shall now procede to use the very words Ed did right before this post in order to respond. "Most of those objections to JW theology can be easily explained, but I didn't come here to debate other people's books. Why don't you present the objections in your own words and then I will respond?" Jackass.

What is wrong with my response Rim? There was nothing contradictory in my responses.

[ February 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ed ]</p>

Oolon Colluphid

IMPORTANT NOTE TO ED:

This thread isn't for everything in the other thread -- what would be the point of that? -- it's to cover evolution-related issues arising from there. Please keep the theology stuff there, where it belongs.

Cheers, Oolon

Edited to add: okay, I see that thread is now closed. In which case, please start a new thread on, or do whatever you want with, this Trinity stuff. This forum is for Evolution/Creation matters (and ramifications therefrom) only. Thanks!

[ February 21, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

Jack the Bodiless

Ed, I notice that you're no closer to revealing these mythical "studies with penicillin-resistant bacteria" that supposedly "prove that information cannot increase".

Maybe because they don't exist?