Freethought & Rationalism Archive

FrankQ · 06-14-2002, 07:20 AM

The creationists say that Darwinism cannot account for new genetic information, only a reshuffling of the old information. What is the evolutionists answer to this?

Jack the Bodiless · 06-14-2002, 07:30 AM

See the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000847" target="_blank">mutations adding information</a>.
What I'm curious about is why they continue to state a demonstrable falsehood so boldly?

Sure, they believe it to be true. But, at some point, an individual creationist must have made the leap from "I don't know of any" to "they cannot exist". It might be worth hounding anyone who makes such a claim until they reveal their source.

These lies just circle around and around. Each creationist can say that HE didn't invent it (and therefore isn't lying, just misinformed). But somebody, somewhere, did.

Oolon Colluphid · 06-14-2002, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
See the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000847" target="_blank">mutations adding information</a>.
What I'm curious about is why they continue to state a demonstrable falsehood so boldly?

Ah come on Jack, if they can maintain the 'no transitional fossils' one, they can maintain anything!

With God, believing all things is possible.

Oolon

Godless Dave · 06-14-2002, 07:52 AM

Someone mentioned language in the duplicate thread. I think that's actually a very good analogy. An individual language has a finite set of morphemes and a finite set of grammatical rules, but using those rules you can produce an infinite amount of meaningful sentences.

Bill · 06-14-2002, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Godless Dave:
An individual language has a finite set of morphemes and a finite set of grammatical rules, but using those rules you can produce an infinite amount of meaningful sentences.

Not to mention an even MORE infinite amount of meaningless drivel.

== Bill

S2Focus · 06-14-2002, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FrankQ:
The creationists say that Darwinism cannot account for new genetic information, only a reshuffling of the old information. What is the evolutionists answer to this?

The best way to answer is to demand that creationists provide a concise definition of "information" and show how it can be computed or measured. Then tell them to go to <a href="http://www.tigr.org," target="_blank">www.tigr.org,</a> download some genomic sequence data for a few organisms, and then compute the amount of information contained therein (in bits or whatever). And tell 'em to show their work!

Any discussion about "information" is a complete waste of time unless you can get the creationist to supply a workable/meaningful definition of "information".

(BTW... This would be a nice assignment for Doug Bender -- with his math/comp-sci background, he should have no problem taking on a task like this!)

[ June 14, 2002: Message edited by: S2Focus ]

06-14-2002, 07:20 AM	#1
FrankQ Junior Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Michigan Posts: 5	New genetic information? The creationists say that Darwinism cannot account for new genetic information, only a reshuffling of the old information. What is the evolutionists answer to this?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-14-2002, 07:30 AM	#2
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	See the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000847" target="_blank">mutations adding information</a>. What I'm curious about is why they continue to state a demonstrable falsehood so boldly? Sure, they believe it to be true. But, at some point, an individual creationist must have made the leap from "I don't know of any" to "they cannot exist". It might be worth hounding anyone who makes such a claim until they reveal their source. These lies just circle around and around. Each creationist can say that HE didn't invent it (and therefore isn't lying, just misinformed). But somebody, somewhere, did.

06-14-2002, 07:52 AM	#4
Godless Dave Contributor Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: With 10,000 lakes who needs a coast? Posts: 10,762	Someone mentioned language in the duplicate thread. I think that's actually a very good analogy. An individual language has a finite set of morphemes and a finite set of grammatical rules, but using those rules you can produce an infinite amount of meaningful sentences.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.