[After being repeatedly asked to provide a definition of "information" to back his claim that mutations cannot add new information]
I have defined it. "More information" is anything more than what God put there "in the beginning" when He created us.
35 comments
"I have defined it. "More information" is anything more than what God put there "in the beginning" when He created us."
Since god is a myth, and could not have put any information anywhere, the entire genome of every species is made entirely of "more information".
So all the hideous, debilitating mutations and genetic diseases people and other organisms suffer today are not the result of randomness in an indifferent universe, but were deliberately pre-planned by God 6000 years ago. Riiiiight.
Novum wrote: I'm honestly getting bored of JohnR7 now. He's been on here so many times with the same kinds of material that it's just tiring now instead of funny.
I agree. There is only one of two possibilities. One he is so mind-numbingly stupid if he actually believes all this crap he posts and then completely rejects any and all logical arguments (yes, I know, the Babble warns against logic.) Or he is getting his jollies having a lot of fun posting these inane arguments just to get a rise out of whomever he happens to be online with. Either way, I'm getting to where I read his comments posted here, shake my head in disbelieve, maybe read a few comments, and then move on.
Just because you made up a new definition does not mean that that definition is worth a big rat's ass.
Also, as has been pointed out, since God is imaginary, God did not, will not and cannot create anything.
yeah, I'm a bit confused by what the fuck creation "science" means when it uses the word "information".... none of them ever define it, either, they just use it as a cornerstone in their arguments.
Any gene with at least five different alleles is proof that you are wrong. (Between Adam and Eve, there would have been four copies of each gene, except for the X and Y chromosomes - three X, one Y.) Dozens, if not hundreds or thousands, of such genes exist. And for that matter, every man's Y chromosome should be identical - but they aren't.
"More information" is anything more than what God put there "in the beginning" when He created us."
Then by all means, please provide a complete account of what genetic information was and was not there "in the beginning," so we can test your theory. What's that you say? You can't do it? Well that's because you don't know shit and your definition is full of it.
Time for more fundy lessons:
I think what JohnR7 is talking aboout is called "specified complexity" by the ID people. This term is new to ID, it was not used by pre edwords vs aguillard creationists. Also, JohnR7 is such a numbskull that he probably doesn't understand and can't explain the concept of specified complexity.
Therefore I am not certain that he really is talking about specified complexity, he might be just throwing out big words at random.
An example of unspecified complexity is salt that has crystallised from a solution. The sodium and chlorine atoms were sloshing around at random, now they are lined up in neat rows. But there is little information in them. If you know the arrangement of several atoms nearby you can know the arrangement of millions of atoms far far away.
DNA is specified complexity. The base pairs are in neat lines, like a salt crystal, but knowing the nearby base pairs doesn't tell you anything about any base pairs farther along. Unlike a salt crystal, you could use DNA to record the complete works of Shakespeare, or the amino acid sequence of a protein.
According to the IDers, you wouldn't expect to find Shakespeare written in DNA unless an intelligent agent put it there, therefore you would not expect to find the amino acid sequence for a functioning enzyme either, unless an intelligent entity put it there.
The notion that "new" stuff can't be found in nature is an old creationist idea. They claim that any variations that natural selection can work on were already there from the beginning, and no actual mutation (that would be something genuinely new) can be selected for, because random changes can only make the system work less well, in other words, a genuine new mutation is a loss of information.
I suspect a fundy who really understood this concept would use it as circular reasoning. Any change in a genome that could be proven to have happened after creation is declared to be a loss of information and is therefore not "more information". Any supposed change in a genome that can't credibly be portrayed as a loss of information will be declared not a change, but part of the original created by god genome, it was always there, the evil atheistic biochemists just didn't notice it before.
Heh. I just went to the Entrez PubMed website, searched for "gene duplication", and found several thousand examples where God slacked off and forgot to add some "information" in when he first created some things. He tried to slip the information in later, hoping no one would notice, but Satan created the NIH, and doh! Caught!
'I have defined it. "More information" is anything more than what God put there "in the beginning" when He created us.'
Going by this example, every single mutation adds information. After every mutation we now have an allele which never existed before in the history of humanity (except in extremely unlikely circumstances)
Therefore every single mutation since the dawn of time has been an increase in information.
“I have defined it. "More information" is anything more than what God put there "in the beginning" when He created us.”
This doesn’t define ‘information.’
At best, you try to define ‘more’ and you use ‘more’ in the definition.
If my students did this, I’d set the classroom on fire and lock the door. Tell the principal my job was to Winnow Out The Weak.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.