A Darwinist FINALLY answers the Information question!!!!!!!!!!!
I can hardly believe it. I did not think any of them had the intellectual honesty to admit defeat. But one of the regular commenters, Lava, has answered:
I have for years challenged Darwinists to name a natural source for information and turned the heat up on that fire this year. I have made two online publications on the subject so far:
So as the commenters kept evading by giving me questions back for questions or answers that were horribly amiss, such as "from mutation and natural selection" and such, I refused to budge from the question until I got an honest answer:
radar said..."Don't you mean, has that one question been answered yet or are all the Darwinist commenters running away?
I will keep posting your failures to answer that one question. I am not running, you are.
I asked the question, none of you can answer it and that question will be there until you do. I will keep posting on it and proclaiming to the world that you cannot do it. So if you like it that way, you will get it consistently until you quit running away."
Would you believe an honest answer appeared, whether satirical or not?
Anonymous said...
"OK. Let me end this charade. Let me answer this question for all "darwinists" everywhere, Radar. There is no natural source of information. You win. And, please, use this admission to claim victory over all darwinists everywhere, as I speak for them, too. This is the final stroke, the last nail has now sealed the coffin and "darwinism" is officially dead, as you proclaimed and predicted! Congrats!
Now that your question has been answered, please answer anony's questions above.
lava"
Finally a Darwinist admits the truth. And what are these three questions. Here we go with my answers in this color font and anonymous in black.
Anonymous said...
I predict that Radar will not be able to answer the following three questions and will use all kinds of excuses (including derision) to get away from them:
Truth is, you anonymous posters have been using questions like this to evade my question so you are making a false charge. But when one Darwinist admitted that there is no natural source of information, that freed me up to address your questions.
1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?
No. I do not agree. You have not gained any NEW information, assuming the books are identical. However, you could now pass that book out to fifty people or five people so there would be more information to share. So we have gained more of the same information. If I have one document on my computer that takes up 478 K and I decide to keep one in my 2012 business folder for the product it describes and put another copy on my desktop so I can grab it quickly for reference then I have twice the information containers stored on my hard drive. So now I have 956 K allotted to one document that is stored in two places.
2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?
No. First of all we do not know the amount of information in the other editions. What if the others are all summaries or excerpts of the original? Unless we know more about these editions we cannot make a judgment here. Furthermore I fail to see the point you are seeking to make with this, so please give us more detail or just ask what you really want to ask?
3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.
Without studying the structure of the individual animals closely, The DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together would have more differing information than that of four lion cubs. All of these animals are Felids and would have similar DNA structures, because they are all one kind of animal. They are able to mate theoretically (although usually it requires human intervention for that to happen) and would all have a great deal of identical portions of their DNA string. But all four are variations of the greater Cat kind and since four lions from the same litter will have the code of the parents and will all be lions, they will have more of the same DNA in long sections of their DNA helix aka their genetic code. The differing variations expressed in the DNA of a lion plus a tiger plus a panther plus a jaguar would therefore have more coding differences and thereby be expected to contain more information. So I choose from column "B" here.
Go ahead, Radar. Make my day!
See how easy that was? Lava was intellectually honest enough to admit that there is no natural source for information so I am answering your three questions, not one of which has much bearing on the original question. I am doing it for his sake, not yours, for you were not able to answer the question at all.
We can count containers of information and we do this in the computer industry continually. We have defragmentation and deduplication and other programs in place to store only the best information in the best possible ways. But we can only enumerate information objectively, when we are called upon to decide upon the quality of information then we must be subjective.
The only way we know information is completely lost in organisms is when an animal becomes extinct. If there are no more T Rex extant we can assume that DNA information is lost forever. In the case of dogs or cats it may be that all the original information of the original kinds could be restored by breeding varieties together? But likely mutation has done enough damage that a total restoration would be unlikely.
Note that the two islands inland of Madeira are where the beetle population is more wingless.
But there are the "wingless beetles of the island of Madeira" are another matter. Apparently the varieties that have wings did not survive natural selection often because of the windy conditions of the island. Charles Darwin noted them, but did not realize they represent devolution rather than evolution. Actually the proportion of wingless beetles was more prevalent on windier Desertas but the Madeira name is more well known. Beetles without operable wings would be more likely to survive to breed. The genetic code for working wings is almost lost in that population (as of the last article I have read, the vast majority of beetles there are wingless but not yet all). That is built-in survivability in action but is going in the wrong way for Darwinists. The famous Citrase bacteria? Loss of functionality. The nylon-eating bacteria? The ability to eat nylon was found to have predated mankind's invention of nylon!!!
I have for years challenged Darwinists to name a natural source for information and turned the heat up on that fire this year. I have made two online publications on the subject so far:
The Ultimate Information Post
Listing Darwinist Lies
So as the commenters kept evading by giving me questions back for questions or answers that were horribly amiss, such as "from mutation and natural selection" and such, I refused to budge from the question until I got an honest answer:
radar said..."Don't you mean, has that one question been answered yet or are all the Darwinist commenters running away?I will keep posting your failures to answer that one question. I am not running, you are.
I asked the question, none of you can answer it and that question will be there until you do. I will keep posting on it and proclaiming to the world that you cannot do it. So if you like it that way, you will get it consistently until you quit running away."
Would you believe an honest answer appeared, whether satirical or not?
Anonymous said...
"OK. Let me end this charade. Let me answer this question for all "darwinists" everywhere, Radar. There is no natural source of information. You win. And, please, use this admission to claim victory over all darwinists everywhere, as I speak for them, too. This is the final stroke, the last nail has now sealed the coffin and "darwinism" is officially dead, as you proclaimed and predicted! Congrats!
Now that your question has been answered, please answer anony's questions above.
lava"
Finally a Darwinist admits the truth. And what are these three questions. Here we go with my answers in this color font and anonymous in black.
Anonymous said...
I predict that Radar will not be able to answer the following three questions and will use all kinds of excuses (including derision) to get away from them:
Truth is, you anonymous posters have been using questions like this to evade my question so you are making a false charge. But when one Darwinist admitted that there is no natural source of information, that freed me up to address your questions.
1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?
No. I do not agree. You have not gained any NEW information, assuming the books are identical. However, you could now pass that book out to fifty people or five people so there would be more information to share. So we have gained more of the same information. If I have one document on my computer that takes up 478 K and I decide to keep one in my 2012 business folder for the product it describes and put another copy on my desktop so I can grab it quickly for reference then I have twice the information containers stored on my hard drive. So now I have 956 K allotted to one document that is stored in two places.
2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?
No. First of all we do not know the amount of information in the other editions. What if the others are all summaries or excerpts of the original? Unless we know more about these editions we cannot make a judgment here. Furthermore I fail to see the point you are seeking to make with this, so please give us more detail or just ask what you really want to ask?
3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.
Without studying the structure of the individual animals closely, The DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together would have more differing information than that of four lion cubs. All of these animals are Felids and would have similar DNA structures, because they are all one kind of animal. They are able to mate theoretically (although usually it requires human intervention for that to happen) and would all have a great deal of identical portions of their DNA string. But all four are variations of the greater Cat kind and since four lions from the same litter will have the code of the parents and will all be lions, they will have more of the same DNA in long sections of their DNA helix aka their genetic code. The differing variations expressed in the DNA of a lion plus a tiger plus a panther plus a jaguar would therefore have more coding differences and thereby be expected to contain more information. So I choose from column "B" here.
Go ahead, Radar. Make my day!
See how easy that was? Lava was intellectually honest enough to admit that there is no natural source for information so I am answering your three questions, not one of which has much bearing on the original question. I am doing it for his sake, not yours, for you were not able to answer the question at all.
We can count containers of information and we do this in the computer industry continually. We have defragmentation and deduplication and other programs in place to store only the best information in the best possible ways. But we can only enumerate information objectively, when we are called upon to decide upon the quality of information then we must be subjective.
The only way we know information is completely lost in organisms is when an animal becomes extinct. If there are no more T Rex extant we can assume that DNA information is lost forever. In the case of dogs or cats it may be that all the original information of the original kinds could be restored by breeding varieties together? But likely mutation has done enough damage that a total restoration would be unlikely.
But there are the "wingless beetles of the island of Madeira" are another matter. Apparently the varieties that have wings did not survive natural selection often because of the windy conditions of the island. Charles Darwin noted them, but did not realize they represent devolution rather than evolution. Actually the proportion of wingless beetles was more prevalent on windier Desertas but the Madeira name is more well known. Beetles without operable wings would be more likely to survive to breed. The genetic code for working wings is almost lost in that population (as of the last article I have read, the vast majority of beetles there are wingless but not yet all). That is built-in survivability in action but is going in the wrong way for Darwinists. The famous Citrase bacteria? Loss of functionality. The nylon-eating bacteria? The ability to eat nylon was found to have predated mankind's invention of nylon!!!