|
|
Post by Cody™ on Apr 21, 2020 8:17:24 GMT
Are there any natural laws, or natural forces, that can produce information?
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 21, 2020 9:17:04 GMT
As we are part of nature, then yes, obviously. If you mean, can something non-sentient produce information, then that depends entirely on your definition of information. I'll bet you're thinking of DNA, here. DNA is colloquially referred to as "code" or "blueprint", but it isn't an actual code. Or a blueprint. And if by information you mean recorded information, then DNA isn't that, either. Recorded information is gleaned from DNA, by us, but in terms of chemistry DNA is molecules doing what molecules do.
Would you say... an electron is information? We can get all sorts of information from electrons, eg. how many electrons are there in this or that atom, what sort of molecules can this atom form on the basis of its electrons etc. And that's what DNA is, too. It's molecules, made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles. There is no writing of any kind, by any stretch of the imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by Winter_King on Apr 21, 2020 9:26:44 GMT
Several evolutionary studies show that yes. But Creationists tend to move the goalposts when they are asked to define what they mean by information.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 21, 2020 16:43:54 GMT
What do you mean by "information"? Much of what you would call "information" is purely man made constructs (the names of countries, species claissfication, computer coding, the modern 365 day calendar, ethnicity/race) so that's a bit of a loaded question. I'm guessing you're just doing the tired ID talking point of comparing DNA to computer coding which has been refuted countless times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodney Farber on Apr 22, 2020 0:58:06 GMT
The will to survive is the product of evolution. Those that do not have a will to survive will not pass on that trait to offspring. Those that do survive pass the will to survive to their children.
Some of those have a desperate will to survive. Those that have a desperate will to survive need someone to assure them that life is eternal. Voila, religion is born.
Ergo, evolution is the reason that creationists exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Apr 22, 2020 1:17:57 GMT
Everything in the universe can be reduced to information.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 22, 2020 1:44:56 GMT
As we are part of nature, then yes, obviously. If you mean, can something non-sentient produce information, then that depends entirely on your definition of information. I'll bet you're thinking of DNA, here. DNA is colloquially referred to as "code" or "blueprint", but it isn't an actual code. Or a blueprint. And if by information you mean recorded information, then DNA isn't that, either. Recorded information is gleaned from DNA, by us, but in terms of chemistry DNA is molecules doing what molecules do. Would you say... an electron is information? We can get all sorts of information from electrons, eg. how many electrons are there in this or that atom, what sort of molecules can this atom form on the basis of its electrons etc. And that's what DNA is, too. It's molecules, made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles. There is no writing of any kind, by any stretch of the imagination. DNA is organic though. A water molecule is inorganic and has no DNA. And a piece of coral is organic and it's an animal with DNA, but it is not sentient. What's your point? Electrons cannot transfer specific information to a zygote. DNA does.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Apr 22, 2020 1:47:16 GMT
As we are part of nature, then yes, obviously. If you mean, can something non-sentient produce information, then that depends entirely on your definition of information. I'll bet you're thinking of DNA, here. DNA is colloquially referred to as "code" or "blueprint", but it isn't an actual code. Or a blueprint. And if by information you mean recorded information, then DNA isn't that, either. Recorded information is gleaned from DNA, by us, but in terms of chemistry DNA is molecules doing what molecules do. Would you say... an electron is information? We can get all sorts of information from electrons, eg. how many electrons are there in this or that atom, what sort of molecules can this atom form on the basis of its electrons etc. And that's what DNA is, too. It's molecules, made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles. There is no writing of any kind, by any stretch of the imagination. DNA is organic though. A water molecule is inorganic and has no DNA. And a piece of coral is organic and it's an animal with DNA, but it is not sentient. What's your point? Electrons cannot transfer specific information to a zygote. DNA does. However, DNA is composed of electrons among other particles...just like everything else.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 22, 2020 8:40:57 GMT
As we are part of nature, then yes, obviously. If you mean, can something non-sentient produce information, then that depends entirely on your definition of information. I'll bet you're thinking of DNA, here. DNA is colloquially referred to as "code" or "blueprint", but it isn't an actual code. Or a blueprint. And if by information you mean recorded information, then DNA isn't that, either. Recorded information is gleaned from DNA, by us, but in terms of chemistry DNA is molecules doing what molecules do. Would you say... an electron is information? We can get all sorts of information from electrons, eg. how many electrons are there in this or that atom, what sort of molecules can this atom form on the basis of its electrons etc. And that's what DNA is, too. It's molecules, made up of atoms, made up of subatomic particles. There is no writing of any kind, by any stretch of the imagination. DNA is organic though. A water molecule is inorganic and has no DNA. And a piece of coral is organic and it's an animal with DNA, but it is not sentient. What's your point? Electrons cannot transfer specific information to a zygote. DNA does. First of all, "biological" is just a nomenclature. When certain atoms form in certain configurations - and there are only five different atoms in a DNA helix - we call it biological. They're still the same atoms found in non-biological life, and the atoms have no more "information" in a biological configuration than in a non-biological configuration. DNA does not "transfer information" to a zygote. The womb is not a factory that analyses a blueprint and then builds the entity that will ultimately become eg. a fully formed human. The type of zygote to be formed depends on the specific gametes involved. Not because of the different kinds of information involved, but because DNA in different configurations will act in different ways. When you pull the trigger of a firearm and a bullet comes out of the barrel, it is not because of any information that has been processed, but a purely physical reaction. The forming of life is no different in that regard.
|
|
|
|
Post by gameboy on Apr 24, 2020 2:31:08 GMT
DNA is organic though. A water molecule is inorganic and has no DNA. And a piece of coral is organic and it's an animal with DNA, but it is not sentient. What's your point? Electrons cannot transfer specific information to a zygote. DNA does. First of all, "biological" is just a nomenclature. When certain atoms form in certain configurations - and there are only five different atoms in a DNA helix - we call it biological. They're still the same atoms found in non-biological life, and the atoms have no more "information" in a biological configuration than in a non-biological configuration. DNA does not "transfer information" to a zygote. The womb is not a factory that analyses a blueprint and then builds the entity that will ultimately become eg. a fully formed human. The type of zygote to be formed depends on the specific gametes involved. Not because of the different kinds of information involved, but because DNA in different configurations will act in different ways. When you pull the trigger of a firearm and a bullet comes out of the barrel, it is not because of any information that has been processed, but a purely physical reaction. The forming of life is no different in that regard. The problem here is that you're lost in semantics. I guess you don't like the term "information" because it implies intelligent design. So call it something else, the process is still the same. Traits are transferred from one being to a new incipient being via DNA. And of course atoms don't carry this "information". They're the smallest of building blocks. You still have not addressed the fundamental difference between organic and inorganic life. It all came from the Big Bang. No one is claiming otherwise. But DNA is organic, even if it's made up of molecules also found in inorganic objects. DNA replicates. That's what creates organic life. So much begging the question here.
|
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Apr 24, 2020 6:00:18 GMT
First of all, "biological" is just a nomenclature. When certain atoms form in certain configurations - and there are only five different atoms in a DNA helix - we call it biological. They're still the same atoms found in non-biological life, and the atoms have no more "information" in a biological configuration than in a non-biological configuration. DNA does not "transfer information" to a zygote. The womb is not a factory that analyses a blueprint and then builds the entity that will ultimately become eg. a fully formed human. The type of zygote to be formed depends on the specific gametes involved. Not because of the different kinds of information involved, but because DNA in different configurations will act in different ways. When you pull the trigger of a firearm and a bullet comes out of the barrel, it is not because of any information that has been processed, but a purely physical reaction. The forming of life is no different in that regard. The problem here is that you're lost in semantics. I guess you don't like the term "information" because it implies intelligent design. So call it something else, the process is still the same. Traits are transferred from one being to a new incipient being via DNA. Yes, of course traits are transferred - DNA copies itself, after all. No one asked me to before. Of course, there is no such thing as inorganic life. Viruses actually do not fulfill all criteria for life, but they are organic. And when you ask about organic life, I assume you mean organisms - there are of course no inorganic organisms. If, instead, you mean organic compounds, then that could be any carbon molecule. Methane, for example, is an organic compound. But it is not alive. Yes? I am struggling to see your point in all this.
|
|
|
|
Post by thefleetsin on Apr 24, 2020 15:15:25 GMT
stand by your glans
i knew
eventually,
my hands would rise
triumphantly,
proclaiming emphatically
that:
all men are beautiful...
so i have remained
dutiful
through out
years of facts
refutable,
mountains of the renewable.
rehearsing my dogma
over
and over in my head:
is it better to bed
or to hold true hearts
inside
my writer's shed?
for men have tooled the world
this far
in an armored dread.
so i
gingerly jack hammer
around the lead.
sjw 04/24/2020
from the 'beauty series' of poems
|
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Apr 27, 2020 10:53:45 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Apr 27, 2020 11:50:31 GMT
All we need now then, since the evolution of humans is impossible, is to discover human remains in the fossil records dating all the way back in each layer. Just one. Or to reassign an age of, what 6000 years? to the age of the earth. Sounds straightforward enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 27, 2020 13:33:37 GMT
You know, instead of denying something with overwhelming evidence to appease your literal Biblical stance, maybe you should take a different approach to evolution: "Wow look at how the wonders of evolution! Isn't it amazing how God did it!". Now granted I would still take umbridge with that position, but at least you're not denying overwhelming amounts of science (paleontology, genetics, carbon dating)
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 27, 2020 13:36:23 GMT
Besides the fossil record and the fact that we share 95% DNA with chimps, you do realize many humans still have neanderthal DNA, right?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 27, 2020 13:40:08 GMT
You've posted this before. I debunked it the last time. Why are you still posting it as if nobody has challenged it? Hell, last time you posted it you said something to the effect that you didn't even understand it yourself. Having actually read plenty of philosophy, I understand it perfectly, and it's full of BS and nonsense. Literally the only reason you're posting it is because you agree with its conclusion, but you have absolutely no idea how it even gets to that conclusion. The guy who wrote it also clearly doesn't understand even the first thing about biology or what evolution even is.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 27, 2020 13:44:16 GMT
You've posted this before. I debunked it the last time. Why are you still posting it as if nobody has challenged it? He does that quite a bit. He constantly virtue signals about the supposed Christian values of the GOP, so I've mentioned the Yemen massacre several times and asked how that aligns with Christian values. He's never given an actual answer yet still insists the GOP is on some high moral ground.
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Apr 28, 2020 4:33:34 GMT
Besides the fossil record and the fact that we share 95% DNA with chimps, you do realize many humans still have neanderthal DNA, right? I have 4% Neanderthal DNA which is quite high. It is because my ancient ancestors were in Eastern Europe which was the habitat of Neandethals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dirty Santa PaulsLaugh on Apr 28, 2020 14:01:03 GMT
Besides the fossil record and the fact that we share 95% DNA with chimps, you do realize many humans still have neanderthal DNA, right? I have 4% Neanderthal DNA which is quite high. It is because my ancient ancestors were in Eastern Europe which was the habitat of Neandethals. The Metaphysical Impossibility. 🤪
|
|
