by Fernando 77 Replies latest watchtower bible
Not aware of anyone who refers to themself as an evolutionist. Also pretty ironic a demand from someone who pretends their magical sky friend (that can’t be demonstrated to exist at all) just always existed forever without needing any beginning or creator.
The most recent common ancestor got the information from its ancestors.
The most recent common ancestor got the information from its ancestors.
But, isn't that just kicking the can down the road? Can you provide any examples of complex information arising from a natural process?
But, isn't that just kicking the can down the road?
Says the person who believes that an infinitely complex being just always existed…
Can you provide any examples of complex information arising from a natural process?
Argument from ignorance. I am not a biologist. Also, your use of the term ‘information’ in this context is a false equivalence. Aside from that, the amino acids necessary for life form spontaneously even in space, and more primitive cells would only require a sufficient combination of amino acids, water, and a lipid membrane. For more detail, ask a biologist. A real one, not just cherry picked quotes from one of your creationist go-to sites.
A quick search shows that spontaneous development of replicating molecules is certainly possible. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/jacs.9b10796 Of course, this is never good enough for creationists, because they will always demand to know what did happen rather than what could happen—an entirely hypocritical approach compared to their ‘god can do anything’ responses to problems with the irrational tales in Genesis.
Yes, some researchers have built a RNA strand that can copy part of itself (about 10%) and only if a complimentary starter strand is provided by the experimenter.. The scientists selected this partial replicator out of an engineered pool of 10^15 RNAs. Also the strand must be long enough to form a complex structure and this likely requires 200 to 300 bases. Add to all this unsubstantiated atmospheric conditions and other manufactured parameters and you have research that is dogma driven AND STILL DOESN'T ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF INFORMATION, WHICH IS NON MATERIAL.
This is cheating. Somehow the irony escapes the notice of evolutionists :
🤦♂️
You really need to stop relying on your creationist go-to sites for this stuff. And your response bears no resemblance to the method used in the article I linked to.
Back in reality, scientists have determined that self replicating molecules can develop without direction, and biological evolution is an established fact, whereas there is still no evidence whatsoever for the existence of deities, let alone your preferred one.
@Jeffro
I am flattered by your efforts to restrict my comments. I couldn't help but notice the misdirection to molecules from information. Molecules have no bearing on the information do they? It would be like making copies of blank sheets of paper and wondering why a book didn't magically appear on the paper that could be read front to back for one set of instructions and then back to front for a different story and then again be read three dimensionally once all waded up....because these are just some of the ways the information on DNA is read.
So again, can you please explain how complex coded information appears from chemicals?
Religion:
An organisation that offers its members the opportunity to cheat death provided they follow their rules exclusively.
So again, can you please explain how complex coded information appears from chemicals?
I already told you that was a false equivalence! Here’s a more detailed explanation from ChatGPT because I’m done trying to explain simple things that you could look up for yourself if you were honest.
One of the fallacies that some creationists use is the argument that "information" is independent of chemicals. This argument often arises in discussions related to the origin and development of life, where creationists attempt to undermine scientific explanations and promote the idea of intelligent design. However, it is important to note that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and the nature of biological systems.
In the context of biology, "information" refers to the complex arrangements of molecules, particularly nucleic acids such as DNA, that encode the instructions for building and maintaining living organisms. These molecules are made up of chemical building blocks, and their arrangement and interaction determine the genetic information that is passed from one generation to the next.
Creationists who argue that information is independent of chemicals often claim that information cannot arise from purely natural processes and therefore requires an intelligent designer. They often assert that the complexity and specificity of biological information, such as the genetic code, cannot be explained by random chemical processes alone.
However, this argument overlooks the fact that the laws of chemistry and physics govern the interactions of molecules and can give rise to complex and ordered systems. Natural processes, such as chemical reactions and natural selection, can produce the patterns and structures that we recognize as "information" in biological systems.
Furthermore, information theory, a branch of mathematics and computer science, demonstrates that information is fundamentally tied to physical systems. In information theory, information is quantified as the reduction of uncertainty or the increase in knowledge gained from receiving a message. The representation and transmission of information always rely on physical carriers, whether it be electromagnetic waves, ink on paper, or the sequence of nucleotides in DNA. Therefore, the claim that information can exist independently of physical substrates or chemicals is not supported by the scientific understanding of information theory.
In summary, the argument that "information" is independent of chemicals, as used by some creationists, is based on a misunderstanding of both information theory and the nature of biological systems. It fails to consider the role of natural processes and the laws of chemistry in the emergence and organization of information in living organisms.
Furthermore, information theory, a branch of mathematics and computer science, demonstrates that informationisfundamentally EXPLAINStied tophysical systems.
There I fixed the statement. We already know that information is "tied" or explains physical things, that's not the point. But what is the process of information formation? That's the question. A physical book doesn't explain HOW the information got on its pages. Doesn't make any sense.
Let's take just one bit of information ... say the number 3. If I use it every day for for a week, or for a year of more, could I wear it out? How much weight does it have? The fact is that the number 3 is a symbol, a representation as opposed to something physical. It's an idea existing in my mind.
The fact that in all of human history, neither you nor your ChapGPT can find even one example where coded information was created from inanimate materials is staggering to the senses when you realize that you use this 100% lack of evidence as support for an entire worldview. Wow.
Now compare that with the amount of information, energy and coding necessary to raise yourself from the dead, while you are dead, which is what Jesus claimed he would do, and then did it.... with hundreds of eyewitnesses.
Did it really happen? The list of facts below “considers only those data that are so strongly attested historically that they are granted by nearly every scholar who studies the subject, even the rather skeptical ones” :
1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. He was buried.
3. His death caused the disciples to despair and lose hope.
4. The tomb was empty (the most contested).
5. The disciples had experiences which they believed were literal appearances of the risen Jesus (the most important proof).
6. The disciples were transformed from doubters to bold proclaimers.
7. The resurrection was the central message.
8. They preached the message of Jesus’ resurrection in Jerusalem.
9. The Church was born and grew.
10. Orthodox Jews who believed in Christ made Sunday their primary day of worship.
11. James was converted to the faith when he saw the resurrected Jesus (James was a family skeptic).
12. Paul was converted to the faith (Paul was an outsider skeptic and opposer).
While the above is far from "proof". There aren't any good explanations to explain these facts away. But, compared to a worldview where there are zero examples of information arising from matter, it is a vast improvement. Especially when you consider the incredibly wise things that Jesus said that have greatly benefitted mankind and helped to moderate many human excesses.
Instead of turning our minds over to 7th grade drop outs, window washers, and janitors like we once did, or to artificial intelligence like you are now doing, doesn't Jesus seem like a better option? It does to me.
That's why the Christian experience is more that a religion, or worldview. It is a dynamic relationship with someone who is alive and authored all the information there has ever been, or ever will be.
Only someone like that could raise himself from the dead.
Can anyone explain how the term "information" is applied with regards to biology, evolution, and/or genetics? The chatGPT quote above mentions that information theory is a branch of math and computer sciences. I am assuming that it isn't the same thing that is being referred to, when people talk about information in the cell.
What is information in the cell? How does that explain the apparent issue with how RNA could or could not replicate? For that matter, I guess we'd need a primer on what RNA is and how it works, or how it would work in a 'primordial' setting. Hell, I guess we'd need someone to explain that, too.
Quoting this stuff doesn't seem to be getting us any closer to understanding it. Is there someone who really understands it, and can explain it so us lay-people can see where the issue is?
