dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Haven't you already been shown multiple ways in which mutations can and do add information?

---

Mutations do not add information. Duplicating genetic material and/or changing existing genetic material isn't the same as adding information

---

Right, you've stated this before. The question is why do you believe this in light of all the information to the contrary?

---

There is no information to the contrary. Only the fair tales told by Darwinists.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Haven't you already been shown multiple ways in which mutations can and do add information?

---

Mutations do not add information. Duplicating genetic material and/or changing existing genetic material isn't the same as adding information

---

Right, you've stated this before. The question is why do you believe this in light of all the information to the contrary?

---

There is no information to the contrary. Only the fair tales told by Darwinists.

---

Lenski's E Coli experiments are an example where mutations caused them to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. This is an example of mutation adding information.

---

I'll look into it. I'm skeptical.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

I don't see what this bought you besides moving the goalpost away from speciation since we already proved it can be done. As far as I can see it's merely an attempt at working around their previous denial's obvious conflict with concrete data. The previous argument was "macroevolution" cannot happen (without a reason), only microevolution. And we would say, look at this study, see here how we demonstrate that its very much the case.

Now you are saying "super-macroevolution" cannot happen (again without a why)

You are still left with the same issue. We see change, and you need it to stop. Does it really matter where? Species, genus, class, phylum. You just need it to stop so somewhere along the line or common decent has no holes in it. So tell me why it stops.

The other issue you have is you need change that's absurdly rapid. You need a few select animals on a boat to turn into every species we see to day in the historical blink of an eye and simultaneously explain why we don't see such rapid speciation today.

---

The change stops because all changes result from the degradation of the generic code. Mutation cannot add genetic information to the gene pool. Also, once a certain level of degradation takes place, that gene line will die off.

---

I take it natural selection doesn't enter into your equation? Outside pressure will rapidly change the nature of a population, whether that's the introduction of a sexually compatible species creating new hybrids or food and predation pressures that change who in a population survives and reproduces. Those changes have consequences for the expression of the genes.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Haven't you already been shown multiple ways in which mutations can and do add information?

---

Mutations do not add information. Duplicating genetic material and/or changing existing genetic material isn't the same as adding information

---

Right, you've stated this before. The question is why do you believe this in light of all the information to the contrary?

---

There is no information to the contrary. Only the fair tales told by Darwinists.

---

Lenski's E Coli experiments are an example where mutations caused them to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. This is an example of mutation adding information.

---

I was right to be skeptical. You are mistaken.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

Except new features in organisms can affect survivability (fecundity, longevity) whereas applications cannot be said to do the same for an operating system in your scenario.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

dargscisyhp said:

---

Except new features in organisms can affect survivability (fecundity, longevity) whereas applications cannot be said to do the same for an operating system in your scenario.

---

You are mistaken. An operating system with more applications will be selected more often than those with fewer applications.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Haven't you already been shown multiple ways in which mutations can and do add information?

---

Mutations do not add information. Duplicating genetic material and/or changing existing genetic material isn't the same as adding information

---

Right, you've stated this before. The question is why do you believe this in light of all the information to the contrary?

---

There is no information to the contrary. Only the fair tales told by Darwinists.

---

Lenski's E Coli experiments are an example where mutations caused them to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. This is an example of mutation adding information.

---

I was right to be skeptical. You are mistaken.

---

No, he isn't. That is a change in information and the conditions around which citrate is metabolized.

But if you want more examples:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

So let's do this incrementally. When I was a kid one of my goals was to write a program that could run without an operating system (a fledgling operating system on its own, if you will.) I accomplished this after learning about interrupts. It only took a slight modification to get from something that booted up on its own to something that could echo onto the screen the letters that you typed. If we started with something that did nothing but boot up on its own, replicated it multiple times with somewhat less than perfect copying fidelity I don't think it would be that far fetched to get something that could echo back the letters you typed onto the screen. If our selection mechanism then dictated that we start with this, doesn't this sort of accomplish what you're saying such a mechanism can't? I think this is still a far less than perfect analogy to biological evolution, but I think it can already show the rudiments of it.

there are 26 letters in the alphabet. that is all the information possible. therefore any written idea, novel, scientific theory, or poem carries no new information.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

---

You are treating selection as if it's an intelligent angent. It's not. Fitness is nothing more than a tautology. Whatever survives survives. Whatever reproduces reproduces. It's a passive process, thus it doesn't do anything other than what happens.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Haven't you already been shown multiple ways in which mutations can and do add information?

---

Mutations do not add information. Duplicating genetic material and/or changing existing genetic material isn't the same as adding information

---

Right, you've stated this before. The question is why do you believe this in light of all the information to the contrary?

---

There is no information to the contrary. Only the fair tales told by Darwinists.

---

Lenski's E Coli experiments are an example where mutations caused them to develop the ability to metabolize citrate. This is an example of mutation adding information.

---

I was right to be skeptical. You are mistaken.

---

You're right, I may have been mistaken about this particular example. However, I think the general point still stands: mutations can and do add novel information. I will leave the rest of this discussion to someone more knowledgable than me.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

---

You are treating selection as if it's an intelligent angent. It's not. Fitness is nothing more than a tautology. Whatever survives survives. Whatever reproduces reproduces. It's a passive process, thus it doesn't do anything other than what happens.

---

No, I'm treating selection as a multifaceted dynamic in a dynamic world. You're treating it as a dumbly reductive process.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

---

You are treating selection as if it's an intelligent angent. It's not. Fitness is nothing more than a tautology. Whatever survives survives. Whatever reproduces reproduces. It's a passive process, thus it doesn't do anything other than what happens.

---

No, I'm treating selection as a multifaceted dynamic in a dynamic world. You're treating it as a dumbly reductive process.

---

It's not multifaceted or dynamic. It's 100% passive.

Let's do a thought experiment to eliminate your objection.

Take an operating system such as Windows. Copy the computer code using a copying device that is 99.9% accurate, but randomly changes a 1 to a 0 or visa versa, or randomly duplicates a string of sequences in the code.

For round 1 do this 100,000 separate times. Load each of the new 100,000 copies and pass those O.S.'s that boot onto the next round. Eliminate those that do no boot.

Repeat this on each new successfully booting copy 100,000 new times, thus creating the 2nd generation of copies. Eliminate those copies that won't boot, and pass those that do on to the 3rd iteration.

How many generations and multiples of hundreds of thousands of copies will it take for 1, JUST 1, of those bootable operating systems to develop 1 new functioning application that wasn't there in the original operating system.

There is no need to worry about selection in this case since every single copy and iteration can be examined into perpetuity.

Scientist do not consider the argument that mutations cannot create new information to be remotely credible. This argument isn't taken seriously at any accredited university biology department in the first world. And for good reason, it defies basic rationality and observed phenomena.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/31/debunking-the-creationist-myth-that-mutations-dont-produce-new-and-useful-information/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information

Aggrad08 said:

---

Scientist do not consider the argument that mutations cannot create new information to be remotely credible. This argument isn't taken seriously at any accredited university biology department in the first world. And for good reason, it defies basic rationality and observed phenomena.

https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/10/31/debunking-the-creationist-myth-that-mutations-dont-produce-new-and-useful-information/

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information/


https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information

---

Of course scientists don't. They believe in the evolution tooth fairy. Fortunately or unfortunately, the number of scientists that say something has no bearing on the truth of something.

You effectively believe in a vast conspiracy across many nations and generations with virtually no one within the group spilling the beans, including many Christians.

Even so, I pointed that out to show how ridiculous and ineffectual your argument is. It has no persuasive power among the learned. It's more or less cured by reading.

But that's not why it's false. It's false for the reasons laid out logically and with clear studies in those articles. The entire argument is casually dismanteled within those sources.

the only people that are thinking clearly on evolution are the internet creationists.

Aggrad08 said:

---

You effectively believe in a vast conspiracy across many nations and generations with virtually no one within the group spilling the beans, including many Christians.

Even so, I pointed that out to show how ridiculous and ineffectual your argument is. It has no persuasive power among the learned. It's more or less cured by reading.

But that's not why it's false. It's false for the reasons laid out logically and with clear studies in those articles. The entire argument is casually dismanteled within those sources.

---

It's not a conspiracy, it's called wishful thinking. I'll be happy to read the material you liked to see if the arguments presented are persuasive.

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Aggrad08 said:

---

You effectively believe in a vast conspiracy across many nations and generations with virtually no one within the group spilling the beans, including many Christians.

Even so, I pointed that out to show how ridiculous and ineffectual your argument is. It has no persuasive power among the learned. It's more or less cured by reading.

But that's not why it's false. It's false for the reasons laid out logically and with clear studies in those articles. The entire argument is casually dismanteled within those sources.

---

It's not a conspiracy, it's called wishful thinking. I'll be happy to read the material you liked to see if the arguments presented are persuasive.

---

I've already provided a link to multiple studies.

No, it's a conspiracy-you have virtually no outliers in the field across nations and generations. It's beyond naive to think that virtually every single member of a vast group, many of whom would be predisposed to reject it as they are Christians, would collectively suffer from blind wishful thinking in the face of contradictory data. You really think you have a credible argument and you can't find anyone at all to take it seriously because they so strongly wish it weren't true? That's all you got?

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

---

You are treating selection as if it's an intelligent angent. It's not. Fitness is nothing more than a tautology. Whatever survives survives. Whatever reproduces reproduces. It's a passive process, thus it doesn't do anything other than what happens.

---

No, I'm treating selection as a multifaceted dynamic in a dynamic world. You're treating it as a dumbly reductive process.

---

It's not multifaceted or dynamic. It's 100% passive.

Let's do a thought experiment to eliminate your objection.

Take an operating system such as Windows. Copy the computer code using a copying device that is 99.9% accurate, but randomly changes a 1 to a 0 or visa versa, or randomly duplicates a string of sequences in the code.

For round 1 do this 100,000 separate times. Load each of the new 100,000 copies and pass those O.S.'s that boot onto the next round. Eliminate those that do no boot.

Repeat this on each new successfully booting copy 100,000 new times, thus creating the 2nd generation of copies. Eliminate those copies that won't boot, and pass those that do on to the 3rd iteration.

How many generations and multiples of hundreds of thousands of copies will it take for 1, JUST 1, of those bootable operating systems to develop 1 new functioning application that wasn't there in the original operating system.

There is no need to worry about selection in this case since every single copy and iteration can be examined into perpetuity.

---

Selection is absolutely dynamic. It's a contest where the winners pass on their genes and the losers don't. There's nothing passive about it. And your example is not a good approximation of natural selection. It's also not a good example for random mutation. Unless you're conducting the experiment millions of times in a single population and then extend that out over millions of years while adding in selective pressures that alter the reproducing gene pool.

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

Dr. Watson said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

dargscisyhp said:

---

Aggie4Life02 said:

---

It's akin to randomly changing an operating systems binary code and thinking that eventually you will get a new application, such as a word processor or an image editor.

---

This is a bad analogy. The central feature of Darwinian evolution is natural selection. There is no analogue for selection here.

---

Sure there is. With each iteration of computer code, the non-functioning operating systems would be cast aside.

---

This still doesn't select for new applications. All this does is select for stable versions of the operating system. Applications have nothing to do with that.

---

Which is what natural selection would do. Natural selection doesn't select for new applications, only survivability.

---

That's not what selection does. Survivability is only one aspect. And new applications can emerge from selective pressure.

---

No, but even if that were true, natural selection doesn't select for that. It only selects for survivability.

---

Selection is not only choosing for survivability. If that were true we'd all be Tardigrades. Selection is interested in reproduction, in expansion, in filling a niche, etc, not mere survival. Sexual displays are a product of natural selection. Eating habits, behavior, parenting, group dynamics, etc, are all impacted by selective pressures. And that often means using existing structures in novel ways that then gets selected for.

---

You are treating selection as if it's an intelligent angent. It's not. Fitness is nothing more than a tautology. Whatever survives survives. Whatever reproduces reproduces. It's a passive process, thus it doesn't do anything other than what happens.

---

No, I'm treating selection as a multifaceted dynamic in a dynamic world. You're treating it as a dumbly reductive process.

---

It's not multifaceted or dynamic. It's 100% passive.

Let's do a thought experiment to eliminate your objection.

Take an operating system such as Windows. Copy the computer code using a copying device that is 99.9% accurate, but randomly changes a 1 to a 0 or visa versa, or randomly duplicates a string of sequences in the code.

For round 1 do this 100,000 separate times. Load each of the new 100,000 copies and pass those O.S.'s that boot onto the next round. Eliminate those that do no boot.

Repeat this on each new successfully booting copy 100,000 new times, thus creating the 2nd generation of copies. Eliminate those copies that won't boot, and pass those that do on to the 3rd iteration.

How many generations and multiples of hundreds of thousands of copies will it take for 1, JUST 1, of those bootable operating systems to develop 1 new functioning application that wasn't there in the original operating system.

There is no need to worry about selection in this case since every single copy and iteration can be examined into perpetuity.

---

Selection is absolutely dynamic. It's a contest where the winners pass on their genes and the losers don't. There's nothing passive about it. And your example is not a good approximation of natural selection. It's also not a good example for random mutation. Unless you're conducting the experiment millions of times in a single population and then extend that out over millions of years while adding in selective pressures that alter the reproducing gene pool.

---

It's a perfect experiment. Instead of 100,000, make it 1 million or 1 billion. Choose any number you would like. The answer will be the same.

You are aware that in silico evolution is a thing, right?