Changing information

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

So it’s not possible to change information?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

So if there is a little squirrel eating a nut and squeeking, and I smash it’s head, it’s not changing information? The previous information was that a live squirrel was chewing on a nut. The current info would be that there is a dead squirrel with a nut beside it.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

You can change the previously existing information. But you cannot add new information to the genetic code, as evolution would require.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

There are animals that have been given strains of DNA from other animals, that is changing the code. HIV came from monkeys. It adapted to it’s host. That is changing code.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

But adding that information to animals was a man made, controlled thing. Not random, unguided evolution. HIV was a virus in monkeys, then it moved to humans. IT IS STILL A VIRUS! It didn’t, say, change into bacteria. And no new information was added, just a mix up of previous information.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

your views are twisted. The virus in monkeys intitially could not harm us. It ADAPTED to our bodies and eventually BECAME harmful. If new information wasn’t added, it wouldn’t effect us. I don’t believe anything is random. And evolution isn’t unguided either.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

"your views are twisted. The virus in monkeys intitially could not harm us. It ADAPTED to our bodies and eventually BECAME harmful."


YES! But it didn’t evolve, no new information was added, and the virus didn’t evolve into a bacteria or something.


“If new information wasn’t added, it wouldn’t effect us."


It could affect us, if it mutated.



“I don’t believe anything is random. And evolution isn’t unguided either."



REALLY! WOW! So you say that evolution is false? Because the whole evolution theory is unguided and random processes and chance!

What do you suppose could guide it then?

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 6



Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Posts: 3,602
OFFLINE

DNA came be added by the cell, just like putting more information in a computer.

69
Rep: 15



Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 11,127
OFFLINE

Evolution does NOT require new strains of code. The existing code just has to be changed.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

I believe things can only happen one way. You may call it fate. But I don’t believe anyone or anything knows what that is. We could always guess or hypothesize, but we cannot ever know. There are too many calculations and formulas to ever know exactly what time will bring. I didn’t say evolution was false. And no, the whole evolution theory is not unguided. We just don’t know what will happen. We can use science to determine many things. In fact, if it were not for math and science, we would not be able to talk with eachother and you would fail to be talking to anyone about your religion.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

"Evolution does NOT require new strains of code. The existing code just has to be changed."


But how could it change to the extent of evolving a new creature? It can only work with information already embedded in the creature, that information is for things only that creature will have, nothing extra.

69
Rep: 15



Joined: 28 Mar 2005
Posts: 11,127
OFFLINE

I don’t think you understand how DNA works...

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

Yep.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 0



Joined: 03 Feb 2006
Posts: 1,149
OFFLINE

"I don’t think you understand how DNA works..."





Tell me, where in the DNA do you see code that is evolving the organism? Where do you find the code making evolution outside of the kind possible? Where in a fish’s DNA do you find code for evolving legs or part of them?

Atresac who does not want to log in

Guest

Take this for example SWC:

Tadpoles will eventually evolve to a frog. Those are two very, very different creatures that are directly related. So, who’s to say an ancient race of crustaceous creatures eventually, over the BILLIONS of years, changed into a more modern race of creatures. Like flying dinosaurs, who over hundreds of millions of years (think about how long that really is), they evolved into raptors like eagles or hawks.

UBER 1337 Poster
Rep: 2

Joined: 27 Apr 2005
Posts: 2,116
OFFLINE

Okay, SWC think of it this way. Let’s pretend that evolution at minimum in this case will be about a ten thousand year process to change a creature. In other words, evolution is slow and the outcome will take a long time. Let’s pretend you live to be a hundred years old, (Unlikely). Even within that timeframe, you will not witness any dramatic changes in the creature because you only waited a hundredth of what it takes to really change. Evolution is a slooooooooow process because it’s long term adaptation. So you can argue forever that it doesn’t exist. but it takes too long to see any results and that’s why your not convinced.