Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Rusty Tyler]

So if I were to write a book tomorrow, it could never present any new information?

Present?
Just another book using the available material.

 

[JayUtah]

Present?
Just another book using the available material.

I asked about information, not "material."

If something fun were to happen to me today and I wrote a post about it tomorrow, would that post contain new information that didn't exist yesterday? The question is asking you to defend your notion of where information lives. So far you're just rather obviously equivocating.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

The same way rearranging the digits of a phone number creates a new phone number, or rearranging pixels on a screen creates a new picture.

Right.
Rearranging existing material.
Call it new if you like. Still just a rearrangement.

 

[jimbob]

False. And quite trivially so. Every program or file on your computer, every video you've ever seen on a computer, etc, is a sequence of 1s and 0s. None of them have any choices than the set of base 2 numbers. But someone can still make a new video, or write a new text, conveying different information.

And taking this further.

We have thousands of years of writing even over 2000 years of the Latin alphabet.

When they letters were invented, they were new. There were more than 2 of them.

Yet now we encode them in various digital systems. Which, as you point out is only one digit (and the absence of the digit).

So it looks like you can encode new information in digital format

Sod this for a game of soldiers. Anyone can be wilfully ignorant and can have a personal definition of "information" that is utterly useless.

Although I am morbidly interested to see the relevance to the discussion of evolution as presumably a supposed creator deity is able to l use genes to make different organisms if that doesn't involve new information.

The answer must be that using such a definition of "information" is utterly useless

 

[JayUtah]

Right.
Rearranging existing material.

...to create something new containing new information using the common "material" alphabet. Now you're just introducing new words to perpetuate your equivocation.

Call it new if you like.

It is new.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/new

Still just a rearrangement.

It's still conveys new information that didn't previously exist, composed from the same alphabet as previous conveyances of information.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Back to the original...
Question: How does natural selection introduce new information?
Isn't it limited to what already exists? From which the selections are made. ???
Seems that diminishing returns would be more likely.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

guess you chose to ignore new information, thus limiting what is available to you.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Yes, from an infinite set. A fish's DNA and your DNA are also just random choices from the same infinite set, but your DNA contains different information from a fish's DNA. Or you'd be a fish.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

...to create something new containing new information.

It's not new if it involves rearranging existing material.

 

[Steve]

This thread :

 

[Rusty Tyler]

guess you chose to ignore new information, thus limiting what is available to you.

Ignore?
The "new information" you presented was a random rearrangement of existing material.

 

[jimbob]

No.


False.

Furthermore, let's see what happens if we accept that ridiculous assertion.

How does that forward the argument for a supernatural designer? Such a being is supposedly defining the DNA of each organism.

But that (somehow) doesn't count as new information, so there's no problem with random mutations and natural selection achieving the same result either.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Back to the original...
Question: How does natural selection introduce new information?
Isn't it limited to what already exists? From which the selections are made. ???
Seems that diminishing returns would be more likely.

I've already answered that. You're focusing on just half of the process. There are two parts. The first one is random mutations. That is not part of natural selection. Natural selection, yes, selects between the combinations that the first part has produced.

 

[jimbob]

Alternatively

Ask whomever is feeding you this stuff to do better. That was idiotic.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

This thread :

Must be ten pages by now. - LOL

 

[JayUtah]

Back to the original...
Question: How does natural selection introduce new information?

No, you don't get to reset the debate instead of answering questions.

It's not new if it involves rearranging existing material.

Asked and answered.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Back to the original...
Question: How does natural selection introduce new information?
Isn't it limited to what already exists? From which the selections are made. ???
Seems that diminishing returns would be more likely.

Rusty, suppose you take a phone number that's stored on your phone, change one digit at random, then dial the changed number. If you get an answer, then have you found a new valid phone number? By your argument, that's impossible, because you've only introduced a random element and you think that can't introduce new information. But if you try it often enough, sometimes you'll get an answer.

Dave

 

[Carrot Flower King]

My claim?
Books use words from a 26 letter alphabet. Music is created with the 12 notes available.
No new letters and no new notes.

OK, so you've never heard of micro-tonal, quarter-tonal or atonal music systems...

 

[JayUtah]

Must be ten pages by now. - LOL

I've asked you several times what your intent is in posting to this forum. Are you just aping for attention or are you serious?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

You're just playing silly word games now.

That saw ___________________________ . (fill in the blank)