Annoying creationists

[CapelDodger]

The perfect henchmen! ... er, primates of hench ... plus I can pay 'em peanuts.

You wish! Maybe the soldiers, but the capos will want something sweeter.

All the same, a couple of these on your roof and you'll never be bothered by Mormons again. Or Trick-or-Treaters.

 

[joobz]

Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

 

[T'ai Chi]

What we know is:

-EV program originally intended to demonstrate that information gain can be obtained via a model of random mutation and selection

-EV program intelligently designed

So does once conclude that
-this is evidence that random mutation on selection can yield information
or
-this is evidence that intelligent design can yield information

 

[CapelDodger]

Let's be honest. The real reason we support biological sciences and evolutionary theory is that deep down we all want to live to see the day when our dream of unleashing an army of evil genetically engineered hench monkeys from our secret evolutionist bunker onto fundamentalist Christians is finally realized.

I'm in a traditionalist cell, we're working on snakes. Making some progress as well, starting from Indonesian stock. The toxin still needs some work.

 

[delphi_ote]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

Flying attack monkeys in clear plastic balls?! That leads me to ask the obvious question. Can we mount laser weapons on these plastic balls?

 

[CapelDodger]

I prefer my mutant monkeys to be forced to naviagate elaborate mazes while locked into clear plastic balls.

But that's just me.

You bastard! Genetic manipulation or not, you could be talking about relatives of mine!

 

[delphi_ote]

EV program intelligently designed

Define "intelligently designed."

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

So does once conclude that
-this is evidence that random mutation on selection can yield information
or
-this is evidence that intelligent design can yield information

It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information. It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.

What evolution does, in part, is transmute information from the environment to the genome. Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.

If you do not think information can evolve in nature without help from some "intelligence," it would be useful to explain why.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. "Why" is the question.

Perhaps if you start at the quark-gluon plasma state ...

 

[Bronze Dog]

Well, Tai's moved the goalposts. An unintelligent program (like Ev and the universe) can create information. Now he just needs to show us that the universe was programmed.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. "Why" is the question.

Because if you replicate the critters that have a certain sort of information simply by chance, and kill off the ones that don't, then inevitably, without any need for evidence, you will end up with more of the critters with the particular sort of information.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

You forgot to start with the quark-gluon plasma.

And yes we all know that abiogenesis of life is something modern evolution takes as a given.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You forgot to start with the quark-gluon plasma.

And yes we all know that abiogenesis of life is something modern evolution takes as a given.

The quark-gluon plasma and abiogenesis have nothing to do with the question you asked: "There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. 'Why' is the question." I gave you the answer.

Now, if you want to ask about the specific history of life on Earth once there was something that could replicate, mutate, and get selected, that's a different question. You'll have to be patient. Jumping to a conclusion before the evidence is in serves no purpose.

~~ Paul

 

[T'ai Chi]

An unintelligent program (like Ev and the universe) can create information. Now he just needs to show us that the universe was programmed.

Why would I need to show anything about Ev? I'm not making any claims here.

BTW, it sounds like you're saying Ev and the universe are unintelligent? It was already claimed by a programmer of Ev that it was intelligently designed, so you're wrong.

And you're probably wrong about the universe too. If you're not, and therefore your argument is not intelligent, then I see no reason to pay attention to it.

 

[T'ai Chi]

It is evidence that humans can design computer programs, which are a form of information.

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?

It is evidence that random mutation and selection are sufficient for information to evolve.

Well, a simulation of random mutation and selection anyway.

Whether the environment is created by humans, by natural processes, or by both, is irrelevant.

So you're arguing for theistic evolution then since you're saying a creator is OK.

 

[hammegk]

The quark-gluon plasma and abiogenesis have nothing to do with the question you asked: "There is no doubt whatsoever that information evolves. 'Why' is the question." I gave you the answer.

Sorry, but you are wrong, unless you have faith we are quark-gluon plasma dreaming reality ... or just a dream.

Now, if you want to ask about the specific history of life on Earth once there was something that could replicate, mutate, and get selected, that's a different question. You'll have to be patient. Jumping to a conclusion before the evidence is in serves no purpose.

Thanks, but I, and most here have a reasonable handle on modern evolutionary theory.

And most probably also agree that computer models will never answer the most basic questions of life on earth, "Why?" being one of them.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

You don't find it the slightest bit odd that you're using intelligent design to try and prove something about evolution?

No, why should I? You're talking as if there is some magic teleportation of information from my brain to the random/selective process that is occuring while the program runs. I only set up the environment; I did not rig up an information source other than the process (unless there is a bug).

Well, a simulation of random mutation and selection anyway.

As I said: Because if you replicate the critters that have a certain sort of information simply by chance, and kill off the ones that don't, then inevitably, without any need for evidence, you will end up with more of the critters with the particular sort of information.

So you're arguing for theistic evolution then since you're saying a creator is OK.

I'm arguing no such thing. I'm saying that there are two separate things going on: (a) the establishment of an environment; and (b) the resulting evolution within that environment.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And most probably also agree that computer models will never answer the most basic questions of life on earth, "Why?" being one of them.

That's a different "why" from the one you asked above.

~~ Paul

 

[hammegk]

And the answer to either, and both, will always elude us ...

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

And the answer to either, and both, will always elude us ...

Especially if there is no reason why.

~~ Paul