Evolution

[BillMorrow]

Evolution is a theory. Don't confuse "theory and fact".

dave..

if evolution is a theory, then what facts conflict with this "theory"?

[DaveO]

Evolution is a theory. Don't confuse "theory and fact".

dave..

if evolution is a theory, then what facts conflict with this "theory"?

ok bill, I'll bite,..... but i hope you're not trying to get me going
I'm not sure if this is in the right forum group either, never mind hijacking the thread.....
and I don't mean to start a rant, its not my avenue of expertise,..... so just quietly....

The theory may be popular (rapidly on the decline though), but there would seem to be more evidence against it than for it......
I'll just very generally touch on one point for now.

Information science, as often used to study DNA, would seem to suggest
that no "new" information presents itself in successive generations of living things, no matter how many years you throw at it,
and actually the opposite appears to be true. Later generations have a very slight decrease of orderly
DNA information as their ancestors and therefore no real long term major genetic increase, AS EVOLUTION ULTIMATELY REQUIRES.
Any "apparent" increase in genetic information or seeming improvements in DNA are short lived (mutations),
and observed useful changes or variations happen due to natural selection within isolated groups,
(dont think evolution holds the licence on natural selection - within its kind/species)
and only happen because of the information that was originally there anyway.
No molecules to man evolution.

There are heaps of evidences that are not in agreement with the assumptions that go with evolution theory and its need of extremely long timespans.
(polonium halos in granite, actual blood vessels found in dino bones, discepencies in radiometric dating etc.)

Die hard evolutionists will always disagree even though they are given the same evidence.
Actually a "fact" is an "interpretation of evidence" in light of ones "worldview"

I'll have to correct my sig now......

[end rant]

[GomJabbar]

dave..

if evolution is a theory, then what facts conflict with this "theory"?

ok bill, I'll bite,..... but i hope you're not trying to get me going

I've been tempted to 'bite' on this as well. And since the Admin opened Pandora's Box...........

Some observable evidence that appears accurate does not make 'fact'. For years people were convinced the world was flat - NOT. They thought the universe revolved around the earth - NOT. That heavier objects fall faster than light objects, etc. Galileo was one that went against prevailing wisdom, and was proved correct eventually.

There is evidence that supports evolution. And I believe that a Creator could have guided this. But to say that it 'only' involves Natural Selection and chance events is short-sighted IMO. For me, considering how creatures defend themselve against predators cannot be explained by evolution and Natural Selection alone.

I don't have the time or space to list all variations, but consider the following; Octopuses can instantly change their coloring to match their surroundings, and they can expel ink to hide in (you have to see a movie of this to really appreciate it). Electric eels and rays can generate over 220 volts of electricity to paralyze and kill, yet it doesn't really hurt them. Skunks and stinkbugs use strong odor for repulsion. Poison dart frogs use bright colors to let others know they are deadly. Opossums and some other animals play dead. Porcupines have painful spines. Lizards lose their tail. Armadillos and pangolines have armor plate. Puffer fish bloat up. Some animals have big sharp teeth or sharp claws. Some animals and plants mimic the appearance of other more dangerous ones. Bees, wasps, stingrays, scorpions and others use painful stingers. Jelly fish, caterpillers, stinging nettles also sting. Poison Ivy has a strong irritant that causes blisters. Snakes and spiders use neurological and hematalogical poisons to kill. The variety of poisons used by various animals and plants for survival is astounding. In all IMO, the total variety cannot be explained by just the passage time. Such diversity would not seem to take place through evolution by Natural selection and chance events alone.

I'm sure there are some good examples that I have left out, but the preceding is what comes to mind off the top of my head.

[Navin Johnson]

Some observable evidence that appears accurate does not make 'fact'. For years people were convinced the world was flat - NOT. They thought the universe revolved around the earth - NOT. That heavier objects fall faster than light objects, etc. Galileo was one that went against prevailing wisdom, and was proved correct eventually.

Actually, observable evidence indicates that the earth is not flat, which was known at least since the Greeks and any even moderately educated person in the European Middle Ages knew this as well. (Columbus was thought crazy not because he thought the earth was round, but because he thought the distance between Europe and India going to the west was much shorter than others thought it to be. Columbus was in fact wrong but he got lucky in hitting another continent along the way) That people believed the earth to be flat seems to be a myth introduced by Darwinists in their debates with creationists in the 19th century.

I'd also be careful with claiming too much based the whole heliocentricism debates and especially Galileo. There has been a lot of myth build-up here too and it's not nearly as simple as it may seem.

All this does nothing, however, to counter your main point that there is some evidence to support evolution. I agree. I think that at least some aspects of evolutionary theory appear to be well-supported by sound evidence. The problem for me is when evolution begins to be treated not so much as an aspect of science but instead as a religion in itself. When we cannot question aspects of evolution on evidentiary grounds or when evolution is used to answer questions more appropriate to philosophy and metaphysics -- that is when I begin to have problems with the claims of certain supporters of evolution.

[daeojkim]

DaveO,

Just out of curiosity, are you a trained scientist in the fields theoretical genetics, population genetics, or microbiology?

How's Bondi beach these days? I miss Sydney

JK

[a31pguy]

I think that at least some aspects of evolutionary theory appear to be well-supported by sound evidence. The problem for me is when evolution begins to be treated not so much as an aspect of science but instead as a religion in itself.

Actually the Scopes trial was the basis for the questions about evolution vs. religeon. Evolution never was treated as a religeon - rather - it ran contrary to the basis of the bible as literal truth. I think the jist of it was that the bible touted earth created in six days and animals and humans sprang into existance already formed. Evolution was being challenged in US schools as counter to the socially established religeon of christianity and state laws enforcing that view. Evolution is about science and science is about truth. Which is what the Scopes Trail was really challenging Christianity about.

Sure, Evolution is a theory. However, I disagree, I think we do see strong evidence that it's true. Looking at DNA - there are several sequences in the human geonome which show historical changes (or are theorized to show) in our geonome. Plants and animals continue to evolve. I think as we go forth into an era of understanding sequences in our geonome - we may find more and more evidence which support evolution. However, I think as gene manipulation becomes a more established field - evolution, at least by Darwinian terms, changes to our DNA/Geonome may be more by intent instead of natural selection.

The fact that Evolution is a theory - only goes to strenthen it rather than weaken it. It's science and scientific thoery evolves and refines itself. That was the historical point of Scopes. Which really was about the discussion on bibilical verse as literal fact. When probed deeper - it revelled such compelling questions that several theologians reversed themselves and put forth that the bible was figurative instead of literal.

I find the subject of "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution rather comical. Seems that the arguements against evolution have evolved - but are based in the same "flawed" (IMHO) logic. It seeks to find an answer to a question with the answer already in hand.

Further, science and religeon can coexist. There is no part of science such as the theory of evolution, which deals with social morality. Religeon gives us frameworks to deal with each other. Science is pretty cold in this regard. ("Just the facts"). Science can tell us we can do something and morality tell us we should do something.

It's the concept of Hereasay which really causes the problems. Which goes back to the earlier posting about the earth being flat (which historically is a good example).

Just my two cents. No offense intended.


.....and no I would not buy memory off ebay.

[GomJabbar]

I find the subject of "Intelligent Design" vs. Evolution rather comical. Seems that the arguements against evolution have evolved - but are based in the same "flawed" (IMHO) logic. It seeks to find an answer to a question with the answer already in hand.

Ready with the envelope. And the answer is................

We can go to an archeological location and make discoveries, and though we don't understand everything, we can make certain logical deductions. For example if we go to Easter Island, we see the Moai. Although we know little about them, we can see the hand of man involved. We know the Moai came from stone located away from the coast, yet the coast is where we find them. They appear too large to move with hand implements, yet we know that man did accomplish this. They did not move on their own, or by magic.

If at some future time we travel to another planet and discover rocks placed in a pattern such as we find at Stonehenge, we would know that an intelligent being was involved in the formation. We would know that the stones did not get placed that way through some random chance event. Yet when it comes to Evolution, some cannot abide that an intelligence was behind it. The creation of life and it's myriad of variations is an extremely complex reality. If you look at Molecular Biology, even at the cell level we are extremely complex creatures. So many parts of the cell depend on so many other parts for the complete cell to have life. In the time of Darwin, the knowledge of the inner workings of the cell was miniscule. We know much more today. Yet has man been able to create life? Even with our intelligent direction we cannot do it at this time. The best we can do is clone existing life. The strict evolutionists are not willing to concede that intelligence is needed for life (as we know it).

The problem for me is when evolution begins to be treated not so much as an aspect of science but instead as a religion in itself. When we cannot question aspects of evolution on evidentiary grounds or when evolution is used to answer questions more appropriate to philosophy and metaphysics -- that is when I begin to have problems with the claims of certain supporters of evolution.

Well said.

EDIT: I wasn't very intelligent with my spelling of 'intelligent'. Upon rereading my post I caught this, and now it is corrected.

[DaveO]

I'd agree and disagree with many things being said here but
rather than beat around the bush and try to explain anything with any clarity here under 2 million words,
I think it would be helpful to those really interested to be directed to look at sites like
www.trueorigins.org and the like, where real scientists, …….yeah…. with labcoats and letters after their names
(ones who aren’t afraid of upsetting the "evolution biased research grant" gravy train) ,
explain some of the complex and often misunderstood and "misquoted" issues.

And daeojkim, no I can't put myself in their league.
I can't speak for Bondi either as I usually hit the northern beaches, Manly to Palm beach .

[egibbs]

Evolution IS a theory - no argument. People choose to believe or disbelieve it based on evidence and experiment, but it can never be perfect - it can always be further refined.

In fact, Godel's incompleteness theorem (not theory) proves (in a logical sense) that ANY system based on Axioms and rules is inherently flawed - you can always construct a "true" fact that cannot be proven within system. So what?

The world is not in fact round, it oblate and slightly lumpy. That description is itself flawed and can be further refined, as can any refinement.

Gravity is also a theory - Newton's theory of Gravity is in fact false, but only if you look very closely. Einstein's theory of gravity is better than Newton's, but is also flawed if you look closely enough. Whatever replaces it will also be flawed.

ID is Creationism which is religion. People choose to belive or disbelieve it based on faith. It is perfect and will always be so because God says it is. How do we know that? God tells us. Shut up and pray.

Personally, I find revealed truth and perfection un-appetizing. I'll take science with it's messiness and unproven theories any day.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

From 1 Corinthians chapter 13, verses 9-12 (New International Version):

9For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. 11When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. 12Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

While God's ways may be perfect, our understanding of them is not perfect as the Apostle Paul stated above. We have the Bible to guide us, but we only understand it partially. The Bible speaks of the 6 days of creation, and some people take this literally. Others read this, and it is enough for them to discount the Bible as fantasy. Science 'proves' (with some certainty) that this could not be the case. But there is a third understanding of this. For instance we say: "In Aristotle's day..........". This day is not 24 hours long. Likewise the reasonable understanding of this is that each creative day was not 24 hours long. It is interesting to note that the basic order of the appearance of the things created (in the Bible) agrees with the timeline that science has come up with, even though this was written centuries ago.

[K. Eng]

These debates grow tiresome. I generally don't have anything against faith, but I am increasingly concerned that religious Americans are shunning science, especially in the areas of biotech.

Now that manufacturing is no longer a primary breadwinning occupation in the US (and what manufacturing is left is increasingly automated), we need to make sure that R&D stays here.

To me, it looks like a combination of homegrown anti-scientific principles and offshoring will weaken the US in the long run.

The future, and the next Cold War, will belong to India and China as they compete for energy resources and technology. India has the edge in technology... China has the edge in energy. They are more or less friendly now, but when things start to heat up it will be interesting.

[DIGITALgimpus]

Science argues that Evolution is theory... it's the best working theory out there. Nobody yet has proven against it, and evidence leans towards it. Hence it's an "accepted theory" (not fact).

"Intelligent Design" isn't a theory. It's reformatted religion. Bottom line is there's no science behind it, no evidence, or research. There's more evidence that the sun revolves around the earth than there is of "Intelligent Design".

The question is if Religion can be introduced into science, which historically has been a fact/scientific method based class, in comparison to say Liturature.

According to the core beliefs of many christians, the only things that should be taught in school is religion. If it's not in some way related to religion or survival, it shouldn't be taught. Hence science in it's current state is unnecessary (it does nothing for religion, and isn't really necessary for survivial). Liturature can be done in a religious way, so can the arts, even math (which can be said to be survival, as economics is an essential part of life).

[GomJabbar]

There are narrow-minded religion-based ideas just as there are narrow-minded scientific-based ideas. People should try to widen out and think outside the box. Just think about how many great scientific breakthroughs are realized by thinking outside the box.

On the news lately we see individuals that no longer want to just express their point of view. They want to shut-up anyone with a different view. I believe it is a sign that things are not right when one side seeks to silence the other. Just look at governments as an example. The closed governments that attempt to silence the news media are only trying to hide behind closed doors. Eventually of course, they will be found out. One just hopes it is before too much damage is done.

Let's keep the debate open. IMO the classroom is an appropriate place for these issues to be discussed. Let the students explore these issues fully without restraint. The instructor(s) should not espouse religion but rather let the student know that there are a range of theories out there. Let the students explore and present the issues as they see them. Of course care is needed to prevent the majority from overpowering or bullying the ones that don't share their viewpoint - regardless of which side they are on.

It sure is great to have a bully pulpit.

[DIGITALgimpus]

Let's keep the debate open. IMO the classroom is an appropriate place for these issues to be discussed. Let the students explore these issues fully without restraint. The instructor(s) should not espouse religion but rather let the student know that there are a range of theories out there. Let the students explore and present the issues as they see them. Of course care is needed to prevent the majority from overpowering or bullying the ones that don't share their viewpoint - regardless of which side they are on.

+1, well said.

Though I do believe there needs to be some limits as far as the quality of those selected and the forum. i.e., no need to bother kids with "the earth is flat, and you can fall off the edge science"... it's based on no facts at all. Hence worthless for more than a good laugh. It's good however in context of history (Christopher Columbus), or Liturature.

[Kyocera]

Our society is becoming more and more fragmented, more and more warlike, more diverse yet separate, humans still fear the unknown and keep busy like bees not so much trying to figure out why we are here but search more and more simply to prove their own theory as to why we are here and debunk the others claim as to why. Religion serves many people many ways, but to take it so far as to now saying there is evidence of a "hand" in the manufacture of DNA is just ridiculous. Religion is once again becoming huge, popular, that is a good thing, but unfortunately intelligent design is an attempt to create fuel for a political engine to burn. One thing that I remember from studying a little quantum physics was that the theory being tested or observed was itself effected by the observation. The outcome is changed by those finding the outcome. In light of this how are we effecting the outcome of studying the concepts of how we got here. Do we have all the materials, are we capable of really proving one or the other without effecting the outcome. Why do we have to prove or substantiate how superior we supposedly are?The powers and the forces of the universe and matter are to complex for a human brain to comprehend, do we not want to feel part of the vast universe, a part of matter manifested over millions of years, is that to distasteful to believe? I think I am one of millions who wants to feel that there is always some powerful entity always watching, judging, helping, a being all powerful and when something goes wrong or right we have an explanation. But the reality is we are compilations of matter, gasses, light. I think we should be more concerned about the circle of evolution, trying to figure out how long we will last.

[beeblebrox]

In my view the whole discussion here is quite useless and will only drag along forever without any results.

As a bright mind once said:

"Any technology, sufficiently advanced enough, will always be seen as magic.

Any scientific theory, sufficinetly advanced, will always be seen as nonsense.

History has taught us that scientific achievements have always had to fight against religious beliefs. But science has always overcome religious obstacles. Sometimes it just needed a few centuries."
Religion is just no replacement for education. It is interesting to read in statistics that, especially in the "Bible Belt", the Jesusland of Texas and Midwest, the average education in general is far lower than at the east and west coast. Indoctrination of a belief, starting with childhood and school, gives it the rest.

In my view it is useless to have a logical discussion with any "Creationist", as it is useless to discuss which god is stronger and better than the other. Let a christ, hindu and moslem discuss their view, and the end result is useless, always.

Just as we laugh today about point of views about world, science and god, views that were predominant in the 13th century, folks in 50 to 100 years will read with amusement in encyclopedias about the "Creationists at the turn of the 21st century".

I am absolutely sure, that in 50 years the scientific genetic evolution will be completely understood in finest details. There will be new designed life from the labs and there will be modifications of existing life forms, just as we see it coming today.

E.g. Scientist have already found the genetic trigger of teeth in birds, when they turned the particular gene on, the hatched chicken had teeth like the first archeopterix. The blood vessels of ostriches looked almost identical the the vessel structure of the T-rex, whose bone tissue was examined. That is evolution at its finest. If you go Metropolitan Science Museum in NYC, you can study the evolving modification of bones structures in vertebreas over millions of years.

I always wondered about the logical paradox in the thoughts of "Creationists".
If there were a god, who designed living things by purpose, how come that some many became extinct over time? Even human genetic lines died out (Homo Neandertalensis, Homo Florensins (the Hobbits))... were they not worthy of living?

[Kyocera]

Well put beeble.

[egibbs]

Information science, as often used to study DNA, would seem to suggest
that no "new" information presents itself in successive generations of living things, no matter how many years you throw at it,
and actually the opposite appears to be true. Later generations have a very slight decrease of orderly
DNA information as their ancestors and therefore no real long term major genetic increase,

I'm curious about the derivation of this statement.

Information Theory (are we using a theory to refute a theory?) is very closely related to thermodynamics, and the above statement closely parallels the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which (simply stated) says that in a closed system free of external influences, entropy will tend to remain constant or increase with time.

The Second law is often cited by creationists, with the claim that evolution is not possible without violating the Second law. There are a number of problems with this argument, including:

The Second Law is a very funny law - it is not an absoulte law, but rather is based solely on statistical averages. If you have a sealed box full of a gas it is highly likely that the gas will be distributed more or less evenly in the box. But it is also entirely possible (though extremely unlikely) that all of the gas molecules will happen to be piled up in one corner. If you happened to look in the box and see all the molecules in one corner you would be tempted to think some intelligence put them there. But they could have all just happened to be that way without violating the Second Law.

The naive interpretation of the Second Law also does not take gravity into account. If you consider the universe as a whole, you would tend to think that the maximum entropy condition would be for it to be filled with a uniform hot gas, evenly distributed (such as shortly after the Big Bang). And you would be right, if there was no gravity.

But as soon as you add gravity, the situation flips. The uniform hot gas is actually an extremely LOW entropy state in the presence of gravity, and the gas will immediately begin forming into clumps under gravitational attraction. These clumps will become galaxies, filled with stars, which form heavy elements and spew them into space, which condense to form planets which are warmed by new stars, which provides energy for chemical reactions, which produce amino acids and other organic molecules, which eventually form nucleotides capable of self copying, and away you go.

For a more extensive debunking of the Second Law obection to evolution, see the Wikipedia entry at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law ... second_law.

Ed Gibbs

[GomJabbar]

I always wondered about the logical paradox in the thoughts of "Creationists".
If there were a god, who designed living things by purpose, how come that some many became extinct over time? Even human genetic lines died out (Homo Neandertalensis, Homo Florensins (the Hobbits))... were they not worthy of living?

Just because something is created, that does not mean that it has to be kept to perpetuity. While it may be argued that any living creature is worthy of living, it is a fact of life that death follows all living things (at present anyway).

While we as parents guide our children in life, at some point most of us realize that it is up to the (grown) child to make his own life with his own decisions, and the resulting consequences. I believe that the Creator has likewise put his creations on the earth and left them to their own devices with the resulting consequences. The Creator does not micro-manage.

Even presuming the Creator made life with a purpose, we don't really know what the Creator's ultimate purpose is. It may not be what many assume or presume.

[GomJabbar]

An interesting aside, published in The New York Times (an article I happened to read today).

In fact, the triumph of the Linnaean method, which uses kingdoms of life and two-part Latin names for species, was so complete that it seemed he had forever solved the problem of cataloging the world's living things.

So Linnaeus would most likely be shocked - after guessing there were fewer than 15,000 species of animals and plants on earth - to learn that more than 200 years later, scientists are far from finishing the naming of living things and are once again being overwhelmed by an explosion of new species and names.

Between 1.5 million and 2 million species have been named, and a deluge of what could be millions more appears imminent.

[a31pguy]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArt ... lated=true

Here is a modern day example of natural selection. Viral mutations and drug resistance. This girl in Vietnam had three mutations of the same Avian Flu virus.

One is susceptable to Tamiflu, one is not, and another has a partial resistance. Her body inadvertantly created these mutations by killing off some of the weaker mutated viruses and this is what survived. In this manner, we are probably going to see a mutation to a version of this virus which be highly infectous and drug resistant eventually. Hopefully not before we find a new antiviral to combat it. They are talking about a much larger epidemic being a real possibility.

[GomJabbar]

http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/NewsArt ... lated=true

Here is a modern day example of natural selection. Viral mutations and drug resistance. This girl in Vietnam had three mutations of the same Avian Flu virus.

I too believe that Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts. I just don't believe they answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life.

[BillMorrow]

this discussion is going great..

i wish i had more time to read it in detail..

but i do not, just now, have that time..
(its 3:30am and i must get some sleep)

[daeojkim]

I too believe that Natural Selection and Evolution exist and are valid precepts. I just don't believe they answer all questions pertaining to the variety and creation of life.

The modern evolution theory does perfectly explain the "variety" of living organism on Earth and there are more than enough evidences from DNA level to macroscopic level.

As far as "creation of life", the evolution theory it is still questionable, even though it seems plausible and convincing. There is no concrete evidence as of yet to claim how life on Earth began.

The theory that life began from random formation of amino acids, and DNA formations during early stages of life is as much plausible as life brought to Earth by extraterretial meteors.

This an article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/10 ... index.html

It shows a process of symbiosis that is occuring currently between some organisms. It shows how Eukaryotes may have from Prokaryotes engulfing each other.

[a31pguy]

Well on the subject of origin and creation vs. evolution - I will concede that no conclusions can be made. Primarily because the root of the question about origin of life is different from the origin of a species.

Speculation over what happened billions of years ago - tracing to the "creation" of the universe/multiverse will always be speculative.

There is some interesting research on anti-matter which gives me pause for thought.

[DaveO]

In general response to many opinions put forth here, and as a reality check,
I hope this is not too long for some of you, but I definately couldn’t say it better or as complete myself.....


In the Beginning Was Information - Dr Werner Gitt

1. What is a Law of Nature?
Due to their explanatory power, and their correspondence to reality, laws of nature represent the highest level of significance in science. The following points about laws of nature are especially significant.
Laws of nature:
• Know no exceptions.
• Are unchanging in time (past, present or future).
• Can tell us whether a process being contemplated is even possible or not.
• Exist prior to, and independent of, their discovery and formulation.
• Can always be successfully applied to unknown situations.

2. What is Information?
Information is not a property of matter!
The American mathematician, Norbert Wiener, made the oft-cited statement: “Information is information, neither matter nor energy.”
What causes information to come into existence at all – what is the initiating factor? What causes us to write a letter, a postcard, a note of congratulations, a diary entry or a file note? The most important prerequisite for this is our own will, or that of the person who assigned the task to us. Information always depends upon the will of a sender, who initially creates the information.
Natural-Law Definition of Information
Information is an encoded, symbolic representation of material realities or conceptual relationships conveying expected action and intended purpose. Information is always present when, in an observable system, all of the following five hierarchical levels (or attributes) are present: statistics, syntax (code), semantics (meaning), pragmatics (action) and apobetics (purpose).

3. Laws of Nature about Information
The ten most important laws of nature about information include the following:
1. A purely material entity cannot generate a non-material entity.
2. Information is a non-material fundamental entity.
3. Information is the non-material foundation for all program-directed technological systems and all biological systems.
4. There can be no information without a code.
5. Every code is a result of a freely-willed convention.
6. There can be no new information without an intelligent, purposeful sender.
7. Any given chain of information can be traced back to an intelligent source.
8. Allocating meaning to a set of symbols by a sender, and determining meaning from a set of symbols by a recipient, are mental processes requiring intelligence.
9. Information cannot originate in statistical processes.
10. The storage and transmission of information requires a material medium.

4. Six Conclusions:
All scientific thought and practice reaches a limit beyond which science is inherently unable to take us. This situation is no exception. But our questions involve matters beyond this limiting boundary, and so to successfully transcend it, we need a higher source of information. This higher source of information is the Bible.

Conclusion #1 – God exists; refutation of atheism.
Because all forms of life contain a code (DNA, RNA), as well as all of the other levels of information, we are within the definition domain of information. We can therefore conclude that: There must be an intelligent Sender!

Conclusion #2 – There is only one God, who is all-knowing and eternal.
The information encoded in DNA far exceeds all our current technologies. Hence, no human being could possibly qualify as the Sender, who must therefore be sought outside of our visible world. We can conclude that:
There is only one Sender, who must not only be exceptionally intelligent, but must possess an infinitely large amount of information and intelligence. (i.e., He must be omniscient (all-knowing), and beyond that must also be eternal.

Conclusion #3 – God is immensely powerful
Because the Sender
• ingeniously encoded the information in the DNA molecules.
• must have constructed the complex bio-machinery which decodes the information and carries out all the processes of biosynthesis.
• was responsible for all the details of the original construction and abilities of all living things, we can conclude that:
The Sender wanted this all to be so and that: He must be immensely powerful.

Conclusion #4 – God is spirit
Because information is a non-material fundamental entity, it cannot originate from a material one. We can therefore conclude that:
The Sender must have a non-material component (spirit) to His nature.

Conclusion #5 – No human being without a soul: refutation of materialism
Because people have the ability to create information, this cannot originate from our material portion (body). We can therefore conclude that:
Each person must have a non-material component (spirit, soul).

Conclusion #6 – No evolution
Since –
• biological information, the fundamental component of all life, originates only from an intelligent sender and
• all theories of chemical and biological evolution require that information must have originated solely from matter and energy (no sender), we conclude that:
o All theories or concepts of chemical and biological evolution (macroevolution) are false.
With the help of the laws of information we can reach a comprehensive and fundamental conclusion: the idea of macroevolution – i.e., the journey from chemicals to primordial cell to man—is false. Information is a fundamental and absolutely necessary factor for all living things. But all information—and living systems are not excluded—needs a non-material source.

The evolutionary system, in the light of the laws of information, shows itself to be an “intellectual perpetual motion machine.”

[Kyocera]

DaveO, with all due respect, I would hope you would not use this exerpt to disprove evolution. I'm not even close to being highly intellectual and this is certainly not even a good explanation of the theory of creationism let alone an argument that it exists. This is more philosophy mixed with arbitrary facts in a soup of conjecture.

I keep hearing DNA being described as a written code, in reality this is how it was explained, to say it was written seems to imply a "writer". A confusing premise, and can lead to a false conclusion.

[K. Eng]

I'll weigh in here. I've bolded the particular portion that I disagree with. I will assume as valid the assertion that science as observable to human beings is limited by the particular physical laws of our universe.

However, the mere fact that there may be forces at work that are not observable to persons within our universe does not logically lead to the conclusion that the Bible is a transcendant description of forces that may exist outside our universe. I could just as easily state that the Koran, Egyptian depictions of Egyptian gods, Greek mythology, and Buddhism are the higher source of information concerning forces beyond the sphere of our universe, and I would no more be able to prove this assertion than someone making the same claim for the Christian Bible.

The passage merely asserts that the higher source is the Bible. The passage completely fails to explain why the Bible is any more valid than any other source from any other relgion.

It is with all sincerity that I tell you that this sort of pseudo-science and smoke 'n mirors stuff comes off as extremely insulting. Does Dr. Gitt honestly believe that any intelligent, scientifically trained person would fail to see the gaping holes in his "logic"? Does he honestly think intelligent persons are stupid enough to believe this?

If people take things on faith, they should just be honest and say so. If one believes that God exists and Jesus is the savior, and takes it on FAITH, that's fine with me. But don't try to cloak it under some poorly reasoned pretext. Faith is faith, don't try try to bring reason into it.

In general response to many opinions put forth here, and as a reality check,
I hope this is not too long for some of you, but I definately couldn’t say it better or as complete myself.....
...
4. Six Conclusions:
All scientific thought and practice reaches a limit beyond which science is inherently unable to take us. This situation is no exception. But our questions involve matters beyond this limiting boundary, and so to successfully transcend it, we need a higher source of information. This higher source of information is the Bible.

[pphilipko]

I'll weigh in here. I've bolded the particular portion that I disagree with. I will assume as valid the assertion that science as observable to human beings is limited by the particular physical laws of our universe.

However, the mere fact that there may be forces at work that are not observable to persons within our universe does not logically lead to the conclusion that the Bible is a transcendant description of forces that may exist outside our universe. I could just as easily state that the Koran, Egyptian depictions of Egyptian gods, Greek mythology, and Buddhism are the higher source of information concerning forces beyond the sphere of our universe, and I would no more be able to prove this assertion than someone making the same claim for the Christian Bible.

The passage merely asserts that the higher source is the Bible. The passage completely fails to explain why the Bible is any more valid than any other source from any other relgion.

It is with all sincerity that I tell you that this sort of pseudo-science and smoke 'n mirors stuff comes off as extremely insulting. Does Dr. Gitt honestly believe that any intelligent, scientifically trained person would fail to see the gaping holes in his "logic"? Does he honestly think intelligent persons are stupid enough to believe this?

If people take things on faith, they should just be honest and say so. If one believes that God exists and Jesus is the savior, and takes it on FAITH, that's fine with me. But don't try to cloak it under some poorly reasoned pretext. Faith is faith, don't try try to bring reason into it.

In general response to many opinions put forth here, and as a reality check,
I hope this is not too long for some of you, but I definately couldn’t say it better or as complete myself.....
...
4. Six Conclusions:
All scientific thought and practice reaches a limit beyond which science is inherently unable to take us. This situation is no exception. But our questions involve matters beyond this limiting boundary, and so to successfully transcend it, we need a higher source of information. This higher source of information is the Bible.

I couldn't have said it better!

[egibbs]

I agree - Dr. Gitt is using a mystical definition of information as the core of his argument, but I don't know of any credible information theorist who would agree with his definition. His argument is flawed from the first sentence of his definition of information, not to mention his questionable definition of a natural law.

Shannon (the founder of information theory) defined information as that which reduces uncertainty. Note that this definition applies equally well to electrons as to people.

One of the mysteries of Quantum Physics is decoherence - subatomic particles seem to exist in a shadow realm where they have neither position nor momentum, but rather potentialities for those quantities that can take a range of values. Measuring one quantity causes that quantity to assume a definite value, but the more accurately we measure a quantity (say position) the more uncertain the complementary quantity (momentum) becomes. This is the famous uncertainty principle, and it has been exhaustively verified in real world experiments - see for example Bose-Einstein condensates.

Yet in the macroscopic world, the Moon is still there even if no one is looking at it. Somewhere between the subatomic and human scales, doecherence happens and things assume definite positions and momentums. The best guess currently is that it is the overall effect of interactions between many, many particles that causes a kind of constant measurement process, bringing the familiar world we live in out of the chaos and uncertainty of the subatomic realm.

I once worked on an Inertial Navigation System. The standing joke was that the reason it took so long to initialize was that it figured out where it was by first figuring out every place it couldn't possibly be. Funny, but in a sense every bit of matter in our universe is doing the same calculation, at a subatomic level, constantly.

Remember that information is anything that decreases uncertainty. The overall decrease in uncertainty of all the subatomic particles making up the Moon is enormous. The Moon, the Sun, the Earth, a rock, a book, a person - all have enormously high information contents just by virtue of their physical existence.

I would argue that we need to distinguish information from knowledge.

Information IS a property of matter - all matter contains huge amounts of information just by being. The information content of an encyclopedia is hardly different than the information content of the same sized book filled with gibberish. If you doubt that, then consider the information content of an encyplopedia written in an undechipherable code. Does the information content of the book magically change when someone hands you the decryption mechanism?

Knowledge on the other hands, is stuff which is meaningful to humans - things we understand, we know, we belive, or we find useful.

Knowledge is very different from Shannon's information. But Dr. Gitt seems to be intentionally confusing the two - mixing the meaningfulness of knowledge with the rules for handling information. As a Doctor (of what - Divinity? Philosphy?), I believe he should know better. The fact that he seems not to makes me think he might be being less than intellectually honest.

Ed Gibbs