But never proved evo can create information
Why Evolution is Wrong and What is Right?
- Thread starter MrIntelligentDesign
- Start date
And you never proved it cannot. It is unproven either way.
Meanwhile, all the evidence from genetics, biochemistry (such as amino acid sequences), the fossil record, biodistribution, morphology, etc. overwhelming supports evolution. This is why ovber 99% of biologists accept evolution is true.
Shifting the burden
It is YOUR argument, ferengi. YOU are claiming evolution cannot produce information. The burden is on YOU to support that claim.
It is YOU who is shifting the burden.
Shifting the burden - prove evo can create specified complex functional information
No it is not, ferengi. I am happy to say we do not know either way. You are the one who insists evolution cannot create specified complex functional information. Therefore the burden is on you to support that claim.
It is you who is shifting the burden, and it is also you who is accusing someone else of doing exactly what you are doing in the same post. I am seeing a pattern here...
- Still no fossils
There's a math equation that proves the start of all existence? Link please.☺️? There are a great many equations in cosmology. Start with Einstein's Field Equations.
forums.carm.org
Prove it - prove evo can create specified complex functional information
Done already -
How evolutionists are wrong and simple information theory proves.
Take some information THAT TRANSMITS MEANING encoded in a digital code known as the English language:
The cow jumped over the moon.
Now let's apply the unproven claim to information using information theory and add random mutations and see if we create novel information:
The cow jumxed over the moon.
OOOPSS- information is degraded:
The cow jumxed over the joon.
The cow jumxed overthe joon.
Thr cow jumxed overthe joon.
Thr cow jumxed overthe joon.
Thr ow jumxed overthe joon.
Thr ow jumxed overtke joon.
dhr ow jumxed overtke joon.
dh r ow jumxed overtke joon.
See - very simple - random mutations do not create information - they degrade information.
Thus the neo-dawinian faith is proven wrong scientifically.
Oh dear, this straw man again. All this shows is a woeful ignorance of evolution. Two words, ferengi: Natural selection
Oh dear not this unsupported assertion and lack of evidence for your evo religion again
It is sad that someone is so clueless about evolution that she thinks there needs to be support for the claim that it includes natural selection.
Natural selection is a fundamental part of evolution, right from Darwin. It is right there in the title of his book: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life
Its more sad you prove you have blind religious faith via posting childish ad hominem attacks instead of evidence evo is true.
faith based addendums to faith mean nothing to me - I deal in science/evidence.
Temujin
Well-known member
This quote is a keeper. Absolutely hilarious.
Your faith is very funny
You are claiming a random process that excludes selection is a reasonable model for evolution.
Either you honestly think it is a good model, and are clueless about evolution, or you are being dishonest, and deliberately misrepresenting how evolution works. I see no other alternative.
That is so laughable! If that is true, how come your model; for evolution excludes selection.
Prove I ever said that - its nonsense since you have not proven evo ever happened
rossum
Well-known member
You said it in post #49 in this thread, ferengi.
