Interbane wrote:Not true. The arrogance of such a wholesome explanation is a red herring. It simply isn't true. The breadth of explanation proposed is how species have evolved over time. That doesn't include how they originally came to be.Person123 wrote:Evolution is presented to the public as a theory that can explain the origin of all species
The difference between a 2 chamber heart and a 3 chamber heart might very well be 3,000 megabytes of information in the way the we currently process information on silicon. But it is a single mutation(quaternary rather than binary deviation) in how genetic information is encoded. But again, this is a red herring. This isn't how it works. Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information. Simple math. Google research. Armchair logic.
It's our downfall. Real education is behind a paywall, and all that's left are self-educated googlites that don't recognize the inherent confirmation bias. Whatever you wish to be true, google it and go down the rabbit hole.
"Not true. The arrogance of such a wholesome explanation is a red herring. It simply isn't true. The breadth of explanation proposed is how species have evolved over time. That doesn't include how they originally came to be. "
Really? Isn't Darwin's book called "On the Origin of Species"?
Aren't evolutionists claiming that all species evolved from a single cell organism... so how is it not a proposed explanation of the origin of species??? So please provide me the official definition for "evolution theory"...
This is absolutely ridiculous.
"The difference between a 2 chamber heart and a 3 chamber heart might very well be 3,000 megabytes of information in the way the we currently process information on silicon. But it is a single mutation(quaternary rather than binary deviation) in how genetic information is encoded. But again, this is a red herring. This isn't how it works. Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information. Simple math. Google research. Armchair logic. "
First we don't have to use silicon as an example... we can use any other known method of producing and storing new information. Like papers and ink. What the difference? I don't see how by attacking my "silicon" analogy you refute my point.
If you don't like me using "silicon" analogy, than you are more than welcomed to provide an explanation of how could a two chamber heart evolve into three chamber heart.
But you can't, all you can do is provide some links to some incoherent websites with a lot of redundant data.
"Dividing the total genome by a percentage doesn't give you the amount of useful information"
But at least some of it is useful information... I mean that is what separates one species from another and sometimes produce new organs... so some of it must be new useful infrormation.
Hehe this is what you evolutionists do... start playing games with words. This is the only thing that you are good for...
Evolutionist: "Our main book is called "on the Origin of Species"".
Also Evolutionist: "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of species".
Hehe what a joke. "Evolution" is the biggest charade in the history of human kind.