To the Shakespeare text "analogy" about information I would add that all of his writings evolved over time... The final work did not come about ex nihilo. He had to do several drafts, delete parts, add parts, modify them... He made mistakes he had to correct. I know it's not a correct analogy bc a piece text does not mutate, but just wanted to have some fun.
Anyway, a better comparison is against genetic algorithms, which can derive into solutions by themselves. Sure, Creationist avoid that.
@cperez1000 I mainly try to focus on the interpretation of DNA as almost a written language by the ID proponents. Undoubtably other models or examples do more justice to DNA, but Shakespeare stands for the written word, the Bible, the sense that DNA is something unmistakably "intelligent" in nature.
My point about genetic algorithms is that it's a model where you can get meaningful information without an intelligent agent. The solutions provided by GAs are oftentimes more complex than a designers' solution. So they show that one cannot infer design from information.
It is easy to prove that the sequence of the bases A,C,G,T cannot derive from the chemistry of the molecular structure of DNA. The whole point of meaningful information is that the bits - or letters - that make up that information can be arranged indeterminately - like letters on a page, whose order is not determined by the chemistry of the paper and ink. If the sequence of bases was determined chemically, then a meaningful code would be impossible. You are so wrong!
This has got to be one of most ridiculous videos I have ever seen. To say that DNA is not "information" - or that it does not carry information is tantamount to saying that a Shakespeare play is not "information" because all it consists of is paper and ink! You obviously have no idea what information is, and you are blinded by extreme materialistic reductionism. Funnily enough, even Richard Dawkins wouldn't agree with you, as he has stated that life is based on information (Blind Watchmaker).
@The1066Al What Dawkins calls information is any inheritable feauture of Biology. What you and ID proponents call information is words, language, messages, all sorts of daily uses of the word, apart rt from its scientific meaning. And you get so carried away with that, that you forget to study the actual structure, nature, and history of the DNA molecule, which is contrary to a "Designer". This video is about the wrong interpretation of Information. Its not about showing DNA is just goo.
@ONESPECIES Separate from the issue of "information", all creationist arguments from the point of probability are equivalent to saying: "there is only one timeline, on history, only a single point in time right now: therefore, the probability of all possible configurations of atoms being what they are now is zero, hence there's a creator".
In math, we simply say:one-point sets have measure zero. Lebesgue already gave us the language in 1901 (I think) to express ideas like this consistently.
@MSJjoshua Mainly After Effects and 3d Studio MAX. But these won't do much on their own, they need hard work and a rather strong computer. Thanks for the feedback!
@ONESPECIES I happen to do studio editing, and I use those programs as well. Could you tip me on how you made the typewriting animation? Is there a preset somewhere in After Effects? I must be blind if there is ^^
@MSJjoshua In the effects (where all the effects are) window type typewriter in the search box. It should rest in animation presets/text. After that its a matter of moving the keyframe to the favorable duration and choosing a grungy font that looks like it.
I think it would be efficient to mention how one person may have read shakespeares Hamlet, then, without looking at the original, been asked to re-write it. There would be differences. there might even be improvement for some task, i.e. inspire the modern reader. Then imagine if a thousand people did this, all with Hamlet. Some would be better than others, so they would be the ones more read by the next generation etc. This slightly false analogy shows how DNA still can be viewed as information.
@Solensherre That is actually closer to the story of the Bible, funnily enough, where adaptations have certainly accumulated. But DNA stores traits, just like a rock gathers features from erosion. The biological outcome is just the interaction of DNA and the cell environment. A new mutation is random.So no info input there. The info comes to play when intelligent observers study DNA. Here I am addressing the colloquial use of Information, as phrased by Creationists and ID proponents.Not Traits.
@ONESPECIES Like I said, slightly false analogy...
I take it the creationists wouldn't be happy if I construed theur holy text as the result of a similar process to evolution by natural selection? If so I might just use it alot...
@Solensherre Ow its a work in progress alright. Only it is not that similar to evolution because it will probably improve very little even in Billions upon Billions upon Billions of years.
It is kind of nice to think of DNA as a Shakespeare play in that it has an awesome story to tell -- i.e. phylogeny. It's just that the text is encrypted, the original decryption key is lost forever, some of the encrypted letters are smudged to look like other letters, the play needs to be compared to not only other copies of itself, but copies of other plays to be decrypted, and then you only get some of the story. Much more is buried in the ground where you found the manuscript.
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. DNA is both a molecular structure and information storage. The way this information is generated, stored and used in DNA differs greatly from books and computers, as much as books and computers differ from each other.
Books are a bad analogy for DNA, but this isn't a valid argument against DNA being information. You need to broaden you mind.
This is coming from an IT student and an evolutionist. Information is my field of studies.
@darkmater4tm Information as a the term used by Intelligent Design and Creationist proponents is not to be found in DNA. You use the broader term. Even that is more of a linguistic need. Everything an intelligent species observes is information on the first hand. And that is the proper use of the word. What DNA contains does not get discussed or researched in the cell. It simply interacts. More like cogs. It obviously bares traits, but not in the colloquial sense of Information.
@ONESPECIES With that clarification, I can agree with you on the most part. I appoach the matter differently, but I think we agree in the substance. You could have used that clarification on the video, but then again, that would only give creationists an excuse to twist your point.
@darkmater4tm Yes, quite so, these day one can not even have a cup of coffee without being misinterpreted by Creationists and their ID cousins. I could only narrow it down by addressing a very specific argument.
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
@thegeniushasreturned Bother Making Sense? 1) Order is not information. The molecules in a diamond are in order, is there any information in it? A Genie perhaps? 2) Its not a blue print. Its compared too. And a limited comparison it is since DNA has no actual blueprint of lets say an organ in it. 3) WOT? AntiTheocracy responded properly. 4) It does NOT. It randomly mutates over time, hence NO sorry. 5) Well RNA copies itself without a " given mechanism" get it? Take all your fail back home boy!
@thegeniushasreturned 3) Do you mean the law that says approximately "A closed system cannot increase its order", well go out and look at the sun: The earth is not a closed system!
4) The DNA in all of your cells contains the same sequence as they are copies. Any difference is due to errors, which by the way explains cancer. Cancer's resistance to chemo can also be explained using evolution: Only the cells that get least harmed by the chemo survive and then replicate again.
"There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations" [F. Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2001, p205] This video does not explain how a self-reproducing system could come to exist by undirected material forces. Just repeating "this is biochemistry not information" does not answer the question. Calling DNA a "weird molecule" (at 2:41) does not answer the question.
@nunca789 Evolution is not MEANT to make an account of the transition from non-living chemicals to living cells. Scientific Theories cover very specific parameters. In the case of evolution, it is SPECIATION, not the emergence of life. It was to account for the VARIETY of life. It accounts of the origin of SPECIES, not life. If you are interested in the origins of life, look into the various hypothesis for abiogenesis.
As a layman with casual interest in biology and evolution, I think this is the best explanation I have seen for the difference between DNA and information. Very educational.
hello, I use to debate creationist students at my college and I always debunk their arguments easily, but latly I was asked " How does information came to existence?" I didnt know what to say. How would you answer to such question?
@ThinkingPrometheus I recommend the excellent series by CDK007 on the Origin of Life. But the short answer is there is no "information". What is stored in DNA is changes on a long molecule, that then can be reproduced. The changes are random, Natural selection filters them, and they accumulate over time. There is no room in the mechanism for "information". The amount of stored changes in DNA is just a mere side-effect of its property to copy itself imperfectly. Its just peptides.
@farvision "Information" in scientific papers is used as a symbol of the biochemical potential of DNA. It is not used as the colloquial every day term, " I got this information from Jeff" so I am looking for Jeff. Information as used by everyday people and Creationists for their arguments implies an intelligent Author is responsible for the "Information". In Biology however it is quite clear, that the Author of the Information (=structure) in DNA is the impersonal natural processes.
@ONESPECIES Yes, the word 'information' can be used in a lose sense. But it can also be used in a precise scientific sense. One can indeed measure the information in DNA sequences, you just have to do it the right and appropriate way and the result is in bits. See the paper.
@farvision I know about it, but its still not "information" per se. Information has a composition different than that of the relevant subject and has no mechanical or chemical effect on the subject. Books about cows are not made of cow nor can they produce cows. DNA does have biochemical effects and mechanical functions. It is chains of molecules that acquire random mutations. The mutations change the biochemical properties that change the results. So still "Info" is under scientific license.
@onespecies. Great video. I was looking for a video that counters the "watch in the woods" argument when I found this. I recommend everybody watch JESUS CAMP. It's how morons are made. I really do regard creationists as victims and you will too when you see this movie on YouTube. They're just brainwashed, immune to logic, reason, facts. Please continue your great videos on "evolutionism." lol Great work
Actually, correction, I believe they claim "information" can be destroyed by natural processes, but not created, if I'm not mistaken. So in this sense its more like a backwards version of entropy.
In any case, it can't be measured, and if a way were proposed (i.e. number of different genes, etc), it would be easy to show that information can increase naturally. The claim that this unmeasurable quantity can't be increased naturally is of course unsubstantiated.
@AntiTheocracy Oh they claim a lot of stuff. Thats why in my videos I break down single issues, like design and information, because if I include more talking points, they will turn the comment section into claptrap. This one goes against the claim that DNA is written information. Their "stuff was created perfect by the lord but started declining ever since" is gonna have to be another episode.
@AntiTheocracy I would like to see you demonstrate "it would be easy to show that information can increase naturally." So far, there is no known method using undirected material forces, i.e. "natural" forces. For you to say it is "easy," when scientists worldwide cannot do it, and many believe it is impossible, rather devastates your credibility.
@nunca789 It can't be demonstrated until it is defined. That is the whole point of what I previously said.
"when scientists worldwide can't do it"... they can't do it, because creationists refuse to define what information is and how to measure it. And their refusal to do so is SPECIFICALLY to avoid having their pseudo-scientific crap disproven.
So the definition remains vague and mercurial, being whatever it needs to be at any given time to avoid being disproven.
The whole "information" argument is the same as the "intelligent design" argument. Its just a ploy to fool people who don't know any better into thinking the idea is legitimate by using scientific sounding words.
"Information", in the sense used by creationists, is not measurable. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not something has more or less information than anything else.
Also they pretend this "information" is a conserved quantity like mass, energy, or momentum.
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
You haven't destroyed information argument. Your premises and logic are specious. Mathematical probability doesn't lie and it totally refutes information, in any form, arising by chance, including what you have expressed on this site. I'm sure what you said on this site wasn't by randomly hitting the computer keys because you were trying to catch mug of coffee from falling.
@Mogley52 Boo Hoo, Mathematical Probability in the hands of creationists will have chewing gum on your shoe as impossible and only accomplished by God. Your sources are evidently simply propaganda pamphlets, sites and books, and you lack any respectable understanding of the natural world.
@ONESPECIES "Boo Hoo, Mathematical probability in the hands of creationists will..." allso all the ID calculations are based on humans being the end product of the big bang. The probablities of something happening the exact way it has happend are very small, but the probablity of things, IF the end result is not humans, is rather likely (even if their chance calculations made sense - I would like to see their variables). Like the probablity of one mutation to occur and passed on etc.
@Haekel68 No I am not going to delete the comment. Besides they include your aceptance of working with sock accounts. Comment section is for discussion. There are videos out there by both Christians and Atheists that explain HOW NOT TO make dead end discussions. When you just repeat your assertion, there is really no purpose. If I come to your channel with an assertion, I will make it once or twice to make sure you got it right. Beyond that I would need arguments not assertions. Get it?
DNA contains no information? Then why do living things bother with it at all? I just don't get how the fact that DNA is a self-replicating molecule means that it can't hold information in the same way that a book can. In a sense, books are self-replicating too, because "good" books sell many copies, while "bad" books sell few or none at all. RNA may be able to replicate w/o information, but to replicate as fast as DNA does requires the info to make enzymes (Shakespeare sells more than gibberish)
@jaimesthesaint Good Books sell more? Irrelevant cause that requires a process external to them. The process that duplicates RNA is indigenous to the molecular properties of nucleotides not external. And just with random mutations being filtered by natural selection who writes the "information"? No one, the molecule just changes, and if the result is ok it reproduces. DNA interacts biochemically. Its not information, its a structure that once affected gives different effects on the organism.
@ONESPECIES Sorry, I was trying to cram my argument into 500 characters. What I was saying was that both the DNA and the book are replicated based on how well their content fits the environment. In the case of the book, someone has to reprint it, whereas, in the case of the DNA, it can just replicate itself. I don't see how the method of replication has anything to do with whether or not information is stored, though. Are you saying that just because no one "wrote" the DNA, it's not information?
@jaimesthesaint If all the information we know is written by someone, thats what we should expect. Besides, open a damn dictionary. I put one set of definitions on screen. DNA can only be called information in 2 cases. Either as a symbol to simplify discussion or by someone who does not know the definition of the word information nor the nature of DNA. And yes, replication method is vital. Because a book can not mutate into another, and not randomly. But nucleotide chains can. Unassisted.
@jaimesthesaint In other words, Saying DNA is information is a generalization required to enhance the speed of communicating the concept. If we look in a rock we may find the alignment of an older magnetic field it was exposed to. But that does not mean the rock contains information. We just extract conclusions based on the rock structure. Add to that DNA is an active molecule not just a rock. Still the "information" is our collection of data of the way DNA functions. The poor thing just is.
@ONESPECIES Alright, well the definition of information I'm using is a physics definition based how L Susskind explained it in the Black Hole War, and I only sort-of understand it (something like the number of bits required to describe a system). Based on this, I think it's correct to say that the rock does contain information. Also, I'd say that the fact that DNA can mutate doesn't mean it doesn't hold information, it just means it's higher entropy than a book. R we just using diff definitions?
@jaimesthesaint Yes Dude, But this is not the definition Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, use. To them its information, which must somehow mean creator. Your scenario a "system" could be anything, it could be emergent properties,it could be accounting for variables within a system. Your use of Information includes natural phenomenons and its broad.Their's is narrow and excludes all apart from intelligence. I refute the "info+common sense=intelligence=Creator" definition.
@jaimesthesaint Yeah unfortunately when they try to skew education, and when they force children to delusion, yes mate, unfortunately their Definition is out there.... Excuse my defensiveness, I was strictly speaking of the issues of the Creationist Definition.
@ONESPECIES Sorry for the confusion. It's just that the argument I'm used to hearing is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent information from accumulating because any decrease in entropy sustained by the organism is more than canceled-out by the heat given off by it. I didn't realize that people were insisting that, by definition, information must come from an intelligence.
@MomoTheBellyDancer No. Maybe if you had read the rest of the conversation, you would have had a better idea of what I was saying.
It was an argument over the definition of information. I was saying that DNA contains information regardless of whether it was put there by god or developed through natural processes. OS was using a stupid creationist definition of information (because this video was mostly for them) that goes something like, "information is stuff made by an intelligence."
"I was saying that DNA contains information regardless of whether it was put there by god or developed through natural processes."
Information is always FOR something to understand. What, exactly, "understands" the information in DNA? DNA only contains information once we human beings try to comprehend it. At most we can say that we human beings can DERIVE information about how DNA works by laying out its components, but that's about it.
'information argument', 'propoganda'??? DNA contains information. Information that didn't just manage to assemble itself over billions of years. It had to come from somewhere. For example if you are walking on the beach and you read in the sand 'have a nice day!' do you immediately think that it was the result of chance/time/nature or someone or something wrote it? Saying the information in DNA just happened somehow is going to be a hard bit of propoganda to sell.
@CiscoWes Listen figures of speech are not enough to overturn observed facts. DNA is about Chemistry not information period. The "information" is merely a pile up of random changes on a long molecule, filtered through Natural selection. Really you are offering the lamest, oldest, less thoughtful arguments your side has to offer. Honestly I can not waste brain matter on that. The internet is full of videos responding to the Beach example and other similar linguistic tricks going against research.
@ONESPECIES The observed fact is that DNA contains information. It contains plans for cells to reproduce, etc... It isn't just random chemistry piled up from random changes. If we are to believe that, then a dictionary could randomly appear, given an appropriate amount of time. See what you are doing is making a 'god' of chance/time/nature. It is lame to attempt to explain away how DNA contains information.
@CiscoWes You fool, a complex molecule, scattered in trillions of copies, in numerous moist parts of the planet, can by random mutation and natural selection alone, lead to unimaginable complexity after.....3.000.000.000 Years. If you think what we talk about here is a coffee cup fell down and then an elephant appeared, then you are not worth talking too.
@CiscoWes You just think like that because you were brainwashed by creationist idiots and their disgusting lies. Religion is a disease that spreads from generation to generation through indoctrination of defenceless chidren. Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity, but knowledge will end it. Education kills superstition.
@bary1234 Creation adresses and acknowledges the evidence of design in nature, while evolutionism tries to make the argument there isn't any design (even though we can SEE it) and adheres to the superstitious belief that everything just spontaneously generated over some ridiculous time span. Now which would be considered stupid, ignoring what we can visibly see versus adhering to evolutions superstitious 'just-so' stories? Education SHOULD kill that way of thinking.
@CiscoWes Well can you fucking produce anything at all with your observations? Any verifiable predictions, any vaccines, any cures, any industry use compound? No? Anything at all? Are you doing any research or are you just a bunch of deluded and opportunistic fools having coffee and discussing how to extend this bible literalism for another century cause it suits either your social deficiency or your profiteering?
@ONESPECIES Why are you already coming apart like a two-dollar suitcase? We can observe creation, design in living things. What we don't observe is randomness coming together to form something. Predictions, such as Bible prophecy? Vaccines, cures, etc... do some research on how hospitals and universities came into existence in the first place. It was only in recent history that science has become sidetracked, entertaining foolish theories such as evolutionism.
@CiscoWes Creationism is wishfull thinking and superstition. Its belief in magic with no evidence. Its stupid, childish nonsense. Its retarded. Its ridiculous and embarrassing. Its laughable.
Your "spontaneous generation" is a straw-man. No sane person believes like that. Cretionist say life started by magic, thats your side of the "debate." And about that what we visibly see, if we were all created, why was that creator a miserable baffoon who did just a horrible job on everything?
@bary1234 Take a look back at all the responses recently. Everything contains ad hominem, straw man arguments. If you truly believe in evolutionism, then you have to also believe in spontaneous generation.
@Haekel68 If you repeat that point I will consider it spam. Its like me saying those who believe in Jesus are worshipers of Satan. So STFU about it. Do not want accept Evolution? Fine. Its your loss. But do not describe Evolution like that, because the irony is so intense my back hurts. M'kay?
@Haekel68 : Nobody has a "spontaneous generation theory." Thats a miserable straw-man argument. Stop lying you piece of shit creatard.
And about the ad-hominems: Off course I call you stupid. Because you are stupid. I call you a creatard, because you are a creatard. I call you childish, because you are that too.
I hate superstition, I hate people who brainwash children to superstition. They should be jailed for life. Who did this to you? Who damaged your fragile mind this badly?
@bary1234 Chill its CiscoWes with another account. Now I blocked both his socks, cause there is no benefit in answering to bare assertions for more than 5-6 times. After that there is no display of good will for conversation.
Only benefit from talking to these bastards is that people who dont know about anything can read the conversation and wolf fall for creatard propaganda. If proper normal people were always around to immediately challenge superstition, we would not have all these organised religions running amoc on this planet. Put he is done, he had just those couple of moronic "points" so no use repeating them anymore.
Damn its just disgusting we still have religions. Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity. We have to end these embarrassing superstitious medieval cults before they end us.
@bary1234 You're using straw man arguments. Also, a person who is under the impression that life just spontaneously generated from nothing is not in any position to call any religion stupid. At face value, atheism would be more what you are talking about, rather than Christianity. Being among people who think we came from a rock, now that's embarassing.
@ONESPECIES We acknowledge that there is a creation, and a creation demands a Creator. Created with a purpose, by a Designer. Contrast this with evolutionists spontaneous generation theory. There's a big difference there.
@ONESPECIES Typical - when your faith is challenged, evolutionists/atheists, etc... just block people from responding. So your baseless arguments survive by shielding them from criticism. Interesting.
@CiscoWes : Religious people say everything was created by magic. Thats retarded childish nonsense.
Normal people say things happen because of natural reasons. We dont need supernatural explanations.
The irony is just so sweet when you accuse me of straw man-arguments and then say somebody believes in "life just spontaneously generating from nothing." Who the fuck could believe in shit like that, you would have to be from USA to be that stupid. Go open a book, creatard.
"If you use observation and scientific method, the corpse of evolution has to be put to rest."
No, if you use observation and scientific method, 270.000 peer-reviewed articles have been researched on the topic "evolution", all using the scientific method and observation. There is just no way anyone can propagate that silly lie and actually believe it, unless they're being kept in a shed with no access to anything. Well, you're commenting on Youtube... so you must just be lying.
Science doesn't need to test "god" you get the word god itsself is from the bible which has many demonstrably false claims in it such as the Ptolomaic calendar, heaven above, hell below and the universe being 5000 years old. As you said "the god of the gaps is bad theology", its more then that though, its not theology.
Very good, but may I ask about computer programs? Can't they be programmed to make copies of themselves, with the ability to change randomly? Like I know there are some evolution simulators. If information can't copy itself, then what is a self-copying computer program? Just wondering, if anyone can answer this, thanks!
@soulhunger1 Yes true, but programs need a device that will do the copying. The ancestor of RNA was copying itself before organisms. So the difference is being able to make a physical copy, just by assembling necessary elements from the environment.
@rockstarcola100 Yes! Science is a level playing field, acknowledging what seems to be factual is the only requirement. Life is short, and offers different circumstances to each individual. One's world view includes more than just facts, it may include risks, beliefs, having a hunch, emotions, it can not all possibly be verifiable. My rule is for one's beliefs to serve oneself and potential, as well as society. But at the very least we all have to agree on the factual basis of the world.
@rockstarcola100 Quite! And since Natural selection does the "editing" and nothing but random mutations offer the raw material, it is safe to say no intelligence is involved.
Actually DNA *can* be compared to a 4 bit based code, that caries information. Chemical information. There are scientist that actually study DNA with the theory of information. The same theory that is used in statistical physics and the notorious equation log(2N) that predict the number of meaningful combination that can be stored in a sequence of N particles/nucleotides/amino acids
@assalane Still it can not be considered information in the first hand. Everything we study we accumulate information from. Plus DNA came from a molecule that did not offer any coded info in the first place. So yes, for reasons of study, Scientists will look for the potential embedded in the structure. But DNA resists to conform to the daily use of the words information, language, programming and such, that are bended by ID proponents. And thats what the video is about.
@ONESPECIESYes information surely doesn't have the same meaning when a scientist or a creationist use it. But I really fail to see your point. The creationists think that information cannot be added to the genome, however after defining what information is in the DNA, one can clearly describe ways in witch information *can* be added (gene duplication+silent mutation that eventually lead to a new function/information) or even deleted or modified then maintained depending on selection or drifting.
@assalane Yes but information at least as humans define it, is anything but random. So if a random mutation ends up successful by natural selection, it may add "information" but it is not intentional written information. So again, what was added was not information per se, but a change in the molecular structure, that will lead to a new/different/adapted feature. My argument is that DNA is subjected to random mutations only, no intentional ones, therefore no intelligence can claim its progress.
@assalane And thank you for the questions and feedback. You probably highlight what I should address clearer if I revisit this particular issue. Thanks
@Ramohog Science Cult? I won't take such nonsense by people who prefer false assertions over demonstrable facts. You earned the dishonest debater award of the week! Congrats! Bye...
It's a classic example of reasoning by analogy. DNA is "like" a book in that it encodes information; the problem is when people start reasoning based on that analogy of a book. The analogy isn't perfect and doesn't really accurately describe DNA. The result is a flawed conclusion based on fallacious reasoning.
Religious arguments often contain this kind of reasoning by analogy. Analogies can be useful tools for explaining concepts, but grossly misleading when the analogy is taken too far.
@fragglet Precisely. Some analogies can be a vehicle for us to understand complex concepts, and some can be just used to make someone misunderstand a complex concept..... Depends what you do with the tools.
"we have never observed any form of information that has the ability to make copies of itself" this is false. computer viruses actually make copies of themselves.
@7lllll I have answered again to this, bellow, although it was intended as humor by the commenters. No the virus can not copy itself, the computer device hosting it, is copying the virus. Therefore the virus has not within it the ability to make physical copies of itself. Simply put, no computer, no virus. The ancestor of DNA though, did copy itself in the absence of a host organism. That molecule made copies of itself before life was formed. Its an innate molecular property.
@ONESPECIES It is a difficult question, but I can still argue that the computer viruses do copy itself. We can also say that any of the self-replicating molecules need the organic materials to self-replicate, and the environment that contains organic materials is their host. Almost all self-replicating things can't self-replicate without some kind of host. The only exception I can think of is false vacuum.
@7lllll But you see the issue is this,the ancestor molecule got its organic materials from the environment, a perfectly natural unintelligent process.Yes the environment of the cell did replace the open environment,but the self replicating molecule did not need that change, life did.And whilst in the open environment,the ancestor molecule is nothing more than another piece of chemistry happening. Just like oxygen binding on iron ore.And if the original host is unintelligent, then its not info.
@7lllll Well yeah, to be more accurate, viruses can exploit a system to replicate themselves. In any case I do know what you meant. But I think that its still valid to say that Information, unassisted by a mechanism, has not been observed to make copies of itself. So the point relevant to Biology is that information can not self-replicate in a perfectly natural open environment as far as we have seen, but molecules can. That aside, we can have many discussions on both bio and digital viruses.
@ONESPECIES if you add "in a perfectly natural open environment," then yes. All organisms exploit a "system" (its environment) to self-replicate, and in my opinion it is no different for computer viruses. In my opinion, self-replicating molecules are also assisted by a "mechanism" (natural mechanisms in its environment). Computer viruses are just information, so if they self-replicate, then your claim is false, but again, it is a matter of opinion.
@7lllll "Also assisted by a mechanism". Well thats too generalized. You could say the same for Hydrogen in stars. Can't just erase classes of objects arbitrarily. To have DNA you only need a planet with certain elements and circumstance, and to have digital virus replication, you need also a Planet with certain elements and circumstance, but on top of that, you need the conscious decision of humans to make a computer device. DNA never requires a whole Class of objects that information needs.
@ONESPECIES the question boils down to this: is it itself or the host that is actually performing the self-replication? And I think that is a matter of opinion.
I appreciate your work. I notice there is often a seeming attempt to confuse by equating the meaning of one term used in a specific way for an idea, and then misapplying it to another. This is a good example of it. Another example is where the meaning of faith as it may apply to science or general existence is taken and equated with the acceptance of something without any substantiation as it applies to theism in order to push the claim of equal footing to science and theism. Would you agree?
@RichardRoy2 Oh Yes, I Agree... Generally a great deal of the tricks of Organized Religion is just confusing terms and exploiting the outcome., based on a confused and emotional response. Thanks!
This video misunderstands or misrepresents the creationist opinion. Creationists do not argue that DNA is literally information--they use it the same way evolutionists do, as a "term used to make sense of it as humans," and the Shakespeare example is only a loose illustration. The real issue is the fact that mutations overwhelmingly reduce the functionality or survivability of an organism and are not sustainable.
@xthebumpx A) You got no clue about Biology, unless you do not mean your last statement. B) I am not representing the argument, I am doing them a favor. If they do not mean its information, then there is no argument at all. If its a molecule and not information there is no Creator needed, because there was no information created. Why the molecule accumulates changes we categorize as information is the study of Genetics, pure and simple. Study some Biology.
The fact there is even a debate regarding Evolution and 'Intelligent Design' is just ridiculous. There is no two sides of the argument, we're addressing children, maybe we should treat them like children instead of adults?
I love this video, but it's just a shame it had to be made in the first place, it should be clear right about now.
IDiots start with the analogy that DNA is like information and then extend their analogy to say that is exactly like information. The argumet begins to unravel but they proceed to infomation cannot increase using Shannon's definition. At this point, the argument has imploded because DNA does change and sometimes it's beneficial so Shannon isn't applicable. Then the IDiots say "therefore godidit." No matter how much bafflegarb they add, it still boils down to this invalid argument.
@8WholeThing and apart from all that information structure and Information theory have nothing whatsoever to do with either books or biology...
its a pure straw grab... Tsun Tsu would recognize that when ones opponent changes tact to an unsupportable position then there is no need to engage in battle.
So since they have done that... it is time to stop arguing with them.. and move on to the regular average theist... who is more susceptible to reason.
@MumblingMickey I'm still waiting for a metric for DNA-based information so we can total before and after to see if there has been an increase of a decrease in information.
It's fun to watch them try to explain how a modification to a duplicated gene is a loss of information.
@8WholeThing The problem with the IDiots is not with their definition of information. The problem is that they don't understand how natural processes can change the information encoded in DNA.
DNA does contain information (as defined by Shannon) and it can and does increase due to natural selection.
@AThagoras My understanding of Shannon information is that any distortion of the original information carrier signal is a loss of information. The definition is useful for its intended application but we can actually learn from the distortion, so practical information can be increased by a loss of Shannon information. So a mutation would be a loss of Shannon information but an increase of information for the gene pool. That is why I say that using the Shannon definition is not useful.
@8WholeThing "My understanding of Shannon information is that any distortion of the original information carrier signal is a loss of information."
I think you're talking about information being a loss of entropy.
Information is quite a slippery thing to define. If a signal is random (i.e. maximum entropy) it contains no information. If it is completely regular, it is predictable it has very low entropy, but it doesn't tell you anything and contains very little information.
@AThagoras "I think you're talking about information being a loss of entropy."
My understanding of information theory doesn't go far beyond trying to differentiate between Shannon and K-C definitions (which may have become distorted in my memory over the years). IIRC, K-C is more like entropy. In Shannon, the info is like the singer's voice vs. what comes out the amp/speaker. The amount of info is not quantified but the change can be measured as a percentage of loss. I could be way off.
Nicely done! Information is nothing but a consciousness recognizing or a memory storing a sequence of things or occurrences. It has no tangible existence. This idea that a molecule is "information" just because it's complex is bogus.
@bowlsallbroken Precisely. Its too much and too complicated to not refer to it by symbolic words. But we still need to remember the symbol is never the thing itself :P
Great job, but shakespere could be "improved" in the exact same way that evolution works. Random changes to parts, including complete chapters or sentances could be included and then weeded out by a selection process that is attempting to simulate an enviornment where a "more perfect shakespere (whatever that is)" would survive.
@phookadude Thanks. Yes you are right, natural selection could, but I bet my beer money that Shakespeare would not like any changes to his masterpieces. :P
@ONESPECIES yeah but shakespere is also dead.. his opinion is less than moot on the subject...
Just like i'm sure the more intellectual neanderthals would be mentally destroyed to see us rather moronic smaller subspecies see them to extinction happily typing away on machines they would have invented before us!
But there you go... your opinion or Shakespeares opinion of what is a benefit...is not necessarily one nature will agree with!
@MumblingMickey As a story of fiction I can not see how Nature would agree or not with it. Just saying that our definition of info and message are not applicable per se on natural mechanism.
You know, I really feel like I understand this twice as well now as I did five minutes ago. Really excellent explanation, so simple, but I'd never thought of it that way before.
I studied high school biology in Saudi Arabia. In the most creationist way. I thought it is pointless and a wasteful field! I was completely ignorant. But now I'm a chemist :D
I really love ur videos man. Btw, I'm still sitting at the toilet. Damn 38cent buffalo wings!
Tiny probability times enormous number of trials = reality.
nahaymath 1 month ago
This is my favorite of your videos, ONESPECIES! Thanks!
nahaymath 1 month ago
@nahaymath Thank you for the kind feedback. I was away due to several reasons but now I am back and more videos will be out soon.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
To the Shakespeare text "analogy" about information I would add that all of his writings evolved over time... The final work did not come about ex nihilo. He had to do several drafts, delete parts, add parts, modify them... He made mistakes he had to correct. I know it's not a correct analogy bc a piece text does not mutate, but just wanted to have some fun.
Anyway, a better comparison is against genetic algorithms, which can derive into solutions by themselves. Sure, Creationist avoid that.
cperez1000 1 month ago
@cperez1000 I mainly try to focus on the interpretation of DNA as almost a written language by the ID proponents. Undoubtably other models or examples do more justice to DNA, but Shakespeare stands for the written word, the Bible, the sense that DNA is something unmistakably "intelligent" in nature.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES
sure I think the same.
My point about genetic algorithms is that it's a model where you can get meaningful information without an intelligent agent. The solutions provided by GAs are oftentimes more complex than a designers' solution. So they show that one cannot infer design from information.
cperez1000 1 month ago
It is easy to prove that the sequence of the bases A,C,G,T cannot derive from the chemistry of the molecular structure of DNA. The whole point of meaningful information is that the bits - or letters - that make up that information can be arranged indeterminately - like letters on a page, whose order is not determined by the chemistry of the paper and ink. If the sequence of bases was determined chemically, then a meaningful code would be impossible. You are so wrong!
The1066Al 1 month ago
This has got to be one of most ridiculous videos I have ever seen. To say that DNA is not "information" - or that it does not carry information is tantamount to saying that a Shakespeare play is not "information" because all it consists of is paper and ink! You obviously have no idea what information is, and you are blinded by extreme materialistic reductionism. Funnily enough, even Richard Dawkins wouldn't agree with you, as he has stated that life is based on information (Blind Watchmaker).
The1066Al 1 month ago
@The1066Al What Dawkins calls information is any inheritable feauture of Biology. What you and ID proponents call information is words, language, messages, all sorts of daily uses of the word, apart rt from its scientific meaning. And you get so carried away with that, that you forget to study the actual structure, nature, and history of the DNA molecule, which is contrary to a "Designer". This video is about the wrong interpretation of Information. Its not about showing DNA is just goo.
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
@ONESPECIES Separate from the issue of "information", all creationist arguments from the point of probability are equivalent to saying: "there is only one timeline, on history, only a single point in time right now: therefore, the probability of all possible configurations of atoms being what they are now is zero, hence there's a creator".
In math, we simply say:one-point sets have measure zero. Lebesgue already gave us the language in 1901 (I think) to express ideas like this consistently.
nahaymath 1 month ago
I can't explain thunder therefore pikachu did it
SocraticFox 1 month ago
@SocraticFox Zeus....
ONESPECIES 1 month ago
What programs do you use to make these videos? They're amazing!
MSJjoshua 4 months ago 2
@MSJjoshua Mainly After Effects and 3d Studio MAX. But these won't do much on their own, they need hard work and a rather strong computer. Thanks for the feedback!
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@ONESPECIES I happen to do studio editing, and I use those programs as well. Could you tip me on how you made the typewriting animation? Is there a preset somewhere in After Effects? I must be blind if there is ^^
MSJjoshua 4 months ago
@MSJjoshua In the effects (where all the effects are) window type typewriter in the search box. It should rest in animation presets/text. After that its a matter of moving the keyframe to the favorable duration and choosing a grungy font that looks like it.
ONESPECIES 4 months ago
@ONESPECIES Thanks a lot!
MSJjoshua 4 months ago
2:20 Do you have the source of this image, please?
TheTubeTimeMaster1 5 months ago
@TheTubeTimeMaster1 Google this "Positive_DNA_4_by_welshdragon", its on Deviant art I think.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES Thanks!
TheTubeTimeMaster1 5 months ago
I think it would be efficient to mention how one person may have read shakespeares Hamlet, then, without looking at the original, been asked to re-write it. There would be differences. there might even be improvement for some task, i.e. inspire the modern reader. Then imagine if a thousand people did this, all with Hamlet. Some would be better than others, so they would be the ones more read by the next generation etc. This slightly false analogy shows how DNA still can be viewed as information.
Solensherre 5 months ago
@Solensherre That is actually closer to the story of the Bible, funnily enough, where adaptations have certainly accumulated. But DNA stores traits, just like a rock gathers features from erosion. The biological outcome is just the interaction of DNA and the cell environment. A new mutation is random.So no info input there. The info comes to play when intelligent observers study DNA. Here I am addressing the colloquial use of Information, as phrased by Creationists and ID proponents.Not Traits.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES Like I said, slightly false analogy...
I take it the creationists wouldn't be happy if I construed theur holy text as the result of a similar process to evolution by natural selection? If so I might just use it alot...
Solensherre 5 months ago
@Solensherre Ow its a work in progress alright. Only it is not that similar to evolution because it will probably improve very little even in Billions upon Billions upon Billions of years.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
It is kind of nice to think of DNA as a Shakespeare play in that it has an awesome story to tell -- i.e. phylogeny. It's just that the text is encrypted, the original decryption key is lost forever, some of the encrypted letters are smudged to look like other letters, the play needs to be compared to not only other copies of itself, but copies of other plays to be decrypted, and then you only get some of the story. Much more is buried in the ground where you found the manuscript.
MultiPaulinator 5 months ago
I'm sorry, but you're wrong. DNA is both a molecular structure and information storage. The way this information is generated, stored and used in DNA differs greatly from books and computers, as much as books and computers differ from each other.
Books are a bad analogy for DNA, but this isn't a valid argument against DNA being information. You need to broaden you mind.
This is coming from an IT student and an evolutionist. Information is my field of studies.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Information as a the term used by Intelligent Design and Creationist proponents is not to be found in DNA. You use the broader term. Even that is more of a linguistic need. Everything an intelligent species observes is information on the first hand. And that is the proper use of the word. What DNA contains does not get discussed or researched in the cell. It simply interacts. More like cogs. It obviously bares traits, but not in the colloquial sense of Information.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES With that clarification, I can agree with you on the most part. I appoach the matter differently, but I think we agree in the substance. You could have used that clarification on the video, but then again, that would only give creationists an excuse to twist your point.
darkmater4tm 5 months ago
@darkmater4tm Yes, quite so, these day one can not even have a cup of coffee without being misinterpreted by Creationists and their ID cousins. I could only narrow it down by addressing a very specific argument.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fail#1 order is information
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
i got bored now atheist are amusing.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
fail#1 order is information
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
i got bored now atheist are amusing.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
fail#1 order is information
fail#2 dna is compared to "blueprints"(information)
fail#3 in order to life to overcome thermodynamics and assemble an increase of information must of occurred
fail#4 it orders itself in a certain way at a certain time hence the term "information" which is already stored in it at birth if you claim its not state your proof
fail#5 a kilobyte can copy itself if the given "mechanisms" exist.as it does in the human body
i got bored now atheist are amusing.
thegeniushasreturned 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned
Try reading a book on thermodynamics sometime to understand what its about, instead of just making up things that suit your purpose.
Hint: "Information" does not appear anywhere in the study of thermodynamics.
AntiTheocracy 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned Bother Making Sense? 1) Order is not information. The molecules in a diamond are in order, is there any information in it? A Genie perhaps? 2) Its not a blue print. Its compared too. And a limited comparison it is since DNA has no actual blueprint of lets say an organ in it. 3) WOT? AntiTheocracy responded properly. 4) It does NOT. It randomly mutates over time, hence NO sorry. 5) Well RNA copies itself without a " given mechanism" get it? Take all your fail back home boy!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago 17
@thegeniushasreturned
how does your asshole feel after that?..i suggest getting stitches.
itzahazylife 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned your fail: not listening in biologie and chemestry class, plus believing in god....
Gannnjjjjjaaaaaaa 5 months ago
@thegeniushasreturned 3) Do you mean the law that says approximately "A closed system cannot increase its order", well go out and look at the sun: The earth is not a closed system!
4) The DNA in all of your cells contains the same sequence as they are copies. Any difference is due to errors, which by the way explains cancer. Cancer's resistance to chemo can also be explained using evolution: Only the cells that get least harmed by the chemo survive and then replicate again.
sendiulo 5 months ago
"There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations" [F. Harold, The Way of the Cell, 2001, p205] This video does not explain how a self-reproducing system could come to exist by undirected material forces. Just repeating "this is biochemistry not information" does not answer the question. Calling DNA a "weird molecule" (at 2:41) does not answer the question.
nunca789 5 months ago
@nunca789 Hahahaha! Nice one, now see your way out!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@nunca789 Evolution is not MEANT to make an account of the transition from non-living chemicals to living cells. Scientific Theories cover very specific parameters. In the case of evolution, it is SPECIATION, not the emergence of life. It was to account for the VARIETY of life. It accounts of the origin of SPECIES, not life. If you are interested in the origins of life, look into the various hypothesis for abiogenesis.
raymitch7410 5 months ago
As a layman with casual interest in biology and evolution, I think this is the best explanation I have seen for the difference between DNA and information. Very educational.
Thank you Sir!
Ansonidak 5 months ago
@Ansonidak Thank you!
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
hello, I use to debate creationist students at my college and I always debunk their arguments easily, but latly I was asked " How does information came to existence?" I didnt know what to say. How would you answer to such question?
ThinkingPrometheus 6 months ago
@ThinkingPrometheus I recommend the excellent series by CDK007 on the Origin of Life. But the short answer is there is no "information". What is stored in DNA is changes on a long molecule, that then can be reproduced. The changes are random, Natural selection filters them, and they accumulate over time. There is no room in the mechanism for "information". The amount of stored changes in DNA is just a mere side-effect of its property to copy itself imperfectly. Its just peptides.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES google: Evolution of biological information
farvision 5 months ago
@farvision "Information" in scientific papers is used as a symbol of the biochemical potential of DNA. It is not used as the colloquial every day term, " I got this information from Jeff" so I am looking for Jeff. Information as used by everyday people and Creationists for their arguments implies an intelligent Author is responsible for the "Information". In Biology however it is quite clear, that the Author of the Information (=structure) in DNA is the impersonal natural processes.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES Yes, the word 'information' can be used in a lose sense. But it can also be used in a precise scientific sense. One can indeed measure the information in DNA sequences, you just have to do it the right and appropriate way and the result is in bits. See the paper.
farvision 5 months ago
@farvision I know about it, but its still not "information" per se. Information has a composition different than that of the relevant subject and has no mechanical or chemical effect on the subject. Books about cows are not made of cow nor can they produce cows. DNA does have biochemical effects and mechanical functions. It is chains of molecules that acquire random mutations. The mutations change the biochemical properties that change the results. So still "Info" is under scientific license.
ONESPECIES 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@farvision
"One can indeed measure the information in DNA sequences"
Yes, but only in the sense that it means something to human beings. Did you watch the video?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@onespecies. Great video. I was looking for a video that counters the "watch in the woods" argument when I found this. I recommend everybody watch JESUS CAMP. It's how morons are made. I really do regard creationists as victims and you will too when you see this movie on YouTube. They're just brainwashed, immune to logic, reason, facts. Please continue your great videos on "evolutionism." lol Great work
beautyinbreakdowns2 6 months ago
@beautyinbreakdowns2 Thanks. Oh I have watched it and it was torment just to watch! You are absolutely right.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
Actually, correction, I believe they claim "information" can be destroyed by natural processes, but not created, if I'm not mistaken. So in this sense its more like a backwards version of entropy.
In any case, it can't be measured, and if a way were proposed (i.e. number of different genes, etc), it would be easy to show that information can increase naturally. The claim that this unmeasurable quantity can't be increased naturally is of course unsubstantiated.
Its just a trap for dumb folks.
AntiTheocracy 6 months ago
@AntiTheocracy Oh they claim a lot of stuff. Thats why in my videos I break down single issues, like design and information, because if I include more talking points, they will turn the comment section into claptrap. This one goes against the claim that DNA is written information. Their "stuff was created perfect by the lord but started declining ever since" is gonna have to be another episode.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@AntiTheocracy I would like to see you demonstrate "it would be easy to show that information can increase naturally." So far, there is no known method using undirected material forces, i.e. "natural" forces. For you to say it is "easy," when scientists worldwide cannot do it, and many believe it is impossible, rather devastates your credibility.
nunca789 5 months ago
@nunca789 It can't be demonstrated until it is defined. That is the whole point of what I previously said.
"when scientists worldwide can't do it"... they can't do it, because creationists refuse to define what information is and how to measure it. And their refusal to do so is SPECIFICALLY to avoid having their pseudo-scientific crap disproven.
So the definition remains vague and mercurial, being whatever it needs to be at any given time to avoid being disproven.
AntiTheocracy 5 months ago
The whole "information" argument is the same as the "intelligent design" argument. Its just a ploy to fool people who don't know any better into thinking the idea is legitimate by using scientific sounding words.
"Information", in the sense used by creationists, is not measurable. Therefore, there is no way to determine whether or not something has more or less information than anything else.
Also they pretend this "information" is a conserved quantity like mass, energy, or momentum.
AntiTheocracy 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NATURAL LIMITS TO EVOLUTION: Evolution within "kinds" is genetically possible in nature (i.e. varieties of dogs, cats, etc.), but not evolution across "kinds" (i.e. from worm to human). Species couldn't have survived while their vital tissues, organs, biological systems were still evolving. Read my Pravda Internet article: WAR AMONG EVOLUTIONISTS! I discuss: Punctuated Equilibrium, "Junk DNA," genetics, mutations, natural selection, fossils, genetic/biological similarities between species.
Mogley52 6 months ago
You haven't destroyed information argument. Your premises and logic are specious. Mathematical probability doesn't lie and it totally refutes information, in any form, arising by chance, including what you have expressed on this site. I'm sure what you said on this site wasn't by randomly hitting the computer keys because you were trying to catch mug of coffee from falling.
Mogley52 6 months ago
@Mogley52 Boo Hoo, Mathematical Probability in the hands of creationists will have chewing gum on your shoe as impossible and only accomplished by God. Your sources are evidently simply propaganda pamphlets, sites and books, and you lack any respectable understanding of the natural world.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago 6
@ONESPECIES -- once again just insulting the person. How about actually proving he is incorrect? Too hard?
nunca789 5 months ago
@ONESPECIES "Boo Hoo, Mathematical probability in the hands of creationists will..." allso all the ID calculations are based on humans being the end product of the big bang. The probablities of something happening the exact way it has happend are very small, but the probablity of things, IF the end result is not humans, is rather likely (even if their chance calculations made sense - I would like to see their variables). Like the probablity of one mutation to occur and passed on etc.
BjornSeverinLarsen 4 months ago
Go ahead and block this username too. I'm guessing you'll delete all the comments that challenge evolutionism as well.
Haekel68 6 months ago
@Haekel68 No I am not going to delete the comment. Besides they include your aceptance of working with sock accounts. Comment section is for discussion. There are videos out there by both Christians and Atheists that explain HOW NOT TO make dead end discussions. When you just repeat your assertion, there is really no purpose. If I come to your channel with an assertion, I will make it once or twice to make sure you got it right. Beyond that I would need arguments not assertions. Get it?
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
DNA contains no information? Then why do living things bother with it at all? I just don't get how the fact that DNA is a self-replicating molecule means that it can't hold information in the same way that a book can. In a sense, books are self-replicating too, because "good" books sell many copies, while "bad" books sell few or none at all. RNA may be able to replicate w/o information, but to replicate as fast as DNA does requires the info to make enzymes (Shakespeare sells more than gibberish)
jaimesthesaint 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint Good Books sell more? Irrelevant cause that requires a process external to them. The process that duplicates RNA is indigenous to the molecular properties of nucleotides not external. And just with random mutations being filtered by natural selection who writes the "information"? No one, the molecule just changes, and if the result is ok it reproduces. DNA interacts biochemically. Its not information, its a structure that once affected gives different effects on the organism.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Sorry, I was trying to cram my argument into 500 characters. What I was saying was that both the DNA and the book are replicated based on how well their content fits the environment. In the case of the book, someone has to reprint it, whereas, in the case of the DNA, it can just replicate itself. I don't see how the method of replication has anything to do with whether or not information is stored, though. Are you saying that just because no one "wrote" the DNA, it's not information?
jaimesthesaint 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint If all the information we know is written by someone, thats what we should expect. Besides, open a damn dictionary. I put one set of definitions on screen. DNA can only be called information in 2 cases. Either as a symbol to simplify discussion or by someone who does not know the definition of the word information nor the nature of DNA. And yes, replication method is vital. Because a book can not mutate into another, and not randomly. But nucleotide chains can. Unassisted.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint In other words, Saying DNA is information is a generalization required to enhance the speed of communicating the concept. If we look in a rock we may find the alignment of an older magnetic field it was exposed to. But that does not mean the rock contains information. We just extract conclusions based on the rock structure. Add to that DNA is an active molecule not just a rock. Still the "information" is our collection of data of the way DNA functions. The poor thing just is.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Alright, well the definition of information I'm using is a physics definition based how L Susskind explained it in the Black Hole War, and I only sort-of understand it (something like the number of bits required to describe a system). Based on this, I think it's correct to say that the rock does contain information. Also, I'd say that the fact that DNA can mutate doesn't mean it doesn't hold information, it just means it's higher entropy than a book. R we just using diff definitions?
jaimesthesaint 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint Yes Dude, But this is not the definition Creationists and Intelligent Design proponents, use. To them its information, which must somehow mean creator. Your scenario a "system" could be anything, it could be emergent properties,it could be accounting for variables within a system. Your use of Information includes natural phenomenons and its broad.Their's is narrow and excludes all apart from intelligence. I refute the "info+common sense=intelligence=Creator" definition.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Wait, the definition the creationists use matters? :D
I guess that makes sense, seeing as how the whole point of the video was to respond to them...
jaimesthesaint 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint Yeah unfortunately when they try to skew education, and when they force children to delusion, yes mate, unfortunately their Definition is out there.... Excuse my defensiveness, I was strictly speaking of the issues of the Creationist Definition.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Sorry for the confusion. It's just that the argument I'm used to hearing is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't prevent information from accumulating because any decrease in entropy sustained by the organism is more than canceled-out by the heat given off by it. I didn't realize that people were insisting that, by definition, information must come from an intelligence.
jaimesthesaint 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint Not only they think that. But they think one we must be silly no to make the same associations they make.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@jaimesthesaint
"DNA contains no information? Then why do living things bother with it at all?"
Are you claiming living things willingly use DNA to replicate themselves?
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer Was the sex consensual? If so yes in the strictest sense even if they are ignorant of how the process works.
hockeater 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer No. Maybe if you had read the rest of the conversation, you would have had a better idea of what I was saying.
It was an argument over the definition of information. I was saying that DNA contains information regardless of whether it was put there by god or developed through natural processes. OS was using a stupid creationist definition of information (because this video was mostly for them) that goes something like, "information is stuff made by an intelligence."
jaimesthesaint 5 months ago
@jaimesthesaint
"I was saying that DNA contains information regardless of whether it was put there by god or developed through natural processes."
Information is always FOR something to understand. What, exactly, "understands" the information in DNA? DNA only contains information once we human beings try to comprehend it. At most we can say that we human beings can DERIVE information about how DNA works by laying out its components, but that's about it.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
@MomoTheBellyDancer "Information is always FOR something to understand."
That's not true based on the definition I was using.
jaimesthesaint 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jaimesthesaint
"That's not true based on the definition I was using."
Your definition is wrong.
MomoTheBellyDancer 5 months ago
'information argument', 'propoganda'??? DNA contains information. Information that didn't just manage to assemble itself over billions of years. It had to come from somewhere. For example if you are walking on the beach and you read in the sand 'have a nice day!' do you immediately think that it was the result of chance/time/nature or someone or something wrote it? Saying the information in DNA just happened somehow is going to be a hard bit of propoganda to sell.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes Listen figures of speech are not enough to overturn observed facts. DNA is about Chemistry not information period. The "information" is merely a pile up of random changes on a long molecule, filtered through Natural selection. Really you are offering the lamest, oldest, less thoughtful arguments your side has to offer. Honestly I can not waste brain matter on that. The internet is full of videos responding to the Beach example and other similar linguistic tricks going against research.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago 9
@ONESPECIES The observed fact is that DNA contains information. It contains plans for cells to reproduce, etc... It isn't just random chemistry piled up from random changes. If we are to believe that, then a dictionary could randomly appear, given an appropriate amount of time. See what you are doing is making a 'god' of chance/time/nature. It is lame to attempt to explain away how DNA contains information.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes You fool, a complex molecule, scattered in trillions of copies, in numerous moist parts of the planet, can by random mutation and natural selection alone, lead to unimaginable complexity after.....3.000.000.000 Years. If you think what we talk about here is a coffee cup fell down and then an elephant appeared, then you are not worth talking too.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@CiscoWes You just think like that because you were brainwashed by creationist idiots and their disgusting lies. Religion is a disease that spreads from generation to generation through indoctrination of defenceless chidren. Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity, but knowledge will end it. Education kills superstition.
bary1234 6 months ago
@bary1234 Creation adresses and acknowledges the evidence of design in nature, while evolutionism tries to make the argument there isn't any design (even though we can SEE it) and adheres to the superstitious belief that everything just spontaneously generated over some ridiculous time span. Now which would be considered stupid, ignoring what we can visibly see versus adhering to evolutions superstitious 'just-so' stories? Education SHOULD kill that way of thinking.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes Well can you fucking produce anything at all with your observations? Any verifiable predictions, any vaccines, any cures, any industry use compound? No? Anything at all? Are you doing any research or are you just a bunch of deluded and opportunistic fools having coffee and discussing how to extend this bible literalism for another century cause it suits either your social deficiency or your profiteering?
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Why are you already coming apart like a two-dollar suitcase? We can observe creation, design in living things. What we don't observe is randomness coming together to form something. Predictions, such as Bible prophecy? Vaccines, cures, etc... do some research on how hospitals and universities came into existence in the first place. It was only in recent history that science has become sidetracked, entertaining foolish theories such as evolutionism.
Haekel68 6 months ago
@CiscoWes Creationism is wishfull thinking and superstition. Its belief in magic with no evidence. Its stupid, childish nonsense. Its retarded. Its ridiculous and embarrassing. Its laughable.
Your "spontaneous generation" is a straw-man. No sane person believes like that. Cretionist say life started by magic, thats your side of the "debate." And about that what we visibly see, if we were all created, why was that creator a miserable baffoon who did just a horrible job on everything?
bary1234 6 months ago
@bary1234 Take a look back at all the responses recently. Everything contains ad hominem, straw man arguments. If you truly believe in evolutionism, then you have to also believe in spontaneous generation.
Haekel68 6 months ago
@Haekel68 If you repeat that point I will consider it spam. Its like me saying those who believe in Jesus are worshipers of Satan. So STFU about it. Do not want accept Evolution? Fine. Its your loss. But do not describe Evolution like that, because the irony is so intense my back hurts. M'kay?
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@Haekel68 : Nobody has a "spontaneous generation theory." Thats a miserable straw-man argument. Stop lying you piece of shit creatard.
And about the ad-hominems: Off course I call you stupid. Because you are stupid. I call you a creatard, because you are a creatard. I call you childish, because you are that too.
I hate superstition, I hate people who brainwash children to superstition. They should be jailed for life. Who did this to you? Who damaged your fragile mind this badly?
bary1234 6 months ago
@bary1234 Chill its CiscoWes with another account. Now I blocked both his socks, cause there is no benefit in answering to bare assertions for more than 5-6 times. After that there is no display of good will for conversation.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES : Thanks. You are right off course :)
Only benefit from talking to these bastards is that people who dont know about anything can read the conversation and wolf fall for creatard propaganda. If proper normal people were always around to immediately challenge superstition, we would not have all these organised religions running amoc on this planet. Put he is done, he had just those couple of moronic "points" so no use repeating them anymore.
bary1234 6 months ago
Damn its just disgusting we still have religions. Creationism is the pinnacle of human stupidity. We have to end these embarrassing superstitious medieval cults before they end us.
bary1234 6 months ago
@bary1234 You're using straw man arguments. Also, a person who is under the impression that life just spontaneously generated from nothing is not in any position to call any religion stupid. At face value, atheism would be more what you are talking about, rather than Christianity. Being among people who think we came from a rock, now that's embarassing.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes The only person who is under the impression that life just spontaneously generated from nothing are Creationists.
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES We acknowledge that there is a creation, and a creation demands a Creator. Created with a purpose, by a Designer. Contrast this with evolutionists spontaneous generation theory. There's a big difference there.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes Aw really? See ya!
ONESPECIES 6 months ago
@ONESPECIES Typical - when your faith is challenged, evolutionists/atheists, etc... just block people from responding. So your baseless arguments survive by shielding them from criticism. Interesting.
Haekel68 6 months ago
@CiscoWes : Nobody has a "spontaneous generation theory." Thats a miserable straw-man argument. Stop lying you piece of shit creatard.
Science follows evidence. Show the evidence for your ridiculous magical creation or shut the fuck up.
bary1234 6 months ago
@CiscoWes : Religious people say everything was created by magic. Thats retarded childish nonsense.
Normal people say things happen because of natural reasons. We dont need supernatural explanations.
The irony is just so sweet when you accuse me of straw man-arguments and then say somebody believes in "life just spontaneously generating from nothing." Who the fuck could believe in shit like that, you would have to be from USA to be that stupid. Go open a book, creatard.
bary1234 6 months ago
@rockstarcola100 If you use observation and scientific method, the corpse of evolution has to be put to rest.
CiscoWes 6 months ago
@CiscoWes
"If you use observation and scientific method, the corpse of evolution has to be put to rest."
No, if you use observation and scientific method, 270.000 peer-reviewed articles have been researched on the topic "evolution", all using the scientific method and observation. There is just no way anyone can propagate that silly lie and actually believe it, unless they're being kept in a shed with no access to anything. Well, you're commenting on Youtube... so you must just be lying.
anglicantian 6 months ago
@rockstarcola100 "that since science can't test God"
Science doesn't need to test "god" you get the word god itsself is from the bible which has many demonstrably false claims in it such as the Ptolomaic calendar, heaven above, hell below and the universe being 5000 years old. As you said "the god of the gaps is bad theology", its more then that though, its not theology.
Hashishin13 6 months ago
Very good, but may I ask about computer programs? Can't they be programmed to make copies of themselves, with the ability to change randomly? Like I know there are some evolution simulators. If information can't copy itself, then what is a self-copying computer program? Just wondering, if anyone can answer this, thanks!
soulhunger1 7 months ago
@soulhunger1 Yes true, but programs need a device that will do the copying. The ancestor of RNA was copying itself before organisms. So the difference is being able to make a physical copy, just by assembling necessary elements from the environment.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@rockstarcola100 So you're a theistic evolutionist?
Drgamedood 7 months ago
@rockstarcola100 Yes! Science is a level playing field, acknowledging what seems to be factual is the only requirement. Life is short, and offers different circumstances to each individual. One's world view includes more than just facts, it may include risks, beliefs, having a hunch, emotions, it can not all possibly be verifiable. My rule is for one's beliefs to serve oneself and potential, as well as society. But at the very least we all have to agree on the factual basis of the world.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@rockstarcola100 I am glad you see it that way!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@rockstarcola100 Quite! And since Natural selection does the "editing" and nothing but random mutations offer the raw material, it is safe to say no intelligence is involved.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
Actually DNA *can* be compared to a 4 bit based code, that caries information. Chemical information. There are scientist that actually study DNA with the theory of information. The same theory that is used in statistical physics and the notorious equation log(2N) that predict the number of meaningful combination that can be stored in a sequence of N particles/nucleotides/amino acids
assalane 7 months ago
@assalane Still it can not be considered information in the first hand. Everything we study we accumulate information from. Plus DNA came from a molecule that did not offer any coded info in the first place. So yes, for reasons of study, Scientists will look for the potential embedded in the structure. But DNA resists to conform to the daily use of the words information, language, programming and such, that are bended by ID proponents. And thats what the video is about.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIESYes information surely doesn't have the same meaning when a scientist or a creationist use it. But I really fail to see your point. The creationists think that information cannot be added to the genome, however after defining what information is in the DNA, one can clearly describe ways in witch information *can* be added (gene duplication+silent mutation that eventually lead to a new function/information) or even deleted or modified then maintained depending on selection or drifting.
assalane 7 months ago
@assalane Yes but information at least as humans define it, is anything but random. So if a random mutation ends up successful by natural selection, it may add "information" but it is not intentional written information. So again, what was added was not information per se, but a change in the molecular structure, that will lead to a new/different/adapted feature. My argument is that DNA is subjected to random mutations only, no intentional ones, therefore no intelligence can claim its progress.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@assalane Thank you for your clarification I understand what you meant now.
assalane 7 months ago
@assalane And thank you for the questions and feedback. You probably highlight what I should address clearer if I revisit this particular issue. Thanks
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@Ramohog Science Cult? I won't take such nonsense by people who prefer false assertions over demonstrable facts. You earned the dishonest debater award of the week! Congrats! Bye...
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
Brilliant as usual, and the Greek accent gives it a great kick :)
lkerner 7 months ago
@lkerner Oh, Many thanks!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
Thank you for this - a very clear and persuasive video.
GETH7 7 months ago 6
@GETH7 Thank you for the motivating feedback!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
ROFL! Fucking insane cult savages.
NotSoOldHippy 7 months ago
It's a classic example of reasoning by analogy. DNA is "like" a book in that it encodes information; the problem is when people start reasoning based on that analogy of a book. The analogy isn't perfect and doesn't really accurately describe DNA. The result is a flawed conclusion based on fallacious reasoning.
Religious arguments often contain this kind of reasoning by analogy. Analogies can be useful tools for explaining concepts, but grossly misleading when the analogy is taken too far.
fragglet 7 months ago 2
@fragglet Precisely. Some analogies can be a vehicle for us to understand complex concepts, and some can be just used to make someone misunderstand a complex concept..... Depends what you do with the tools.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago 2
@HISTRUTHBEKNOWN Once you inform yourself in the manner of civil debate and informed arguments, you will be welcome. Not now. cheers...
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
"we have never observed any form of information that has the ability to make copies of itself" this is false. computer viruses actually make copies of themselves.
7lllll 7 months ago
@7lllll I have answered again to this, bellow, although it was intended as humor by the commenters. No the virus can not copy itself, the computer device hosting it, is copying the virus. Therefore the virus has not within it the ability to make physical copies of itself. Simply put, no computer, no virus. The ancestor of DNA though, did copy itself in the absence of a host organism. That molecule made copies of itself before life was formed. Its an innate molecular property.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES It is a difficult question, but I can still argue that the computer viruses do copy itself. We can also say that any of the self-replicating molecules need the organic materials to self-replicate, and the environment that contains organic materials is their host. Almost all self-replicating things can't self-replicate without some kind of host. The only exception I can think of is false vacuum.
7lllll 7 months ago
@7lllll But you see the issue is this,the ancestor molecule got its organic materials from the environment, a perfectly natural unintelligent process.Yes the environment of the cell did replace the open environment,but the self replicating molecule did not need that change, life did.And whilst in the open environment,the ancestor molecule is nothing more than another piece of chemistry happening. Just like oxygen binding on iron ore.And if the original host is unintelligent, then its not info.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES my argument was that viruses do self-replicate, and it does not matter if the host is information.
7lllll 7 months ago
@7lllll Well yeah, to be more accurate, viruses can exploit a system to replicate themselves. In any case I do know what you meant. But I think that its still valid to say that Information, unassisted by a mechanism, has not been observed to make copies of itself. So the point relevant to Biology is that information can not self-replicate in a perfectly natural open environment as far as we have seen, but molecules can. That aside, we can have many discussions on both bio and digital viruses.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES if you add "in a perfectly natural open environment," then yes. All organisms exploit a "system" (its environment) to self-replicate, and in my opinion it is no different for computer viruses. In my opinion, self-replicating molecules are also assisted by a "mechanism" (natural mechanisms in its environment). Computer viruses are just information, so if they self-replicate, then your claim is false, but again, it is a matter of opinion.
7lllll 7 months ago
@7lllll "Also assisted by a mechanism". Well thats too generalized. You could say the same for Hydrogen in stars. Can't just erase classes of objects arbitrarily. To have DNA you only need a planet with certain elements and circumstance, and to have digital virus replication, you need also a Planet with certain elements and circumstance, but on top of that, you need the conscious decision of humans to make a computer device. DNA never requires a whole Class of objects that information needs.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
@ONESPECIES the question boils down to this: is it itself or the host that is actually performing the self-replication? And I think that is a matter of opinion.
7lllll 7 months ago
@7lllll but anyway that is a tiny detail, and I just read the first time this was said. It is almost impossible to make a video completely flawless.
7lllll 7 months ago
I appreciate your work. I notice there is often a seeming attempt to confuse by equating the meaning of one term used in a specific way for an idea, and then misapplying it to another. This is a good example of it. Another example is where the meaning of faith as it may apply to science or general existence is taken and equated with the acceptance of something without any substantiation as it applies to theism in order to push the claim of equal footing to science and theism. Would you agree?
RichardRoy2 7 months ago
@RichardRoy2 Oh Yes, I Agree... Generally a great deal of the tricks of Organized Religion is just confusing terms and exploiting the outcome., based on a confused and emotional response. Thanks!
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
This video misunderstands or misrepresents the creationist opinion. Creationists do not argue that DNA is literally information--they use it the same way evolutionists do, as a "term used to make sense of it as humans," and the Shakespeare example is only a loose illustration. The real issue is the fact that mutations overwhelmingly reduce the functionality or survivability of an organism and are not sustainable.
xthebumpx 7 months ago
@xthebumpx A) You got no clue about Biology, unless you do not mean your last statement. B) I am not representing the argument, I am doing them a favor. If they do not mean its information, then there is no argument at all. If its a molecule and not information there is no Creator needed, because there was no information created. Why the molecule accumulates changes we categorize as information is the study of Genetics, pure and simple. Study some Biology.
ONESPECIES 7 months ago 2
@xthebumpx
That is such a wad of nonsense it's despicable. No, the vast majority of mutations are neutral.
anglicantian 7 months ago
Love your work, man.
COEXISTential 7 months ago
@COEXISTential Many Thanks :)
ONESPECIES 7 months ago
The fact there is even a debate regarding Evolution and 'Intelligent Design' is just ridiculous. There is no two sides of the argument, we're addressing children, maybe we should treat them like children instead of adults?
I love this video, but it's just a shame it had to be made in the first place, it should be clear right about now.
afterhumanity333 7 months ago
PWNED
SkyFoxCode 8 months ago
IDiots start with the analogy that DNA is like information and then extend their analogy to say that is exactly like information. The argumet begins to unravel but they proceed to infomation cannot increase using Shannon's definition. At this point, the argument has imploded because DNA does change and sometimes it's beneficial so Shannon isn't applicable. Then the IDiots say "therefore godidit." No matter how much bafflegarb they add, it still boils down to this invalid argument.
8WholeThing 8 months ago
@8WholeThing and apart from all that information structure and Information theory have nothing whatsoever to do with either books or biology...
its a pure straw grab... Tsun Tsu would recognize that when ones opponent changes tact to an unsupportable position then there is no need to engage in battle.
So since they have done that... it is time to stop arguing with them.. and move on to the regular average theist... who is more susceptible to reason.
Leave the IDiots and they will implode.
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey I'm still waiting for a metric for DNA-based information so we can total before and after to see if there has been an increase of a decrease in information.
It's fun to watch them try to explain how a modification to a duplicated gene is a loss of information.
8WholeThing 8 months ago
@8WholeThing The problem with the IDiots is not with their definition of information. The problem is that they don't understand how natural processes can change the information encoded in DNA.
DNA does contain information (as defined by Shannon) and it can and does increase due to natural selection.
AThagoras 8 months ago
@AThagoras My understanding of Shannon information is that any distortion of the original information carrier signal is a loss of information. The definition is useful for its intended application but we can actually learn from the distortion, so practical information can be increased by a loss of Shannon information. So a mutation would be a loss of Shannon information but an increase of information for the gene pool. That is why I say that using the Shannon definition is not useful.
8WholeThing 8 months ago
@8WholeThing "My understanding of Shannon information is that any distortion of the original information carrier signal is a loss of information."
I think you're talking about information being a loss of entropy.
Information is quite a slippery thing to define. If a signal is random (i.e. maximum entropy) it contains no information. If it is completely regular, it is predictable it has very low entropy, but it doesn't tell you anything and contains very little information.
AThagoras 8 months ago
@AThagoras "I think you're talking about information being a loss of entropy."
My understanding of information theory doesn't go far beyond trying to differentiate between Shannon and K-C definitions (which may have become distorted in my memory over the years). IIRC, K-C is more like entropy. In Shannon, the info is like the singer's voice vs. what comes out the amp/speaker. The amount of info is not quantified but the change can be measured as a percentage of loss. I could be way off.
8WholeThing 7 months ago
Nicely done! Information is nothing but a consciousness recognizing or a memory storing a sequence of things or occurrences. It has no tangible existence. This idea that a molecule is "information" just because it's complex is bogus.
bowlsallbroken 8 months ago
@bowlsallbroken Precisely. Its too much and too complicated to not refer to it by symbolic words. But we still need to remember the symbol is never the thing itself :P
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
Great job, but shakespere could be "improved" in the exact same way that evolution works. Random changes to parts, including complete chapters or sentances could be included and then weeded out by a selection process that is attempting to simulate an enviornment where a "more perfect shakespere (whatever that is)" would survive.
phookadude 8 months ago
@phookadude Thanks. Yes you are right, natural selection could, but I bet my beer money that Shakespeare would not like any changes to his masterpieces. :P
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
@ONESPECIES yeah but shakespere is also dead.. his opinion is less than moot on the subject...
Just like i'm sure the more intellectual neanderthals would be mentally destroyed to see us rather moronic smaller subspecies see them to extinction happily typing away on machines they would have invented before us!
But there you go... your opinion or Shakespeares opinion of what is a benefit...is not necessarily one nature will agree with!
MumblingMickey 8 months ago
@MumblingMickey As a story of fiction I can not see how Nature would agree or not with it. Just saying that our definition of info and message are not applicable per se on natural mechanism.
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
You know, I really feel like I understand this twice as well now as I did five minutes ago. Really excellent explanation, so simple, but I'd never thought of it that way before.
OgreVI 8 months ago
@OgreVI Cheers Ogre, your feedback means a lot.
ONESPECIES 8 months ago
I studied high school biology in Saudi Arabia. In the most creationist way. I thought it is pointless and a wasteful field! I was completely ignorant. But now I'm a chemist :D
I really love ur videos man. Btw, I'm still sitting at the toilet. Damn 38cent buffalo wings!
Essa0601 8 months ago