AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:There is a form of sexual reproduction. I forgot how it goes, but it involes a tube between two bacteria where DNA is transferred....and probably more I forgot.
There are forms of gene transfer between bacteria, but it isn't sexual reproduction (two parents mixing DNA). Some bacteria such as yeast do use sexual reproduction, but most do not.
So, it is a common phenomenon that white people and black people do not generally marry and have children....they can, some do....but the overwhelming majority don't...so what we have here is two SPECIES
Don't joke because many species of birds and butterflies are no different to other species but in color. The species grouping concept is man-made and attempts to fit a wide spread of life into small boxes. So there will be contradictions and difficulties like this.
Well, you guys are first stuck with the fact that DNA requires proteins, and proteins require DNA...and..
I am not arguing that DNA formed from nothing
If I were to retype a cook book, over and over again. allowing mistakes to grow...I'm never gonna end up writing a science book.
Noone says you would
And, the transitions along the way will never work....add two quarts of water and sufur dioxide...
Analogies can be poor arguments. For example:
"The aeroplane will never work....throw a rock in the air and it just falls to the ground"
Information=mental source, it's not a complex thing. More simple than algebra.
Shannon information theory shows that random noise increases information. The word information in this sense is mathematically defined. Random mutations are random noise. Therefore information can increase. Is that a good argument? No it isn't because shannon information theory defines information in terms of communications, not genetics.
The point is that if you are using the word information you have to define it. As you are attacking a learning algorithm you have to define information in relation that that algorithm.
I should be able to take a definition of information, apply it to a sequence of nucleotides of a gene and get a single number representing the amount of information in that gene. If I can't do that then use of the word information is undefined and scientifically useless - we might as well be using the word "stuff" instead. I am not blaming you for making this tactic up, as I know it has been invented by anti-evolutionist organisations. All they have done is used a long word to make their argument sound more intellectual. Really they are just saying "Evolution can't work because stuff can't increase"
Natural selection and mutations...you do realize that when you put that together...you're just going to remove any chance of something "new and improved" to form, right? You stick something advanced back into the population...and it'll disappear basically.
Why? Are you saying the advanced thing won't reproduce?