Why male and female?

Originally posted by lemon lime
But is it realistic to build a theory on what happens after life begins, and not include a reason for it beginning?

Yes. In fact every single theory we have does not explain everything there is to explain. Your computer, which was built using some of those theories, appears to still work well enough.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Yes, virus' are fast evolving, if by evolving you mean natural selection. If you mean virus' can evolve into bacteria or something other than a virus, then no, I don't believe that can happen. Speciation is the only means I know of that can cause an organism to "evolve" into another organism. But that's not evolution in the sense that new information has ...[text shortened]... ggs with nothing in them. So if I seem foolish for abandoning this bird then so be it.

As it happens, I know a bit about "information" (in a physical sense) and it doesn't imply any restriction for biological evolution to happen. It is true that there is a "conservation of information", but since the Earth is an open system "information" can flow in and out freely (and "information" means something else than what you probably think it is) and this is no obstacle for evolution to happen. Perhaps you can be more precise about how evolution "adds information".

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As it happens, I know a bit about "information" (in a physical sense) and it doesn't imply any restriction for biological evolution to happen. It is true that there is a "conservation of information", but since the Earth is an open system "information" can flow in and out freely (and "information" means something else than what you probably think it is) ...[text shortened]... on to happen. Perhaps you can be more precise about how evolution "adds information".

I think I can answer that one. From the creationist viewpoint, as far as I can determine, only god can make a new species, which I think means say, going from a bacteria to a phytoplankton would mean adding information to the basic design so I guess the idea being the genetic structure of a bacteria being presumably simpler than the phytoplankton, information would have had to have been added, we say by evolution, they say by god. At least I think that's how they read that.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I think I can answer that one. From the creationist viewpoint, as far as I can determine, only god can make a new species, which I think means say, going from a bacteria to a phytoplankton would mean adding information to the basic design so I guess the idea being the genetic structure of a bacteria being presumably simpler than the phytoplankton, informati ...[text shortened]... e been added, we say by evolution, they say by god. At least I think that's how they read that.

Yeah, I've heard alternative versions involving the second law of thermodynamics as well. Of course, the Second Law in no way restricts evolution.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Yes. In fact every single theory we have does not explain everything there is to explain. Your computer, which was built using some of those theories, appears to still work well enough.

My question was flawed. My bad. I'm assuming it's reasonable to assume life began somewhere, at some point in time... in this universe. And I'm assuming evolutionists assume there was a presumably first cause for life first occurring, after which it could then evolve to a point where evolutionists may then assume evolution is responsible for life... evolving.
Am I close, or am I making too many assumptions?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
As it happens, I know a bit about "information" (in a physical sense) and it doesn't imply any restriction for biological evolution to happen. It is true that there is a "conservation of information", but since the Earth is an open system "information" can flow in and out freely (and "information" means something else than what you probably think it is) ...[text shortened]... on to happen. Perhaps you can be more precise about how evolution "adds information".

Are you saying there is no significant difference between the information already present in matter and say, a line of computer code? Apparently the only reason we put that kind of information into a computer is because we don't have time to wait for it to self assemble.

I don't believe evolultion can add information. That's for you to explain... unless you don't believe it can happen either.

Originally posted by lemon lime
My question was flawed. My bad. I'm assuming it's reasonable to assume life began somewhere, at some point in time... in this universe. And I'm assuming evolutionists assume there was a presumably first cause for life first occurring, after which it could then evolve to a point where evolutionists may then assume evolution is responsible for life... evolving.
Am I close, or am I making too many assumptions?

Your sentence is a bit convoluted but I think you have it now. For instance, suppose just for the moment that god did not point its 'finger' and life instantly came on the Earth.

Lets suppose for now that life didn't develop on Earth first but started somewhere on a planet in orbit around a star reasonably close to Earth and our sun. There are some theories that say life formed there first and some kind of asteroid hit that planet, taking some of the life forms with it when the asteroid exploded into the planet and blew off some of the surface, taking some life forms with it, now on meteors spreading throughout the galaxy.

Then some millions of years later the meteor ends up slamming into our Earth and that meteor, now a meteorite since it actually crashes into Earth, seeds the Earth with either life or the preliminary molecules of life, greatly speeding up the time it would have normally taken for the molecules already on Earth to shift itself into living forms.

That is one theory. Another is life developed first on Mars, well within our solar system, and an asteroid hits Mars, sends some Mars life or prebiotic material to Earth and THAT kickstarting life on Earth. You can see where thinking about other possibilities for life to have come about on Earth would have occurred to life scientists, so nobody could say for sure if life really started here first or not.

My particular guess is life is everywhere the conditions allow it, like a source of liquid water, atmosphere dense enough to ALLOW liquid water and temperatures in the goldilocks zone, where the water is not boiling or 190 degrees F or something like that, average temps we see on Earth, then it looks like life will find a way anywhere those conditions arise.

If that is the case then every galaxy we see in telescopes will have planets where life has started and evolved to some degree or other. And in our own galaxy and probably all or most galaxies, life would be on perhaps millions of planets inside any given galaxy so with literally hundreds of billions of galaxies.

That would make life a commodity in our universe not a sacred exception that the religious set wants to think of it where we are somehow special in the universe where obviously other stars exists and we know for a fact other planets exist, it seems foolish to just ASSUME we are the only place in the universe where life exists.

Originally posted by lemon lime
My question was flawed. My bad. I'm assuming it's reasonable to assume life began somewhere, at some point in time... in this universe. And I'm assuming evolutionists assume there was a presumably first cause for life first occurring, after which it could then evolve to a point where evolutionists may then assume evolution is responsible for life... evolving.
Am I close, or am I making too many assumptions?

Since life exists, and we can be fairly sure that at some point in the past life could not exist, it's a safe assumption to say that life started at some point.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Are you saying there is no significant difference between the information already present in matter and say, a line of computer code? Apparently the only reason we put that kind of information into a computer is because we don't have time to wait for it to self assemble.

I don't believe evolultion can add information. That's for you to explain... unless you don't believe it can happen either.

Well, the problem is you don't know what "information" means in this context. Unfortunately you need some heavy mathematics to grasp the concept, since it doesn't correspond to any intuitive real-world phenomenon (like for example temperature does, even though it is a pretty complicated concept in theory). Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof notwithstanding, I will refer you to some basic concepts here, and references therin:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics
The "information" of information theory is largely analogous to entropy in thermodynamics, so it helps to understand what entropy means.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Your sentence is a bit convoluted but I think you have it now. For instance, suppose just for the moment that god did not point its 'finger' and life instantly came on the Earth.

Lets suppose for now that life didn't develop on Earth first but started somewhere on a planet in orbit around a star reasonably close to Earth and our sun. There are some theo ...[text shortened]... ist, it seems foolish to just ASSUME we are the only place in the universe where life exists.

Actually, I had it before we started. I intentionally constructed a convoluted sentence so you would know I "have it now". And you've just now answered my next question, so there's no point in building another convoluted question.

By the way, I know why aliens have shown so much interest in our planet. They want our jobs... and our women. I mean, have you seen their women? They never bring them here. I've never seen their women, but I don't need to... we've already seen their men, right? Believe it or not, I can think like an evolutionist and know something without really knowing it... or is that know without seeing? How does that work again?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, the problem is you don't know what "information" means in this context. Unfortunately you need some heavy mathematics to grasp the concept, since it doesn't correspond to any intuitive real-world phenomenon (like for example temperature does, even though it is a pretty complicated concept in theory). Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof not ...[text shortened]... gely analogous to entropy in thermodynamics, so it helps to understand what entropy means.

Are you sure I don't know what I mean by "information" within the context I described? I may not know much about what you mean by "information" in the context I believe you are alluding to, but what makes you assume I didn't mean the context I was referring to?

Will I need to construct another convoluted sentence and/or series of sentences before I "have it now"?

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Well, the problem is you don't know what "information" means in this context. Unfortunately you need some heavy mathematics to grasp the concept, since it doesn't correspond to any intuitive real-world phenomenon (like for example temperature does, even though it is a pretty complicated concept in theory). Your attempt to reverse the burden of proof not ...[text shortened]... gely analogous to entropy in thermodynamics, so it helps to understand what entropy means.

Very well then... so where in the heavy mathematics hard to understand world of information theory can you find anything to explain how newly formed information is able to naturally occur and then be stored in the form of DNA? DNA is a highly complex repository for storing information and instructions for building proteins. None of this information previously existed, nor a structure to hold this information in the form of a four-character code, before life existed... so where did this information come from?

I won't insult your intelligence by going into detail about what DNA is or how it operates, just so long as you don't insult mine by suggesting this information could have shown up because it potentially existed, or some other such nonsense. You didn't say that, but I am anticipating some kind of explanation as to how it could have happened.

Originally posted by sonhouse
...it seems foolish to just ASSUME we are the only place in the universe where life exists.

It's equally foolish to assume conditions for life are abundantly spread throughout the universe. We just happen to live in a spiral galaxy, between two of the spiral arms. There's not much chance of life existing anywhere else in our own galaxy, especially in the areas of concentrated mass that comprises most of our galaxy. Too much radiation. A spiral galaxy is the most stabile type of galaxy, and if I'm not mistaken spiral galaxies are a small minority among the other types of galaxies. A stabile galaxy is necessary because the stars don't have a tendency to cross paths with one another. I don't mean crashing into other stars, I'm talking about the dangers of radiation. We are safely nestled in a mostly empty part of our galaxy and far enough away from any neighboring stars. The orbit of the galaxy is stabile enough to prevent any increase (or decrease for that matter) of radiation from neighboring stars. But that's just one factor.

Globular clusters used to be seen as prime real estate for potential life bearing planets, but they are among the oldest of stars and thus don't have enough of the heavy elements needed for life. So it's not just about having enough water and being a safe enough distance from a star.

I only scratched the surface here. There are many more factors that go into making and sustaining life. Over simplifying what it takes to make or sustain life doesn't compensate for anyone elses foolish assumptions.

BTW I forgot to mention, in other areas of our universe the elements have been 'overcooked'. In other words, there is an abundance of the heavier elements but not enough of the lighter ones.

Originally posted by lemon lime
Very well then... so where in the heavy mathematics hard to understand world of information theory can you find anything to explain how newly formed information is able to naturally occur and then be stored in the form of DNA? DNA is a highly complex repository for storing information and instructions for building proteins. None of this information previo ...[text shortened]... 't say that, but I am anticipating some kind of explanation as to how it could have happened.

The point is that it isn't "newly formed information". You are applying the layman's definition of the word "information" to a theory which uses a different definition.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The point is that it isn't "newly formed information". You are applying the layman's definition of the word "information" to a theory which uses a different definition.

No, I was pointing out the difference between two types of information.

I was not applying the layman's definition of the word "information" to a theory using a different definition... if I did I wouldn't be talking about two different types of information. So can I take this to mean you recognise the information in DNA does NOT fit with the definition of information in information theory?

Matter has and retains its information, it can't be 'lost' unless it gets swallowed up by a black hole. Even then we really don't know if it's been lost or not, all we know for sure is we can't see it anymore. The information I'm talking about can come and go without leaving any trace it had ever existed. You can place information onto a hard drive and remove it... where did that information come from, and where did it go after that hard drive is thoroughly cleaned?

If you want to argue and say information theory doesn't cover this kind of information then all I can say is "Well, duh... that's what I've been trying to tell you!"