[Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
in my next reply, if any.]

On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>> designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
>>>> nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
>>>> regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
>>>> is not the result of intelligent design.
>>>  >
>>> Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
>>> with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
>>> of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the
>>> capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
>>> modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
>>> called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
>>> essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
>>> acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
>>
>>> If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
>>> _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
>>
>> That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
>> (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
>> spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
> >
> Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in this
> case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can form
> complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but there
> is nothing pertaining to information.

That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets
localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.

>>> Information is key,
>>
>> No, energy flow is key.
> >
> I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
> controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A tornado
> is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with a
> controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a heart
> attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors energy is
> uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.

You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense
formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence;
homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy
has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified,
it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.

>>
>>> Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
>>> and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
>>> proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in DNA.
>>> We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but there is
>>> a limit to the change possible which is determined by information.
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
>> then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
> >
> True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
> Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
> Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
> it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
> dog that gave birth to
> pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information
> required for functioning eyes was lost.

Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the
same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is
losing money, and nobody is making any.

Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.

>> Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
>> unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
>> and resources,
> >
> I agree, also absent in DNA.
>
>
> and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
>> the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
>>
>>> There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog. But
>>> there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability to
>>> fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the past,
>>> the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has never been
>>> falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. And until a
>>> better explanation is discovered. In science the origin of life
>>> remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational conclusion
>>> available than what we observe in the present. We do not observe new
>>> non carbon life or other substances forming a unique type of life at
>>> present, again verifying the fact that life comes from life. "And God
>>> breathed the breath of life into man and man became a living soul".
>>> Man as the only concern of the writer of the statement, but also life
>>> was breathed into other life forms. \
>>
>> Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
>> include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
>> alternatives.
>>
> At the present there is no better explanation.

There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over
extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation --
tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it
seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word
to use in place of one.

> Don't get my wrong I am
> against organized religion. But this is a religious dogma which comes
> from religious sources. But the only argument against this dogma is
> atheism - there is a God or there is no God, either of which is in
> reality, just a philosophy.
> But my bet would be on the positive.

None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.

--
Mark Isaak
"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'That
doesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell

Mark Isaak wrote:
> [Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
> in my next reply, if any.]
>
> On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>> designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
>>>>> nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
>>>>> regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
>>>>> is not the result of intelligent design.
>>>>  >
>>>> Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
>>>> with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
>>>> of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the
>>>> capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
>>>> modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
>>>> called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
>>>> essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
>>>> acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
>>>
>>>> If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
>>>> _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
>>>
>>> That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
>>> (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
>>> spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
>>  >
>> Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in
>> this case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can
>> form complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but
>> there is nothing pertaining to information.
>
> That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
> definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets
> localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
>
>>>> Information is key,
>>>
>>> No, energy flow is key.
>>  >
>> I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
>> controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A
>> tornado is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with
>> a controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a
>> heart attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors
>> energy is uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
>
> You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
> and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense
> formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence;
> homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy
> has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified,
> it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
>
>>>
>>>> Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
>>>> and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
>>>> proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in
>>>> DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but
>>>> there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by
>>>> information.
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
>>> then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
>>  >
>> True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
>> Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
>> Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
>> it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
>> dog that gave birth to
>> pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information
>> required for functioning eyes was lost.
>
> Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the
> same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is
> losing money, and nobody is making any.
>
> Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
> altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
>
>>> Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
>>> unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
>>> and resources,
>>  >
>> I agree, also absent in DNA.
>>
>>
>> and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
>>> the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
>>>
>>>> There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog.
>>>> But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability
>>>> to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the
>>>> past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has
>>>> never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago.
>>>> And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the origin
>>>> of life remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational
>>>> conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not
>>>> observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a unique
>>>> type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes
>>>> from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and man
>>>> became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the
>>>> statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
>>> include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
>>> alternatives.
>>>
>> At the present there is no better explanation.
>
> There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over
> extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation --
> tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it
> seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word
> to use in place of one.
>
>> Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a
>> religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only
>> argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is no
>> God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy.
>> But my bet would be on the positive.
>
> None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
>
No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is
it! My Final Post!

Ron Dean wrote:

> Mark Isaak wrote:
> > [Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
> > in my next reply, if any.]
> >
> > On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
> > > > > Mark Isaak wrote:
> > > > > > [...]
> > > > > > What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
> > > > > > designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
> > > > > > nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
> > > > > > regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
> > > > > > is not the result of intelligent design.
> > > > >  >
> > > > > Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
> > > > > with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
> > > > > of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the
> > > > > capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
> > > > > modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
> > > > > called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
> > > > > essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
> > > > > acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
> > > >
> > > > > If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
> > > > > _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
> > > >
> > > > That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
> > > > (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
> > > > spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
> > >  >
> > > Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in this
> > > case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can form
> > > complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but there
> > > is nothing pertaining to information.
> >
> > That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
> > definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets localized,
> > in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
> >
> > > > > Information is key,
> > > >
> > > > No, energy flow is key.
> > >  >
> > > I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
> > > controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A tornado
> > > is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with a
> > > controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a heart
> > > attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors energy is
> > > uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
> >
> > You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
> > and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense
> > formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence; homicide
> > kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy has a
> > tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified, it would
> > probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
> > > > > and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
> > > > > proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in
> > > > > DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but
> > > > > there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by
> > > > > information.
> > > >
> > > > That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
> > > > then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
> > >  >
> > > True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
> > > Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
> > > Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
> > > it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
> > > dog that gave birth to pups that were blind on two different occasions.
> > > So, the information required for functioning eyes was lost.
> >
> > Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the same
> > is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is losing
> > money, and nobody is making any.
> >
> > Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
> > altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
> >
> > > > Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
> > > > unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
> > > > and resources,
> > >  >
> > > I agree, also absent in DNA.
> > >
> > >
> > > and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
> > > > the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
> > > >
> > > > > There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog.
> > > > > But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability
> > > > > to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the
> > > > > past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has
> > > > > never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago.
> > > > > And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the origin
> > > > > of life remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational
> > > > > conclusion available than what we observe in the present. We do not
> > > > > observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a unique
> > > > > type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life comes
> > > > > from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and man
> > > > > became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of the
> > > > > statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
> > > > include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
> > > > alternatives.
> > > >
> > > At the present there is no better explanation.
> >
> > There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over
> > extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation --
> > tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it
> > seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word to
> > use in place of one.
> >
> > > Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a
> > > religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only
> > > argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is no
> > > God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy. But my bet would
> > > be on the positive.
> >
> > None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
> >
> No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is it! My
> Final Post!
-------------------------------------

Promise?

On 3/14/24 9:11 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
> Mark Isaak wrote:
>> [Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove
>> alt.computer.workshop in my next reply, if any.]
>>
>> On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>>> designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
>>>>>> nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
>>>>>> regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
>>>>>> is not the result of intelligent design.
>>>>>  >
>>>>> Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
>>>>> with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same
>>>>> level of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has
>>>>> the capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
>>>>> modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
>>>>> called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
>>>>> essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
>>>>> acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
>>>>
>>>>> If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
>>>>> _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
>>>>
>>>> That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from
>>>> physics (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity
>>>> forms spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
>>>  >
>>> Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in
>>> this case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can
>>> form complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but
>>> there is nothing pertaining to information.
>>
>> That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
>> definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets
>> localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
>>
>>>>> Information is key,
>>>>
>>>> No, energy flow is key.
>>>  >
>>> I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
>>> controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A
>>> tornado is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with
>>> a controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a
>>> heart attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors
>>> energy is uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
>>
>> You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information*
>> can and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex,
>> information-dense formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can
>> intelligence; homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But
>> flowing energy has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could
>> be quantified, it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
>>
>>>>
>>>>> Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
>>>>> and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited.
>>>>> This proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained
>>>>> in DNA. We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but
>>>>> there is a limit to the change possible which is determined by
>>>>> information.
>>>>
>>>> That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
>>>> then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
>>>  >
>>> True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
>>> Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
>>> Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
>>> it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
>>> dog that gave birth to
>>> pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information
>>> required for functioning eyes was lost.
>>
>> Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the
>> same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody
>> is losing money, and nobody is making any.
>>
>> Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
>> altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.
>>
>>>> Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
>>>> unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
>>>> and resources,
>>>  >
>>> I agree, also absent in DNA.
>>>
>>>
>>> and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
>>>> the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
>>>>
>>>>> There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog.
>>>>> But there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability
>>>>> to fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the
>>>>> past, the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has
>>>>> never been falsified. Life must have been created billion years
>>>>> ago. And until a better explanation is discovered. In science the
>>>>> origin of life remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or
>>>>> rational conclusion available than what we observe in the present.
>>>>> We do not observe new non carbon life or other substances forming a
>>>>> unique type of life at present, again verifying the fact that life
>>>>> comes from life. "And God breathed the breath of life into man and
>>>>> man became a living soul". Man as the only concern of the writer of
>>>>> the statement, but also life was breathed into other life forms. \
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
>>>> include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
>>>> alternatives.
>>>>
>>> At the present there is no better explanation.
>>
>> There is no better explanation for biological change of populations
>> over extended time than evolution. I know of only one other
>> explanation -- tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and
>> nobody takes it seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an
>> explanation; it is a word to use in place of one.
>>
>>> Don't get my wrong I am against organized religion. But this is a
>>> religious dogma which comes from religious sources. But the only
>>> argument against this dogma is atheism - there is a God or there is
>>> no God, either of which is in reality, just a philosophy.
>>> But my bet would be on the positive.
>>
>> None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.
>>
> No one on TO is serious! I'm not dealing with this any longer. This is
> it! My Final Post!
>
Don't let the server hit you on the ass.

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 08:55:41 -0700, Mark Isaak
<specimenNOSPAM@curioustaxon.omy.net> wrote:

>[Crosspost to uk.comp.sys.mac removed. I'll remove alt.computer.workshop
>in my next reply, if any.]
>
>On 3/12/24 9:01 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>> On 3/8/24 7:59 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
>>>> Mark Isaak wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> What Ron neglects in his analysis is, first, that evolution is a
>>>>> designer -- not as efficient as human designers, but a designer
>>>>> nonetheless; and second, that where humans and evolution differ
>>>>> regarding their being designers, life unquestionably looks like it
>>>>> is not the result of intelligent design.
>>>>  >
>>>> Of course life looks designed. There is nothing else on the planet
>>>> with the capacity to replace or reproduce itself with the same level
>>>> of complexity and organization as does life.  Life alone has the
>>>> capability and the information  to obtain needed raw materials,
>>>> modify and order these materials into the highly organized entities
>>>> called living organisms. Secondly, one of the fact that's  of the
>>>> essentials of all is the question of origins. Darwin himself
>>>> acknowledged that the key to the past is the present.
>>>
>>>> If one accepts this truism, then to our present knowledge the
>>>> _only_source of highly complex information is mind.
>>>
>>> That is a huge non sequitur, and it is not true. We know from physics
>>> (and astronomy and geology and meteorology) that complexity forms
>>> spontaneously in a wide variety of circumstances.
>> >
>> Complex forms do no constitute highly complex information which in this
>> case infers knowledge, know-how or instructions. Crystals can form
>> complex strictures so can bubbles in water, star formations, but there
>> is nothing pertaining to information.
>
>That's because you define information away in those cases. By most
>definitions of information, information forms, or at least gets
>localized, in stars, hurricanes, cave formations, river systems, etc.
>
>>>> Information is key,
>>>
>>> No, energy flow is key.
>> >
>> I agree, energy is key, but energy without information that's
>> controlling energy, energy can be and usually is destructive. A tornado
>> is not controlled by intelligence energy.  But a tractor with a
>> controlling factor (a man) is controlled energy, if the man has a heart
>> attack and dies, the throtle remains open, now the tractors energy is
>> uncontrolled. The barn, stables and building can be destroyed.
>
>You miss the reality. Energy flow *without controlling information* can
>and does, observably and repeatably, produce complex, information-dense
>formations. Yes, energy can be destructive. So can intelligence;
>homicide kills a lot more people than tornadoes do. But flowing energy
>has a tendency to produce order. If the principle could be quantified,
>it would probably be a fourth law of thermodynamics.
>
>>>
>>>> Darwin observed pigeons and finches that were varying sizes shapes
>>>> and differing beaks and he concluded that change was unlimited. This
>>>> proved false, unknown to Darwin was the information contained in DNA.
>>>> We observe dogs and hogs of differing sizes and shapes, but there is
>>>> a limit to the change possible which is determined by information.
>>>
>>> That doesn't even make sense. If change is limited by information,
>>> then a change to the information eliminates those limits.
>> >
>> True, but cave fish went blind, some birds lost their ability to fly.
>> Dogs can  vary in size and shape, but they cannot grow new organs.
>> Because the information in DNA to express new organs don't exist. But
>> it's possible to lose information and fail to survive. We once owed a
>> dog that gave birth to
>> pups that were blind on two different occasions. So, the information
>> required for functioning eyes was lost.
>
>Yeah, so? I have lost money on more than one occasion, and I know the
>same is true of most people. If I were to go by your logic, everybody is
>losing money, and nobody is making any.
>
>Don't forget also to look at such things as the adaptions to high
>altitude, evolved separately in the Andes and Tibet, and tetrachromacy.

Also resistance to malaria.

>>> Also, I don't believe Darwin ever supported the idea that change was
>>> unlimited. Change is still limited by constraints imposed by physics
>>> and resources,
>> >
>> I agree, also absent in DNA.
>>
>>
>> and there appear to be some possibilities (large wheels is
>>> the only example I know) that cannot evolve from existing forms.
>>>
>>>> There is no information (DNA) which expresses for wings on a hog. But
>>>> there can be a loss of information, birds that lost the ability to
>>>> fly. The origin of life itself: since the present is key to the past,
>>>> the Pasteur experiment that life comes only from life has never been
>>>> falsified. Life must have been created billion years ago. And until a
>>>> better explanation is discovered. In science the origin of life
>>>> remains unresolved,  there is no more logical  or rational conclusion
>>>> available than what we observe in the present. We do not observe new
>>>> non carbon life or other substances forming a unique type of life at
>>>> present, again verifying the fact that life comes from life. "And God
>>>> breathed the breath of life into man and man became a living soul".
>>>> Man as the only concern of the writer of the statement, but also life
>>>> was breathed into other life forms. \
>>>
>>> Unfortunately for your position, the constraints to change do not
>>> include one's choice of religion or lack of ability to conceive of
>>> alternatives.
>>>
>> At the present there is no better explanation.
>
>There is no better explanation for biological change of populations over
>extended time than evolution. I know of only one other explanation --
>tampering by super-high-tech extraterrestrials --, and nobody takes it
>seriously. Creationism, aka magic, is not an explanation; it is a word
>to use in place of one.
>
>> Don't get my wrong I am
>> against organized religion. But this is a religious dogma which comes
>> from religious sources. But the only argument against this dogma is
>> atheism - there is a God or there is no God, either of which is in
>> reality, just a philosophy.
>> But my bet would be on the positive.
>
>None of which has any relevance to the issue of evolution.

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge