2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:Evolution of new information

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Attribution[edit]

Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information Cømяade FυzzчCαтPøтαтø (talk/stalk) 13:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Another refutation[edit]

The ancients could not go faster than a galloping horse, or burn more efficiently than fire and the Victorians considered that the sun might be coal fired; we have (the concept of) maglevs and nuclear power stations, while we know the sun is powered by nuclear fusion. Therefore new information has evolved and the theory is flawed. Or am I misinterpreting the statement? Anna Livia (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

And 'we humans' are visibly more complex than amoebae and quite different to (Dawkins) weasel. Anna Livia (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Monkeys and automata[edit]

It's possible for monkeys with typewriters to generate the works of Shakespeare. It's also possible for automated systems to generate algorithms and mathematical theorems.[1][2] So why would it be impossible to generate biological texts or formulae via mechanical processes? --Annanoon (talk) 14:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Definitions[edit]

What precisely do the creationists mean by 'information'? Anna Livia (talk) 14:16, 17 May 2019 (UTC)