|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Evolution of new information
Attribution[edit]
Some content from http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information Fuzzy. Cat. Potato! (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)