Replies

OK folks, instead of getting bogged down in examples WAY beyond the central issues of the article. All we’re doing is discussing irrelevent issues that could NOT be possibly even happen IF what the article is stating is true.

Let’s instead ofcus on talking about:

1: the problem of chemical purity arising from dirty chemicals

2: The problem of metainfo beign present BEFORE info

3: How Metainfo could possibly arise from chemicals

4: How lower hiearchy’s could advance without higher oens present from which to draw the necessary info from.

There’s other central issues involved in the paper, but this should do for now

Woops- forgot to state- what we’re tryign to determine is IF what is proposed i nthe paper should be concidered hte most plausible reasonable explanation IF it is found that it is not possible for nature to do the thigns mentioned. IF so, then hsould a ‘law’ be established?- IF not, why not? IF so, why so? (it hsoudl be self explanatory IF it is found to be the most reasonable explanation though)

From part 2:

(3) Error tolerance
Living things tolerate errors remarkably well. Evolutionists use this property to argue that since life is error tolerant, then it could have arisen in an error tolerant (sloppy, haphazard, inefficient, mutation-ridden) stepwise, Darwinian manner. This fallaciously assumes that error tolerance is an intermediate step between non-functionality and functionality, but it is not. Error-tolerant systems are very much more complex than error-intolerant systems.
The computer industry provides an excellent illustration of this principle. Word-processing software of thirty years ago produced very similar results as today, but with very much shorter software codes. Today’s error-tolerant software that detects, interprets and corrects errors as you type, requires far more code, far greater programming skills, and far more computer memory and processing power, than the earlier models. Error tolerance is therefore not a sign of error-prone evolution, but a sign of advanced engineering design.
As I showed in Part I of this article, the reason that organisms tolerate errors is because they have the most wonderful repair and maintenance mechanisms built-in by design!

I believe this and the considerable built in redundancy (also discussed in part 2) might go a long way to explain why frogs do not evolve into giraffes.

So not only can any one given life-form repair its self, but it also has multiple ideas of what it is.

If your a frog and you suffer a specie altering mutation, unless your genetic information completely forgets that your a frog and decides that your a giraffe, you will still be a frog. (Because of redundancy of stored information and error correction)

If your genetic information does forget your a frog, you will probably become worm food and not a lofty headed giraffe.

It would appear that living things were designed to have a limit to how much they would vary.