RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: Southstar's thread< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Posts: 1201
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Nov. 12 2011,16:31   

Quote (Cubist @ Nov. 12 2011,13:46)
If the IDiots were, indeed, correct about how evolution is affected by 'information' and changes thereof and yada yada yada, then it would be pretty friggin' obvious that we should care about 'information' in evolutionary biology.

It's not obvious at all to me. Even if a defined measure of information content in the genome cannot increase by means of mutation and natural selection, why should be care? The postulates of natural selection say nothing about "information".
Mutations produce alleles controlling different heritable phenotypes, we know that. All phenotypes, hence the alleles, don't have equal reproductive success in a given environment. We know that too. That's all that's needed.

To me all this information stuff is just as bogus as the argument based on the SLoT.

About the polar bear example...  Starbuck's post isn't only bogus, it came out of nowhere, beginning with a "His" that refers to god knows who. Not sure what to make of this.

  366 replies since Nov. 08 2011,06:46 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (13) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]