- This topic is empty.
- Posts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12419672
Mankind's capacity to store the colossal amount of information in the world has been measured by scientists.
The study, published in the journal Science, calculates the amount of data stored in the world by 2007 as 295 exabytes.
That is the equivalent of 1.2 billion average hard drives.
The researchers calculated the figure by estimating the amount of data held on 60 technologies from PCs and and DVDs to paper adverts and books.
“If we were to take all that information and store it in books, we could cover the entire area of the US or China in 13 layers of books,” Dr Martin Hilbert of the University of Southern California told the BBC's Science in Action.
The story also has this interesting stat.
“The Human DNA in one single body can store around 300 times more information than we store in all our technological devices” according to Dr Hilbert.
Imagine being an Atheist.
Knowing that the sum of all of human recorded knowledge is absolutely immense, and yet the DNA in one human body can store something like 300 times more than that.
Puts things into perspective doesn't it. And now we await Stu's Atheist comments in trying to justify how the DNA and indeed the universe came about by nothing or by something with the IQ of 0.
Let the Atheist rants begin and endless hours spent against a God they do not believe exists.
Well after an introduction like that I would hate to disappoint!
It would be the logical fallacy of denying the antecedent to claim that because DNA contains lots of information that therefore there exists an Imaginary Friend. It just does not follow.
There has been perhaps 4 billion years of gene duplication and mutation which has accumulated all that DNA code. Humans have only been recording things for 0.0002% of that time.
And most of it doesn't code for anything that can be identified anyway. There are about 30,000 genes that code for all the proteins humans use.
No need to rail against things that do not exist!
Stuart
t8
Jesus did not tell the apostles to go into the world and “convince” them, he told them to preach the gospel as a “witness”; Just as Sodom and Gomorrah will have a chance to learn the truth in the resurrection, so will Stu and others.
Georg
You missed the point Stu.
No matter what, your belief that all that information in DNA and indeed the universe is so much greater than all of the combined intelligence of humanity and yet, your explanation of the universe and all that it contains comes from something with the IQ of zero. That means that it shouldn't even be able to tie up a shoelace never mind produce a universe. You defense in moving a few numbers around cannot change the fact of the enormity of all data in DNA and indeed the universe in your opinion came about by no intelligent input whatsoever. If you look at all the data in the universe it negates any advantage that you think you have by shifting a few numbers around.
The only fallacy here is the ludicrous belief that nothing or a non-intelligent thing/s produced a universe beyond anything that our combined intelligence can comprehend.
It is true and obvious what scripture says about those who deny belief in a creator.
Look at it another way Stu.
Could humanity create a universe if we were given 14 billion years to do it?
And if we could, then what chance would one person with the IQ of 40 have?
Yet one person with the IQ of 40 has more intelligence than something with the IQ of zero.Simple clear logic that you cannot refute Stu.
Thanks for the stats t8.
I'm not much into the science of evolution and big bang, as you and Stu already know. And I'm not really interested in pursuing a discussion here. But I like to watch Discovery and Nature programs, and it seems these same scientist who reject a God have made their own anyway.
I always hear comments like, “Nature sure knew what it was doing when it gave [this animal this quality]………….”
Or, “Evolution has prepared [whatever animal] to live in these harsh conditions……….”
The commentators are always seeming to give “nature” and “evolution” intelligence, as if these THINGS somehow had an intelligent plan of action.
I mean, where did the drive to survive even come from? WHY would “evolution” care whether or not those first amoebas lived or changed into something better or improved themselves……………or just died?
Why would some non-intelligent “happening” have such a goal of survival? Would it matter to “evolution” if every living thing just up and died tomorrow? And WHY?
Anyway, I just think it's funny how people who are so convinced that God is imaginary would attribute God-like qualities and plans to abstract things like “nature” and “evolution”, as if these things purposely, and with forethought, gave thick fur to animals who live where it's cold.
Stu, WHY would evolution care if those animals lived or froze to death? Why would evolution care if we all died tomorrow?
mike
Quote (Baker @ Feb. 15 2011,04:23) t8 Jesus did not tell the apostles to go into the world and “convince” them, he told them to preach the gospel as a “witness”; Just as Sodom and Gomorrah will have a chance to learn the truth in the resurrection, so will Stu and others.
Georg
Georg! Hello!Is this 'resurrection' the bit where, once I have died and been buried, your god will zap me back to life and make some kind of judgment before then permanently destroying me with fire?
Seems a bit pointless really when I never wanted “eternal life” (whatever that means) in the first place.
Although I'm sure he was a fine bloke if he existed, I have specifically denied Jesus as god so I cannot be saved no matter what anyway.
And actually I don't think I need “saving”, from whatever you think it might be that requires whatever this is.
But thanks for caring!
Stuart
t8
Quote No matter what, your belief that all that information in DNA and indeed the universe is so much greater than all of the combined intelligence of humanity
What are we talking about again? Knowledge or intelligence? Knowledge is not intelligence, except if you are a spy.Quote and yet, your explanation of the universe and all that it contains comes from something with the IQ of zero.
Not sure Stephen Hawking would take kindly to being called a “something”, or a something with an IQ of zero. I think you might find that is factually incorrect.Quote That means that it shouldn't even be able to tie up a shoelace never mind produce a universe. You defense in moving a few numbers around cannot change the fact of the enormity of all data in DNA and indeed the universe in your opinion came about by no intelligent input whatsoever. If you look at all the data in the universe it negates any advantage that you think you have by shifting a few numbers around.
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about t8. You usually produce much more coherent nonsense than this.Quote The only fallacy here is the ludicrous belief that nothing or a non-intelligent thing/s produced a universe beyond anything that our combined intelligence can comprehend.
And yet what you call ludicrous appears to have happened. What does that say about your judgment of the history of the universe?Quote It is true and obvious what scripture says about those who deny belief in a creator.
I believe in lots of creators, just not the Imaginary One you assert exists without unambiguous evidence.Quote Look at it another way Stu.
Should I get the feeling you are about to give us another false analogy?Quote Could humanity create a universe if we were given 14 billion years to do it?
I was nearly right. The answer to this is that we cannot even get the temperatures required to study the origin of this universe, and just because we cannot replicate that process says nothing about how it came into being. More interestingly, in just a few million of those 14 billion years we will be a different species anyhow, so would it be humanity that had succeeded or failed to achieve that goal?Quote And if we could, then what chance would one person with the IQ of 40 have?
Yet one person with the IQ of 40 has more intelligence than something with the IQ of zero.Simple clear logic that you cannot refute Stu.
I didn’t realise you thought you were being logical. Actually your argument is invalid because it commits the logical fallacy of composition: you assume that because there are things in the universe that are designed (as far as we know all of them are within our solar system, and almost all of them are on the surface of earth) that therefore the universe itself is designed.All your work is still ahead of you, just like it has been for the several years you have been repeating this logical fallacy.
Also. you give no criteria for deciding whether something is designed, and you give no unambiguous evidence for the existence of the alleged designer. And even if you could, then can you show it is the designer you worship and not a committee of Roman gods that did the designing?
Stuart
Quote (mikeboll64 @ Feb. 15 2011,12:52) Thanks for the stats t8. I'm not much into the science of evolution and big bang, as you and Stu already know. And I'm not really interested in pursuing a discussion here. But I like to watch Discovery and Nature programs, and it seems these same scientist who reject a God have made their own anyway.
I always hear comments like, “Nature sure knew what it was doing when it gave [this animal this quality]………….”
Or, “Evolution has prepared [whatever animal] to live in these harsh conditions……….”
The commentators are always seeming to give “nature” and “evolution” intelligence, as if these THINGS somehow had an intelligent plan of action.
I mean, where did the drive to survive even come from? WHY would “evolution” care whether or not those first amoebas lived or changed into something better or improved themselves……………or just died?
Why would some non-intelligent “happening” have such a goal of survival? Would it matter to “evolution” if every living thing just up and died tomorrow? And WHY?
Anyway, I just think it's funny how people who are so convinced that God is imaginary would attribute God-like qualities and plans to abstract things like “nature” and “evolution”, as if these things purposely, and with forethought, gave thick fur to animals who live where it's cold.
Stu, WHY would evolution care if those animals lived or froze to death? Why would evolution care if we all died tomorrow?
mike
You are right about this issue of language use by biologists. I find it quite entertaining to hear scientists use such descriptions, and even hear them correct themselves to improve the impression they are giving of how natural selection really works when they realise they have been using all that imagery of design.What it really shows us is just how conditioned we are to the concept of design, and the associated idea of conspiracy.
It is even implicit in common language. We call animals “creatures” even though they were not created. How about “evolutes” instead?!
I don't think it is “evolution” that does or does not care, evolution is just the fact of species changing over time. It is natural selection that does not care. It is the blind watchmaker, not a designer in the human sense, but a bizarre kind of designer that just tries out whatever varieties of a species arise against the challenges of the environment, which is the factor that allows them to pass on their genes or not.
“Caring” is a concept you and I understand because we are a mammal species that has an advantage by showing this behaviour of caring. Reptiles do not care. In some cases their offspring have to run away from the eggs from which they just hatched in order to avoid becoming their parents' lunch.
Does that sound brutal and not the sort of thing you would like was happening in the world? Nature is brutal. Is it ugly because of it? I don't think so.
Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow, you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history. 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.
Would you call that the work of a caring designer? Some design!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2011,17:24)
It is the blind watchmaker, not a designer in the human sense, but a bizarre kind of designer that just tries out whatever varieties of a species arise against the challenges of the environment, which is the factor that allows them to pass on their genes or not.
Designer?
After you just laughed at the nature commentators? But my point is WHY? Why does this non-intelligent “designer” keep trying different things to see which ones WORK? Get it? Why does “natural selection” want things to WORK in the first place? Where did “natural selection” get its “drive to survive”? Why doesn't natural selection just leave things alone as they were? Why should it want things to evolve into more complex and more “survivable” beings?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 15 2011,17:24)
Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow, you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history. 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.
Yet we only have found remains of what?………000000001% of all these species that have supposedly gone extinct? Where are all the missing links? Where are the presumably billions of different beings involved in the move from sea to land? Where's the fossil of, not only the ONE creature that has both gills and legs, but the millions of others who were the “in between” beings?Where are the millions of “in between” beings in the movement from land to air?
And why aren't there many more of similar beings? Like maybe a hippo, but with a couple of feathers? Or maybe one with an elephant's trunk? Or some minuscule difference that makes it not exactly the hippo we all know, but a VERY CLOSE approximation of the hippo we all know?
Do you suppose that the hippo that natural selection “designed” with six toenails instead of five was enough of a “loser” that they all died out, and only the five-toed variety exists?
Do you see what I'm saying? Where are all the “in betweens” and our “cousins” who are so closely related to us that they too should have survived, but didn't?
But more importantly to me, WHY? Why the traits that allowed species to SURVIVE the ones that were handed down? Let's say there was a certain trait that didn't allow a species to survive in less than 70 degrees F. Why would that trait not have been handed down from species to species until everything on earth just died during a mild chill?
mike
ps I have just read your signature. I don't know how long you had that signature, or the tile, but I can honestly say I have no clue about the tile.
mikeboll64
Quote Designer? After you just laughed at the nature commentators?
Because natural selection gives the illusion of doing design, but it is not actually a designer. I thought that might have been obvious given that I was addressing the point directly!Quote But my point is WHY? Why does this non-intelligent “designer” keep trying different things to see which ones WORK? Get it? Why does “natural selection” want things to WORK in the first place? Where did “natural selection” get its “drive to survive”? Why doesn't natural selection just leave things alone as they were? Why should it want things to evolve into more complex and more “survivable” beings?
Now you are doing it!Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow, you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history. 99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.
Quote Yet we only have found remains of what?………000000001% of all these species that have supposedly gone extinct?
And the ones that didn’t but gave rise to descendants and descendant species. You’re right, fossils are rare.Quote Where are all the missing links?
What is a “missing link”? I am not saying I have never heard of this term, you understand, but I need to know what you think it means before I can give you a relevant answer.Quote Where are the presumably billions of different beings involved in the move from sea to land?
Almost certainly not billions, depending on what species you mean. What species do you mean?Quote Where's the fossil of, not only the ONE creature that has both gills and legs, but the millions of others who were the “in between” beings? Where are the millions of “in between” beings in the movement from land to air?
Can’t you find this information out for yourself? Why do you need me to explain it?Quote And why aren't there many more of similar beings? Like maybe a hippo, but with a couple of feathers? Or maybe one with an elephant's trunk? Or some minuscule difference that makes it not exactly the hippo we all know, but a VERY CLOSE approximation of the hippo we all know?
How miniscule do you think differences can be before you can’t call them different species? In the case of sexually reproducing animals there is an answer to that. Notwithstanding rare cases of hybridisation, if they can mate then they are the same species.Why do you think the closest cousins of some species, notably humans, have all gone extinct, while other types of animals, like finches say, exist in a myriad of closely related but nevertheless distinct species? Have a think about that, it is an interesting question!
Quote Do you suppose that the hippo that natural selection “designed” with six toenails instead of five was enough of a “loser” that they all died out, and only the five-toed variety exists?
No, I don’t suppose that.Quote Do you see what I'm saying? Where are all the “in betweens” and our “cousins” who are so closely related to us that they too should have survived, but didn't?
Homo floresiensis died out about 12,000 years ago. Homo neanderthalensis was gone by about 30,000 years ago. While Homo erectus mostly disappeared around 400,000 years ago. Homo erectus soloensis survived until about 50,000 years ago.Sadly our history as Homo sapiens is that we drive other species to extinction relatively quickly. We have done that over and over for many tens of thousands of years.
Quote But more importantly to me, WHY? Why the traits that allowed species to SURVIVE the ones that were handed down?
Now, just stop and think about that for 30 seconds and perhaps the reason will dawn on you. If it doesn’t, feel free to ask again.Quote Let's say there was a certain trait that didn't allow a species to survive in less than 70 degrees F. Why would that trait not have been handed down from species to species until everything on earth just died during a mild chill?
Have you figured it out yet? The clue, if you need it, is that it is success at both survival and reproduction that are selected.Stuart
I got the tile a long time ago. Nick gave it to me and made some excuse that really did not seem to match the rules or the breach of any reasonable ethical standard that I could fathom.
I'll remove the “unexplained” bit just to demonstrate that I don't hold grudges for too long…
…only a few years
Thanks for asking!
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02) mikeboll64 Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow,
you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history.
99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.Stuart
Hi Stuart,How many different “Species” of Human are there?
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:04) I got the tile a long time ago. Nick gave it to me and made some excuse that really did not seem to match the rules or the breach of any reasonable ethical standard that I could fathom. I'll remove the “unexplained” bit just to demonstrate that I don't hold grudges for too long…
…only a few years
Thanks for asking!
Stuart
Hi Stuart,only a few years…
God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 17 2011,18:09) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02) mikeboll64 Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow,
you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history.
99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.Stuart
Hi Stuart,How many different “Species” of Human are there?
One. Why do you ask?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,19:02) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 17 2011,18:09) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02) mikeboll64 Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow,
you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history.
99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.Stuart
Hi Stuart,How many different “Species” of Human are there?
One. Why do you ask?Stuart
Hi Stuart,That's what I thought. But in your quote,
it looks like you are implying there are many?
Perhaps you can explain this noted discrepancy?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.orgQuote (Ed J @ Feb. 17 2011,22:12) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,19:02) Quote (Ed J @ Feb. 17 2011,18:09) Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02) mikeboll64 Regarding whether it would matter if every living thing died tomorrow,
you are a very small percentage away from what has actually happened in history.
99% of all species that ever lived have gone extinct, including many species of human.Stuart
Hi Stuart,How many different “Species” of Human are there?
One. Why do you ask?Stuart
Hi Stuart,That's what I thought. But in your quote,
it looks like you are implying there are many?
Perhaps you can explain this noted discrepancy?God bless
Ed J (Joshua 22:34)
http://www.holycitybiblecode.org
Did you note my use of the past tense earlier?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02)
What is a “missing link”? I am not saying I have never heard of this term, you understand, but I need to know what you think it means before I can give you a relevant answer.
Hi Stu,I guess I'm wondering why we haven't found the “in between” fossils. I saw a program once where they thought they found a fossil of a land animal with the beginnings of forming wings. But nothing really proved conclusive after the preliminary testing. In fact, the general consensus was that it was a relative of the flying squirrel, as I remember.
I just thought that by now we would have had a thousand fossils or remains that showed the multiple stages between land animals and flying animals. And between water creatures and land creatures. Sort of like “stepping stones” to show the stages of development from one to the other.
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 17 2011,15:02)
Now, just stop and think about that for 30 seconds and perhaps the reason will dawn on you. If it doesn’t, feel free to ask again.
DOH!
Okay, let me elaborate. Mankind has lived in extreme cold conditions for, according to you, hundreds of thousands of years. Natural selection has “provided” fur for animals who live where it's cold……….why not mankind? Why do Eskimo men not have fur like that of a polar bear?But more to the point of what I was asking is: Why DO polar bears have fur? The general consensus is that natural selection “gives” fur to those in colder climates. The colder the temperature, the more insulated their bodies. Why? Is fur a “fluke” that just happened to allow many species to survive? Fur……………hmmmm…….fish don't have it. Trees don't have it. Reptiles don't have it.
What a “lucky break” that genes just happened to mutate and somehow produce fur, of all things.
mike
mike
Quote I guess I'm wondering why we haven't found the “in between” fossils. I saw a program once where they thought they found a fossil of a land animal with the beginnings of forming wings. But nothing really proved conclusive after the preliminary testing. In fact, the general consensus was that it was a relative of the flying squirrel, as I remember. I just thought that by now we would have had a thousand fossils or remains that showed the multiple stages between land animals and flying animals. And between water creatures and land creatures. Sort of like “stepping stones” to show the stages of development from one to the other.
Well there are some lines that are really quite well defined, and others that are really poor. Chimpanzee evolution is not well documented and human ancestry from 5 million years ago is a bit sparse too. One reason for that is forests do not provide a good environment for fossil formation.Here is a list of transitional forms between reptile-like ancestors and mammals:
* Paleothyris
* Protoclepsydrops haplous
* Clepsydrops
* Archaeothyris
* Varanops
* Haptodus
* Dimetrodon
* Sphenacodon
* Biarmosuchia
* Procynosuchus
* Dvinia
* Thrinaxodon
* Cynognathus
* Diademodon
* Probelesodon
* Probainognathus
* Exaeretodon
* Oligokyphus
* Kayentatherium
* Pachygenelus
* Diarthrognathus
* Adelobasileus cromptoni
* Sinoconodon
* Kuehneotherium
* Morganucodon — a transition between “mammal-like reptiles” and “true mammals”.
* Eozostrodon
* Morganucodon
* Haldanodon
* Peramus
* Endotherium
* Kielantherium
* Aegialodon
* Steropodon galmani
* Vincelestes neuquenianus
* Pariadens kirklandi
* Kennalestes
* Asioryctes
* Cimolestes
* Procerberus
* Gypsonictops
Of course somewhere near the bottom of that list you can add Homo sapiens as a transitional form too! It is important to realise that not all of these are necessarily ancestor species, they could be only closely related species that went to extinction. It doesn’t matter that much (except maybe for completists!) because you know at least what the ancestor species was approximately like even if we have not yet found, or definitively identified a fossil of it.Fossils can tell you how genes expressed themselves morphologically so are important for tracing adaptive changes but you do not need any fossils to demonstrate the common ancestry of all living things, which can be done entirely on molecular evidence. The lines of descent with modification must exist if you can have molecular evidence of common descent. Finding the actual remains of the animals themselves is a more haphazard thing.
Quote Okay, let me elaborate. Mankind has lived in extreme cold conditions for, according to you, hundreds of thousands of years. Natural selection has “provided” fur for animals who live where it's cold……….why not mankind? Why do Eskimo men not have fur like that of a polar bear?
And actually things have gone in exactly the opposite direction! It is almost certainly that humans have become relatively hairless because of sexual selection: it is easy to see that a potential mate is not covered in parasites if he is not hairy. We have brains that can work out the technology required to make up for the lack of insulating hair, for example wearing animal skins or angora sweaters. Hair is an interesting example because as I remember it we have the same numbers of follicles as other great apes but most of them just produce short fine hairs instead of the long thick ones our distant ancestors had. The reflex that erects the hair, “goose bumps”, still operates in humans even though there is little point in erecting the kinds of hairs we have.Quote But more to the point of what I was asking is: Why DO polar bears have fur? The general consensus is that natural selection “gives” fur to those in colder climates. The colder the temperature, the more insulated their bodies. Why? Is fur a “fluke” that just happened to allow many species to survive? Fur……………hmmmm…….fish don't have it. Trees don't have it. Reptiles don't have it. What a “lucky break” that genes just happened to mutate and somehow produce fur, of all things.
Fish and reptiles have scales, and there is a close relationship between the genes that produce scales and those which make hair and teeth in mammals. As our last common ancestor with trees lived a very long time ago you might not expect it to have lived after the adaptation of genes to making anything like scales or fur.So, why do polar bears have fur might be almost the same question as why do reptiles have scales, which could be the same question that could be asked about some similar adaptation of reptiles when compared with their ancestors in turn. Taking that sequence to any kind of conclusion could take a long while and would test my biology well beyond its breaking strain!
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
