No, it depends on whatever definition you would like to impose to bullshit people.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:13 pm)IATIA Wrote: Of course it does. That is just an arbitrary decision on your part to avoid the inconsistency with your theory.

(October 25, 2011 at 9:41 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Please demonstrate how it would be defined as music then rather than arbitrarily defining any old sound as music. Thanks.

mu·sic (myzk) n.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.

1. A musical composition.
   
2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
   
3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.

4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.


mu·sic noun, often attributive \ˈmyü-zik\

1:

1. the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
   
2. vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

2:

1. an agreeable sound : euphony <her voice was music to my ears>
   
2. musical quality <the music of verse>

3: a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4: the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5: a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody — Eric Salzman>

(October 26, 2011 at 7:24 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: If all life on earth descended from a single common ancestor as Darwinian Theory asserts, then humans would be distant cousins of bacteria.

Yeah, distant. That's not understating it.

Quote: How? :-P

I don't know, maybe show how you came to that conclusion, if it doesn't involve another Creationist spoonfeeding it to you.

Quote:Can you show it is an increase in semantic genetic information since you seem to be asserting it is?

That's not how it works, buddy. You made an assertion. Back it up or admit that you are just saying it is a loss because you do not actually understand anything about genetics.

Quote:You can’t call the rendering of a structure as useless an increase in genetic information. If a person loses the ability to use their eyes we would not call this uphill selection even if they gained some benefit from it.

What structure, Stat? How do you know it was a structure rendered useless as opposed to an addition that rendered the structure useless? How do you know it is less and not more. Plenty of blind people are born. I've never heard a Creationist says it was because evolution is real, it just takes away from people. Besides, Stat, no one has said evolution is perfect, but you claim your god is. Why is it then that he makes some people blind?

(October 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm)Rhythm Wrote: No, it depends on whatever definition you would like to impose to bullshit people.

Functional genetic information is a form of semantic information. So I am not imposing any arbitrary definition. You are committing equivocation by using the term information differently within the same point.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:30 pm)IATIA Wrote:

---

mu•sic (myzk) n.

1. The art of arranging sounds in time so as to produce a continuous, unified, and evocative composition, as through melody, harmony, rhythm, and timbre.
2. Vocal or instrumental sounds possessing a degree of melody, harmony, or rhythm.
3.

1. A musical composition.
   
2. The written or printed score for such a composition.
   
3. Such scores considered as a group: We keep our music in a stack near the piano.

4. A musical accompaniment.
5. A particular category or kind of music.
6. An aesthetically pleasing or harmonious sound or combination of sounds: the music of the wind in the pines.


mu•sic noun, often attributive \ˈmyü-zik\

1:

1. the science or art of ordering tones or sounds in succession, in combination, and in temporal relationships to produce a composition having unity and continuity
   
2. vocal, instrumental, or mechanical sounds having rhythm, melody, or harmony

2:

1. an agreeable sound : euphony <her voice was music to my ears>
   
2. musical quality <the music of verse>

3: a musical accompaniment <a play set to music>
4: the score of a musical composition set down on paper
5: a distinctive type or category of music <there is a music for everybody — Eric Salzman>

---

Well if you are using that definition then you’d have to say that the rain hitting my roof is producing music. That hardly seems like a proper comparison to human created music.

So human musicians don't use tracks of rain hitting the roof now eh? The actual definition doesn't suit your argument, it's hard to bullshit people with it, so you argue against it, round and round we go.

Animals make music in the same fashion humans make music. The only difference is that their only instrument is their voice.

Oh theyve been known to drum Shell.

(October 26, 2011 at 7:31 pm)Shell B Wrote: I don't know, maybe show how you came to that conclusion, if it doesn't involve another Creationist spoonfeeding it to you.

You posted an article spoon fed to you by evolutionists. No special pleading please.

Quote:
That's not how it works, buddy. You made an assertion. Back it up or admit that you are just saying it is a loss because you do not actually understand anything about genetics.

Quote: In mammals, the normal course of events is for the newborn to subsist on milk over the first few months of life, then be weaned and rarely if ever consume milk again. It thus makes perfect sense that mammals have evolved a developmental pattern of small intestinal gene expression that promotes high level production of lactase early in life, followed by a turnoff of lactase expression around the time of weaning. This is indeed what happens in almost all mammals, including most humans.

http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pat...intol.html

This turnoff of the gene’s expression requires a genetic mechanism. Genetic expressions don’t just magically turn on and off. If the mechanism is damaged by a mutation, the turnoff will not take place completely or even at all resulting in lactose persistence.

Quote: What structure, Stat? How do you know it was a structure rendered useless as opposed to an addition that rendered the structure useless? How do you know it is less and not more. Plenty of blind people are born. I've never heard a Creationist says it was because evolution is real, it just takes away from people. Besides, Stat, no one has said evolution is perfect, but you claim your god is. Why is it then that he makes some people blind?

It doesn’t matter whether it is an addition or reduction that causes the mechanism to be useless. Adding Shannon information that results in a net loss of semantic information (the functional structure) is still a loss of genetic information because when we speak of genetic information we are speaking of semantic information, not Shannon information. I will give you an example…

“The dog is black.”
This sentence has a certain amount of semantic information because it has functional meaning.
Now if I add four bits of Shannon information (iiii) to the sentence…
“Tihe doig isi bilack.”
Even though I have increased the net amount of Shannon information (from 17 bits to 21 bits), the amount of semantic information was completely lost because the sentence has lost all functional meaning. So that’s what I mean when I say a loss in genetic information.

Part of the result of the fall was physical corruption, so we’d expect to see people born with particular disorders and hardships. This is one advantage creationism has over the ID movement, creationists have an explanation for corrupted designs, IDers struggle with it.

It was hosted by the Smithsonian, Stat. If you think you are smarter than professionals at the Smithsonian, there is no help for you. At any rate, your source does not say whether the turn off was caused by damage to the "mechanism" or if an extra mechanism is required to allow for lactose tolerance throughout life. It does matter. You stated that evolution results in loss of genetic information and that no genetic information is gained by it. Now, you are saying it doesn't matter if it is gained. This is pointless if you are not consistent.

Have you been reading "Signature in the Cell" Stat?