Evolution: Do you see the resemblence

[4Pillars]

How about if you just define what you mean by information? That wouldn't be "again," it would be "ever," since you haven't done this yet. Watch out, if I need to break out the big colored fonts to make it obvious that you're evading the question, believe me, I will. For example, do you mean information in the Shannon sense?

For your reading pleasure - excerpt from Casye Luskin Article... :yes:

A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”
By: Casey Luskin
Evolution News & Views
October 4, 2007

CSC - A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”

In September, 2007, I posted a link to a YouTube video where Richard Dawkins was asked to explain the origin of genetic information, according to Darwinism. I also posted a link to Dawkins’ rebuttal to the video, where he purports to explain the origin of genetic information according to Darwinian evolution. The question posed to Dawkins was, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” Dawkins famously commented that the question was “the kind of question only a creationist would ask . . .” Dawkins writes, “In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.” Dawkins’ highly emotional response calls into question whether he is capable of addressing this issue objectively. This will be a response assessing Dawkins’ answer to “The Information Challenge.”

Part 1: Specified Complexity Is the Measure of Biological Complexity.
Dawkins writes, “First you first have to explain the technical meaning of ‘information’.” While that sounds reasonable, Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as “Shannon information”—a formulation of “information” that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology.

It is common for Darwinists to define information as “Shannon information,” which is related to calculating the mere unlikelihood of a sequence of events. Under their definition, a functionless stretch of genetic junk might have the same amount “information” as a fully functional gene of the same sequence-length. ID-proponents don’t see this as a useful way of measuring biological information. ID-proponents define information as complex and specified information—DNA which is finely-tuned to do something. Stephen C. Meyer writes that ID-theorists use “(CSI) as a synonym for ‘specified complexity’ to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.” As the ISCID encyclopedia explains, “Unlike specified complexity, Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance.”

The Inconvenient Truth for Dawkins: The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not.

It is important to note ID proponents did not invent the notion of “specified complexity,” nor were they the first to observe that “specified complexity” is the best way to describe biological information. My first knowledge of the term being used comes from leading origin of life theorist Leslie Orgel, who used it in 1973 in a fashion that closely resembles the modern usage by ID proponents:

[L]iving organisms are distinguished by their specified complexity. Crystals are usually taken as the prototypes of simple, well-specified structures, because they consist of a very large number of identical molecules packed together in a uniform way. Lumps of granite or random mixtures of polymers are examples of structures which are complex but not specified. The crystals fail to qualify as living because they lack complexity; the mixtures of polymers fail to qualify because they lack specificity.​

(Leslie E. Orgel, The Origins of Life: Molecules and Natural Selection," pg.189 (Chapman & Hall: London, 1973).)​

Orgel thus captures the fact that specified complexity requires both order and a specific arrangement of parts or symbols. This matches the definition given by Dembski, where he defines specified complexity as an unlikely event that conforms to an independent pattern. This establishes that specified complexity is the appropriate measure of biological complexity.

Additionally, Richard Dawkins’ article admits that “DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome's capacity in bits too, if we wish.” That’s an interesting analogy, reminiscent of the design overtones of Dawkins concession elsewhere that “[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).) Of course, Dawkins believes that the processes of random mutation and unguided selection ultimately built “[t]he machine code of the genes” and made it “uncannily computer-like.” But I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence.

Part 2: Does Gene Duplication Increase Information Content?
In this section, I will show why merely citing gene duplication does not help one understand how Darwinian evolution can produce new genetic information. Dawkins’ main point in his "The Information Challenge" article is that “[n]ew genes arise through various kinds of duplication.” So his answer to the creationist question that so upset him is gene duplication. Yet during the actual gene-duplication process, a pre-existing gene is merely copied, and nothing truly new is generated. As Michael Egnor said in response to PZ Myers: “[G]ene duplication is, presumably, not to be taken too seriously. If you count copies as new information, you must have a hard time with plagiarism in your classes. All that the miscreant students would have to say is 'It's just like gene duplication. Plagiarism is new information- you said so on your blog!'”

Duplicating Genes Doesn't Increase Biological Information in Any Important Sense


I now have 2 questions to ask of Darwinists who claim that the mechanism of gene duplication explains how Darwinian evolutionary processes can increase the information content in the genome:

(1) Does gene duplication increase the information content?​

(2) Does gene duplication increase the information content?​

Asking the question twice obviously does not double the meaningful information conveyed by the question. How many times would the question have to be duplicated before the meaningful information conveyed by the list of duplicated questions is twice that of the original question? The answer is that the mere duplication of a sentence does NOT increase the complex and specified information content in any meaningful way. Imagine that a builder of houses has a blueprint to build a new house, but the blueprint does not contain enough information to build the house to the specifications that the builder desires. Could the builder obtain the needed additional information merely by photocopying the original blueprint? Of course not.

Continue...

 

[Autodidact]

O.K.. 4, it's time for the big colored fonts: DEFINE INFORMATION.

 

[4Pillars]

Continuation - Excerpt from......

A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”
By: Casey Luskin
Evolution News & Views
October 4, 2007


The Dangerous Road Faced by Duplicated Genes
If a duplicated gene cannot successfully traverse its random walk, it may die. As Lynch and Conery found, “the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years.” (Lynch & Conery, "The Evolutionary Fate and Consequence of Duplicate Genes," Science Vol. 290:1151-1155 (Nov 10, 2000).) Does Richard Dawkins give a step-by-step mutational account of how globin genes evolved from one another while remaining functional at all times, such that the duplicate copies were never “silenced,” terminating their evolution? Of course not. Dawkins has not demonstrated how Darwinian evolution can take a duplicated gene and evolve it into a new gene. The problem for Dawkins is that duplicating a gene may increase your amount of Shannon information, but it does not increase the amount of specified complexity in any non-trivial sense. To explain how one gene can turn into another, Dawkins must explain how new specified and complex information can enter the genome, and give a step-by-step mutational account of the origin of some gene via gene duplication. Dawkins has provided none of this.


To understand this point, consider the following sentence (with spaces removed):

METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH​

If we merely consider the Shannon information of the 33 letters (not counting spaces) in the sentence, then it has about 155 bits of Shannon Information. Now we duplicate it, like what happens in a gene duplication event:

METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCHMETHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH​

The amount of Shannon information has now doubled (~310 bits), but we have seen no non-trivial increase in the amount of specified complexity. Still, Dawkins thinks gene duplication is the answer, and that “t is by these, and similar means, that genome sizes can increase in evolution.”

The Shannon information in the doubled-string is twice the Shannon information in the shorter string if the shorter string does nothing to predict the sequence of the doubled-string. By granting this assumption, we are able to increase the Shannon information in the genome, even though this is a trivial informational increase that does not provide a meaningful increase in the specified complexity. The key questions are (a) what process is generating the new sequence, and (b) to what extent does that process predict the new sequence? In this sense, duplicating a gene would predict that the duplicate gene would be an identical copy of the original gene. From this standpoint, gene duplication actually does NOTHING to increase the Shannon information in the genome because you can predict the sequence of the new stretch of the DNA with a Probability of 1 (where Log (1) = 0), leading to an increase in the Shannon information of 0 bits. In this sense, the Shannon information in the doubled-string is not increased at all from the original, shorter string, as it remains 155 bits. Keep in mind that it is Dawkins who raised the issue of increasing Shannon information in the genome via gene duplication. Viewed in this fashion, Dawkins' claim that gene duplication can increase the Shannon information is even more dubious: if gene duplication predicts that you will have an identical copy of the original gene, then gene duplication not only fails to increase the specified and complex information, it also fails to increase the Shannon information in the genome.


But we aren’t trying to simply change the “genome siz[e],” and thereby change the Shannon information. We’re trying to construct something functionally new. Thus, imagine that one duplicate copy of the original sentence evolves into a new sentence of the same length:

BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT​

A Darwinian theorist would find that both sentences contain the word “Dawkins,” and thus share a 21% sequence identity. They would then infer that both sentences evolved from that common ancestor via Darwinian evolution. They would conclude that a duplicated version of the sentence “METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH” has evolved into “BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”.

David Swift explains that finding such similarities is not enough to justify the claim that Darwinian evolution has produced the observed pattern: “[F]or family trees to be credible, most if not all of the putative ancestral sequences must be functional; but this presents a major stumbling block in the production by divergence of proteins with different functions. To get from one set of conserved amino acids to another is either an unlikely big jump, or the intermediates must have biological activity; but the latter seems unlikely because it contradicts what we know about conserved amino acids.” (Pg. 166). Thus, in order for Darwinists to convince me that Darwinian evolution can produce new information, at minimum I need to see a step-by-step mutational account of how they can take the sentence:

“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”​

and evolve it into:

“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”​

by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution. Telling me that you can duplicate the sentence does NOT answer the question posed in the video, “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” As Michael Behe requested over ten years ago in Darwin's Black Box, what is required is a “detailed, scientific [explanation of] how mutation and natural selection could build” the sentence. (Behe, Darwin’s Black Box, pg. 176.)

Don’t Blame Natural Selection: It’s Just Acting upon What Mutations Provide

It’s worth noting that Dawkins finally claims that it is natural selection that “feeds information into gene pools” by selecting for mutations that help organisms survive. Thus, Dawkins would argue that the information in the environment is transferred into the genome of the organism. Fair enough. But Dawkins isn’t telling the most important part of this story. We all know that mutations must provide the raw fuel upon which natural selection can act. As Gilbert, Opitz, and Raff write:

The Modern Synthesis is a remarkable achievement. However, starting in the 1970s, many biologists began questioning its adequacy in explaining evolution. Genetics might be adequate for explaining microevolution, but microevolutionary changes in gene frequency were not seen as able to turn a reptile into a mammal or to convert a fish into an amphibian. Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest. As Goodwin (1995) points out, "the origin of species -- Darwin's problem -- remains unsolved.​

(Scott Gilbert, John Opitz, and Rudolf Raff (1996) "Resynthesizing Evolutionary and Developmental Biology," Developmental Biology 173, 1996, pg. 361.)​

Natural selection can (given the right population circumstances, etc.) preserve traits that confer a survival advantage, and it is very effective at weeding out traits that are disadvantageous. But natural selection can only act upon what mutations provide. Thus, we can’t account for the survival of particular mutations until we account for the arrival of particular mutations. We cannot account for the increase in information content of genomes until we consider how random mutations produce the raw fuel that natural selection can preserve.

My Information Challenge Reiterated:

So here is my “Information Challenge”: For the sake of the argument, I will grant that every stage of the evolutionary pathway I requested above will survive, and thus I’ll give natural selection every possible benefit of the doubt. What I need is a step-by-step mutation account of how one sentence evolved into the other wherein the sentence remains functional – i.e., it has comprehensible English meaning – at all stages of its evolution. In short, I request to see how:

“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”​

can evolve into:

“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”​

by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution. This seems like a reasonable request, as it is not highly different from what Darwinists are telling me can happen in nature.

How would Dawkins reply? Would he get angry and complain that this is “the kind of question only a creationist would ask”? Or would he dodge the question like he did in his “The Information Challenge” article? Personally, I’d like to see an answer to the question.

Part 3: Dawkins “Junk”-DNA Blunder.
Dawkins' article has other problems. He writes that “most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information.” This is another good example demonstrating how Neo-Darwinism led may scientists to wrongly believe that non-coding DNA was largely junk. Dawkins’ statement is directly refuted by the findings of recent studies, which the Washington Post reported that scientists have now found that “the vast majority of the 3 billion ‘letters’ of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” That strikes a fatal blow to Dawkins’ argument:

:yes:

 

[Autodidact]

The reason that 4pillars doesn't want to define the term that he's using is that as soon as he does, it can be shown that he's wrong. In any consistent definition of the term, mutations can certainly increase it. As long as he doesn't, he can point to any increase, any change, and say, "That's not new information," as he tried to do with the nylon bug. I ask you this, confused readers, if a new species that can eat a substance that never existed before can come into existence via mutations, then can't mutations create new information in any useful sense of the word?

Of course, I suppose it's possible that a lawyer with an M.S. in Earth Science knows more about genetics than one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, but it seems unlikely. Still, Einstein was a patent clerk, wasn't he?

 

[painted wolf]

apparently the lawers at DI have never heard of an additive mutation.

you know the one that adds a nucleotide to the sequence.

AATTGGCTGA becomes AATTGGCTGAT or some variation there of.

new information...

by the way I added a novel gene to a bacteria in the lab... it used the new information and glowed pretty green.

wa:do

 

[roli]

You are quite correct that the coccyx is not useless. You are not correct that it is therefore not vestigial. "Vestigial" does not mean useless. It means something that has lost most or all of its original function. Vestigial structures and organs are therefore more elaborate than they need to be. The coccygeal muscle doesn't need such an elaborate anchor as our tailbone.
Creationists have a strong talent for looking something right in the face and denying it's there. They have to; their worldview denies reality. Modern medicine knows that your coccygeal muscle anchors to your tailbone; it also knows that it's still a vestigial tailbone, and that our ancestors had a tail. Even wiki says: .
You need to stop plagiarizing from creationist website for two reasons:
(1) It's illegal and against forum rules.
(2) All creationist websites contain lies and inaccuracies. They have to. If you doubt me, I can easily prove this to you.

WoW ! your a piece of work.
No arrogance in your family , I think you got it all.
And of course all your references and resources are absolute.
You really take pride in the fact that you think you have all the answers.

 

[4Pillars]

The reason that 4pillars doesn't want to define the term that he's using is that as soon as he does, it can be shown that he's wrong. In any consistent definition of the term, mutations can certainly increase it. As long as he doesn't, he can point to any increase, any change, and say, "That's not new information," as he tried to do with the nylon bug. I ask you this, confused readers, if a new species that can eat a substance that never existed before can come into existence via mutations, then can't mutations create new information in any useful sense of the word?

Of course, I suppose it's possible that a lawyer with an M.S. in Earth Science knows more about genetics than one of the world's leading evolutionary biologists, but it seems unlikely. Still, Einstein was a patent clerk, wasn't he?

NEXT PLEASE!!!

 

[throwback]

Continuation - Excerpt from......

A Response to Dr. Dawkins’ “The Information Challenge”


The Dangerous Road Faced by Duplicated Genes
...In short, I request to see how:

“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”​

can evolve into:

“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”​

by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution. This seems like a reasonable request, as it is not highly different from what Darwinists are telling me can happen in nature.

How would Dawkins reply? Would he get angry and complain that this is “the kind of question only a creationist would ask”? Or would he dodge the question like he did in his “The Information Challenge” article? Personally, I’d like to see an answer to the question.

This "challenge" does nothing but show that the author suffers from a depressingly common misconception about the theory of evolution - namely, that it has a direction, or a goal. It has neither - simply, if a mutation works, it works, and if it doesn't, it doesn't. In other words, there's no need to show how one functional sentence can change to another specific sentence, but just to show that it can change to any new, functional sentence.

METHINKS DAWKINS DOTH PROTEST TOO MUCH
Insertion:
METHINKS DAWKINS DOTH PROD TEST TOO MUCH
Point mutation:
METHINKS DAWKINS DOTH PROD TESS TOO MUCH
Point mutation:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DOTH PROD TESS TOO MUCH
Transposition:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DOTH DROP TESS TOO MUCH
Transposition:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DOTH DROP SETS TOO MUCH
Insertion:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DOTH DROP SEATS TOO MUCH
Deletion:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DROPS EATS TOO MUCH
Deletion:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DROPS EATS TO MUCH
Insertion:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DROPS EATS TO MUNCH
Insertion:
HE THINKS DAWKINS DROPS MEATS TO MUNCH
Point mutation:
HE THINKS HAWKINS DROPS MEATS TO MUNCH
Deletion:
HE THINKS HAWK DROPS MEATS TO MUNCH
Transposition:
HE THINKS HAWKS DROP MEATS TO MUNCH


I could keep going on, but I'm sure you get my point. Do all these mutations constitute a "loss of information"?

 

[Autodidact]

WoW ! your a piece of work.
No arrogance in your family , I think you got it all.
And of course all your references and resources are absolute.
You really take pride in the fact that you think you have all the answers.

Thank you, I do my best.

 

[Autodidact]

NEXT PLEASE!!!

4 pillars needs people who are not going to ask them to define his terms. Any takers?

Define "information".

 

[Autodidact]

Am I the only one who finds it odd that 4pillars is absolutely certain that mutations cannot add new information, but he doesn't know what "information" means?

 

[Azakel]

4 pillars needs people who are not going to ask them to define his terms. Any takers?

Define "information".

If I where to guess what are friend 4 meant be information I would guess it was, "Anything I agree with to be true". Or I'm a just confused now.

Am I the only one who finds it odd that 4pillars is absolutely certain that mutations cannot add new information, but he doesn't know what "information" means?

No, I don't know that much still about ll this, but from reading what everyone has posted and the links, and it makes sense that mutations would work that way.

 

[Aasimar]

I've been following this thread for awhile now and it's been extremely well presented, probably the most informative a fruitful evolution debate I've seen in a very long time, but I am going to have to request, as Autodidact does that somebody please define INFORMATION. This is getting ridiculous, are you simply dodging questions which make you uncomfortable? This is a very important point, you can't have definitions that change you your every whim.

 

[camanintx]

The reason that 4pillars doesn't want to define the term that he's using is that as soon as he does, it can be shown that he's wrong.

I also notice he neglected to answer my questions about repeated sequences and frame shifting. If DNA has two repeated sequences that express the same proteins, and one of them mutates through frame shifting so that it expresses different proteins, how is that not adding information?

 

[Autodidact]

re: "information". I think what's under 4 pillars' claim, (although it's hard to be clear because he's so evasive) is this simple idea. If I write a message, it contains information--the ideas that the message conveys. O.K., now, if in writing, copying or transcribing it, some letters get omitted, duplicated, or switched, the original message will be changed. In a sense you could say that the information is degraded, if your standard is that original content. However, I would say that it is still possible that the new, garbled message, could contain new information. Here's an example of what I mean:
Original message: Please bring me a can.
Garbled message: Please bring me a zan. No meaning, no meaningful information in new, garbled message. This would be analogous to a neutral mutation, which is the most common kind.
Garbled message #2: Please bring me a pan.I think 4pillars would say that information has been lost, in that the original meaning is altered. However, the new message contains new information that can be understood. If it happens to turn out that a pan would be useful to me, this would be retained and reproduced next time. 4pillars says that, for some reason he doesn't explain, this cannot happen, but biologists tell us that it happens frequently.
Garbled message #3: Please bring me a man. Sorry for the lame example. Since this could be dangerous to attempt, you could see this as analogous to a harmful mutation. My message recipient probably would not repeat this attempt, nor would it be passed on to the next person attempting my project. It would die out in a single generation.

Next generation from example #2: Please bring me a pal. And so you see how the process could continue. Another possibility would be: Please bring me 2 pans. And so the message continues to get garbled as we go along.

These "mistakes" are unavoidable in any copying process. Just as medieval monks would make an error in manuscript copying, which error would be passed on to the next scribe, and scholars can track these errors to learn which schools copied from which other schools when, copying errors CAN indeed contain information which can be passed on.

 

[England my lionheart]

Is there a link between these 2 species ?

BEFORE​

AFTER

LOL love the post,i remember watching a tv programe about evolution about the remains of an apelike creature they called lucy which was thousanof years old.
Anyway to explain why she is a link in our evolution they proved that she could walk on her two feet,now i was'nt impressed as i have been to the safari park and all the apes are capable of walking on two legs so in this amount of time should'nt chimpanzees be playing for Real madrid,they would definatey make good goalies

 

[Autodidact]

So, on with the evidence, which for some reason does not seem to interest creationists much, even those who have repeatedly claimed that there isn't any. Next: The age of the earth. It's old.

Now, in a sense this is not direct evidence, since the earth could be 49 baquillion years old, and ToE could still be false. But it's important for two reasons:

1. It was a very important prediction that the ToE enabled scientists to make over 100 years ago, and which turned out to be right. When Darwin figured out ToE, other geologists (Christians and creationists every one) were just figuring out that the earth was much older than they had thought. Various lines of evidence: tidal lines, sedimentary formations, etc. etc. were causing them to realize that the world was much older than 6000 years, but they were having a very hard time figuring out how old. It's not like rocks come with dates on them--at least, they didn't back then. So they were measuring everything they could think of to figure it out: the quantity of salt in the ocean, the number of laminated sedimentary layers, etc. etc. And they were definitely getting past the millions, but couldn't pin it down.

Because evolution is such a slow, gradual process, and because we have so many complex species, as well as so many extinct species, early evolutionists knew that for ToE to be true, the earth would have to be very old indeed, more than millions of years--billions. Which was staggering to the scientists of the day. One of the world's leading scientists, Lord Kelvin, thought to measure the temperature of the earth and calculate the rate at which it was cooling, and came up with, AFAICR, 100 million years. (not Googling here, working from memory.) And his calculation was correct. Darwin and his allies knew that was not long enough. If Kelvin was right, then he was wrong.

But there was an important piece of information that Kelvin didn't have, because it hadn't been discovered yet: radioactivity. Because the earth is radioactive, it has an internal source of heat that slowed down the cooling process. So the physicists figured out that Kelvin was mistaken, because his assumption was incorrect.

Fortunately, it turned out that radioactivity actually functions as a kind of clock, because it happens at a steady rate. So scientists had discovered a way to calculate the age of the earth, and now estimate it to be 4.56 billion years: enough time for ToE to work.

2. It is necessary for ToE to work. Unless the world turns out to be this old, ToE is not possible. There wouldn't be enough time to develop
all the complex species we see today.
It's a prediction confirmed, a necessary condition, and, with or without ToE, completely destroys YEC, which is why they do everything they can to undermine and discredit it. If someone tries to do that here, we can address it, but it would be a derail, so might want to make a new thread.

 

[Autodidact]

LOL love the post,i remember watching a tv programe about evolution about the remains of an apelike creature they called lucy which was thousanof years old.
Anyway to explain why she is a link in our evolution they proved that she could walk on her two feet,now i was'nt impressed as i have been to the safari park and all the apes are capable of walking on two legs so in this amount of time should'nt chimpanzees be playing for Real madrid,they would definatey make good goalies

Are you expecting us to take this post seriously?

 

[England my lionheart]

Are you expecting us to take this post seriously?

OK i agree with the mutations holding new information and the Toe be possible but it is still a theory and would have to be extemely slow as we and other species have come to a complete stop otherwise.

 

[Autodidact]

OK i agree with the mutations holding new information and the Toe be possible but it is still a theory and would have to be extemely slow as we and other species have come to a complete stop otherwise.

1. The word "theory", in science, means a complete explanation of a natural phenomenon, encompassing facts, laws, and predictions, such as atomic theory or cell theory. Thus, by saying that ToE is a "theory" in the scientific sense, it means it has passed the highest level of scientific verification and is now a foundation of an important area of scientific study.
2. It is extremely slow. That's very basic.