Oh Good, for a while there we sounded confused. My point was exactly that. But you're missing a key point, bacteria did not have the ability to metabolize citrate. You're ignoring that completely new structures developed in the cell to make the process possible, apparently because you just don't like the implication. You don't get to ignore the creation of new information just because you don't like it. Especially since it seems to be the key point you're missing about evolution, that such small changes are indeed dramatic and require new information to have been synthesized out of thin air. And if they can happen once, a long slow cycle of changes can build up over time.

You continue to conflate abiogenesis (the beginning of life) with evolution (the development of life), and you seem to do it in places that only serve to help your argument. This leads to fairly deep misunderstand about the requirements and processes of evolution because everytime I point out something you try a "NO TRUE SCOTTSMAN!" fallacy. So this conversation isn't getting very far.

Last try: Your claim was 'evolutionary processes CANNOT create new information'. Or more specifically it was: 'Random bit flips + filter can't create new information'.

My response: So we have some examples here where NEW information and functions developed using so-called impossible evolutionary processes. You're reply: "But but, that's because we looked for it!" This a typical 'moving the goalposts' defense, and makes you look dishonest. Regardless of who put the filter in place or why, random bit flips + filter made completely new and previously unknown information/organization/structure. Full Stop. Don't bring up abiogenesis or any thing else on this point simply because you don't like the conclusion.

Ultimately you've already acknowledging the process CAN create information. You've also acknowledge in previous responses to others that the environment qualifies as a filter, and mutations qualify as random bit flips. My contention is that you've already acknowledged evolution and are either trolling or have such irrational resistance to the word 'evolution' that you cannot think clearly.

Well, according to your definitions (which are quite silly), here's something from your so-called 'nothing': Bacteria Evolve New Ability The information was not there one day, and there the next. You might even say a number of small minor changes built up into something more complex later.

Really? You're going to call millions of molecules a nothing/null to serve your argument?

*sigh* That's what I said. Also look up Maxwell's demon, seriously.

Why on earth would you assume we're the only possible result of evolution. If you're going to jump to conclusions, at least be reasonable and say evolution could be looking for something alive. There are one or two examples that aren't humans.

Why sure, here we found an entirely new way to use an FPGA, look here. The original paper is sourced in the reference section. The telling part is that the ultimate implementation was beyond the understanding of the experimenter. How could he be the source of the information if he didn't have it in the first place? Sure he had an idea how to test for what he was looking for but that doesn't mean he knew all the structures possible to use. In the original paper (it's not listed on the TO website unfortunately, but the paper is cited and published for reading) there were temperature sensitive effects that were not anticipated and not looked for as well, but existed in the final output.

Finally see the inset here Keane and Brown 1996 It's also a cited published paper. The Algorithm was designed to look for structures that fit criteria like stronger, flexible, etc. The result looks curiously like a biological bone structure and would probably be closer, but in 1996 computing power was tough to come by, so low number of iterations. That structure was not planned or built in. Like it or not, information CAN and DOES appear out of your theoretical "no-where", but it's not free and doesn't violate entropy.

You seem to be hung up on the creation of information/violation of entropy. Never fear, the creation of this information does cost energy, and lots of it, entropy is still preserved.

Your faith is misplaced. Human memory is significantly better than random chance and guessing, but it's a far cry less reliable than say... ANYTHING ELSE. So much so, In fact, that in criminal cases the ones concluded on memory alone (eye-witness testimony) are the most often overturned. Memory is so unreliable that airplane pilots of various stripes must use a checklist to start/fly/land their plane correctly and safely. When pilots realized the unreliability of their memory, the incidents of accidents and pilot error went down dramatically. In fact a large number of complex operations rely on checklists to complete because of the unreliability of our memory. Better to rely on more permanent and reliable mediums like say, the written word, video, etc.

Firstly, starting with nothing is a false requirement, starting points are not addressed by evolution (in particular starting at null). Once you have started something, you can get all kinds of stuff out. Secondly, your definition of filter needs work. Filters don't always only remove information, sometimes they just move it around. Ultimately you should think of the selection part of evolution not like a filter, but more like an informational version of Maxwell's demon. When a useful bit of information shows up, it's trapped. The more useful the information is the stronger the walls of the trap. Get past those points and you'll be OK.

If you're actually curious, google Genetic Algorithms. A large number of experiments have already been done similar to what you propose. Heck I even wrote one a while back to see if random mutations would converge to a solution, and they did. It wasn't complicated or sophisticated, but a set of numbers would converge on a solution.

LOL, don't worry, one of those stupid countries has the biggest guns, and an attitude.

You raise some good points. Here, try this article. Surprisingly it addresses the points in the summary quite well.

It wasn't done very well however. Every other shot the hobbits look like their different heights. Sometimes they look waist high, sometimes chest high. And the height conveyed in most perspective shots is very different than the height when they used the body double stand-ins (i.e. any shot where you can't see the actor's face). It's quite jarring once you notice it, and it gets worse every time.

Why should it? If you are not of society than you are at best a resource to be consumed, at worst, a blight to be purged. If you are a resource with perceived value society MIGHT attempt to preserve you (national parks, clean air, various natural wildlife, etc). If not, then society has no problem eliminating you entirely (like polio). Society has no need or desire to look after or 'leave alone' those that choose to live outside it. If you want to be left alone you'll likely need a standing army large enough to assert your own will. Or you might be able to move to some location remote enough that there will be no interaction between you and society.. but that means, no electricity (unless you build it yourself), no medicine, no emergency response, etc. Even those people tend to call the ranger station in emergencies so they not REALLY outside society. And if/when society shows up and wants it resources back... well, better have your army ready.

It amazes plenty of people INSIDE the US as well.

All true, but if there's only one thing one ever learns about writing it should be "Know your audience."

I was so saddened by the fact that NWN2 never took off the same way NWN1 did. All of the reasons you cite are true, but you also have to remember that NWN1 rose up before WoW. I remember a lot of people leaving our NWN1 server to play WoW. NWN2 grew up in a slightly different environment. Could it have been as successful with good support? Probably, but it didn't have the same competition as NWN1.

Alternatively, another wallet-vote is to buy Assassin's Creed I from GOG.com. DRM FREE!!! and supporting GOG is never a bad thing, plus it's a way to tell UBISOFT that you're willing to give them money when they stop being "random epithet".

That's a pretty slender percentage of the population to be calling "anyone", which was the Parent's point.

This should be useful to everyone. Don't we all know some stuck-up audiophile vinyl spinner that insists that they're somehow getting 'better/more/clearer' sound than CD's (or whatever their personal digital demon is). A little Nyquist and a boatload of calculus can put them in their place.

Tongue-in-cheek reply aside (mostly), what I'm getting at is what others in this thread have already pointed out. The underlying hows and whys matter for far more than we give credit for and they require math. Some pretty advanced math at that.

This is the best and most concise phrasing I've seen on this issue. Thanks, I'm using that one.