pappenheimer said
Quote:

I mentioned self-referential systems because I think that the vital dissension is more one of creation versus neg-entropy theories than one of a creation versus evolution theory.

Yes I think youve added a new dimension to this argument however I think if you look at self-referential systems you have to ask yourself: "referential to what?" or rather "what is the self?" I would believe that the whole universe is not a closed system but an open system---open to God.

Last time I was applying your patterns with random chance and the emergence of life. This is easily testable with a computer program, you can cause a line direction with a random direction and even with thousands of iterations you will never come up with patterns, only chaos.

jcl said:
Quote:

Seems a clear increase of the complexity to me. In case we can not agree on what complexity is: One definition of complexity of a system is the number of bits required for describing the system's properties.

I have the impression that you see everything deviating from God's plan of a species as 'information loss'. This is however a system of belief and not of science.



It is science when you realize that entropy would resist the build up of complexity. Therefore evolution goes agaisnt the second law of thermodynamics.

It is completely observable among rose breeders looking to produce species wich will bloom for longer periods. Adaptation tends to revert back to its original state.