Conquer Club

Evolution vs Creation-Comparing each View

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderator: Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Postby WidowMakers on Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:09 pm

Well Neoteny. I broke up your post into parts that way people could better follow my response.
Neoteny wrote:1)….Anyhow, I have already discussed thermodynamics sufficiently and your probability hypothesis is too painful for me to want to explain, though I suppose I could if anyone actually wants me to.

z
I must have missed it but I do not remember seeing you write anything on thermodynamics or probability. But in brief I still don't understand the argument.

Could you please explain how the issues below are NOT in violation of the laws of thermodynamics?.
    Beginning with the ā€œBig Bangā€ and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

    This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

    Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular ā€œcommunity membersā€ which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.


Now, onto your probability argument. Why is it too painful? And what do you mean by that? I have already posted some of the issues in the TL:DR post. Could you please show me numbers and evidence that supports a favorable condition that these complex things (Protein, DNA, enzymes, etc) would arise and the probability is NOT inconceivably small?

Neoteny wrote:2) On to the genetics, my favorite:

The fat cat ate the wee bat.
The fat rat ate the wee bat.

Oopzors… where did that information come from?

ā€œThe fat ate the wee rat,ā€ is also a complete sentence. It is only illogical because we associate fat with an inactive object. It is still conveying applicable information. Maybe in a world of sentences, shorter sentences that make sense would win out. So your ā€œfat ate the wee ratā€ would be successful and multiply and pass on its genes to the next generation. Thus, your mutation types argument is thus useless.


First let's look at information. Information is only good if there is a system to decode it. For instance I can randomly draw lines in the sand with a stick or make shapes on a piece of paper but it has no meaning to anyone else unless there is a frame of reference to understand it or decode it.

Since evolution requires that information randomly came into being, it also requires that information randomly was understandable by the very random pieces that made it up. And since information is not dependent on the medium in which it is written (The message: I like pizza has just as much meaning if it is written on paper, typed on a computer, sewn into a shirt, printed in binary, molded in clay…..) evolution must come up with where the methods of understanding the information evolved from.

Let's look at it another way. If DNA randomly formed, for it to be useful it would have, at the same time needed to randomly form in a manner in which it understood itself and could use those instructions (that randomly formed) to duplicate itself. Basically DNA had to randomly form into an information system and then decoder of the language at the same time.

Information is a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.…Information is not matter.

Here is an example of a scientific study that declare information coems from intelligence.
    Scientists with the SETI institute are using huge radio telescopes to search for messages from intelligent beings out in space. (The letters "SETI" mean Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.) They correctly state that intelligent messages are created only by intelligent beings. The first step in their search is to separate between static and message. So far all they have found is static, but if they find a message from space, they will have shown that there are intelligent beings out there somewhere. If exceptions existed, and intelligent messages could be sent out without any intelligence involved, their whole search would be meaningless.

Can someone please give an example or explanation as to how information/intelligent messages/decodable data can randomly happen without intelligence when it is clearly stated, by SETI, that intelligence is required.


Now I have a couple issues with your reasoning about the mutations.

Here is the example:
original=The fat cat ate the wee bat.
mutation=The fat rat ate the wee bat.

You state that the mutated sentence is still information but it is just illogical. Well my question to you is what good is illogical information? If I was to write you a letter and I put this sentence down, would you be able to understand it? No you would not. Not only was the initial information lost, but the new information does not make sense.

Two Examples
Here are some other examples. Take a cook book and a blueprint for a house.
Let's assume the cook book has 10 recipes and the blueprint is for a single story ranch home. Each one of these groups of information can be used to construct different things based on the "code" or instructions.

So let's take a look at what would happen if we changed a number or word in a cooking recipe. The amount of a particular ingredient could be changed, maybe the time that the food is cooked would be wrong. Has the recipe actually added any new useful information? No. All it has done is changed the initial information and replaced it with information that lowers the amount of value in the recipe.

Same thing with a house blueprint. If you randomly change the location or size of a board or wire, the house might not lose its function but it did lose information to properly be constructed.

If there were multiple copies of each of these cookbooks and blueprints and "mutations" happened to some of them, what would happen? Well first the mutations might not be enough to affect the outcome of the product based on the instructions. But eventually a cook book or blueprint would lose so much information by randomly changing letters and numbers, the data would not allow the cook or builder to make a proper meal or home. Those blue prints would then be thrown away (natural selection).

Natural selection (survival of the fittest, cooks choosing the best cook book and builders the best blue print) would eliminate the bad copies (harmful mutations) and the recipe/blueprint would be maintains with some level of information loss/change but still information to make a recipe that is useful.

This is how mutations and natural selection work in nature. Mutations happen upon a set of DNA and if the mutations are so bad the DNA produces organisms that cannot live into the environment, they will die and the copy will not be spread to the next generation.

But can these mutations actually add new information to the recipe to make an entirely new dish of food or add information to the blue prints to make a completely new house?

Mutations of the Two Examples
and Natural Selection of the Mutations
Lets take a very simple recipe (much less complex than anything we are talking about from a biological evolutionary perspective) Macaroni and Cheese.
Macaroni and Cheese
1-Boil 5 cups of water
2-Add 2 cups of macaroni
3-Boil for 7 minutes
4-Strain water from macaroni
5-add ½ stick of butter
6-add ½ cup milk
7-add cheese

This is a very simple set of instructions for macaroni and cheese (7 steps)
If we add mutations to these instructions what happens?
    -If we boil more water (10 cups) nothing really changes, we just boil more water and it takes longer.
    -If we boil less that 5 cups of water the macaroni might not be able to boil long enough (water boils off) and the macaroni would be tough and not tender. If the rest of the steps followed properly then we would just have tough macaroni.
    -What if we added to much or too little macaroni. The more we add, the less cheesy the mac would be compared to the original recipe. And the less mac we add, the cheesier the mac would be. Not really a big deal different some people may like more or less chesse anyway.
    -What if we lose the information to strain the water. The recipe would no longer b macaroni and cheese but mac and cheese soup. Yuk.
    -And for the last step. What if the recipe mutated and asked the cook to add cheepe. Well there is no such thing as cheepe. So nothing would be added. Now we get soupy hot wet macaroni with no cheese.

As you can see slight mutations into the recipe can provide a wide variety of dishes all based on the basic mac and cheese. Depending on whether or not the recipes was like or disliked by certain people would determine how long it was used. If a certain recipe was not like it would not be copied and eventually be lost. (Again this is natural selection).

But what we see here is that these mutations are not creating any new types of food. The basic ingredients do not change. Only the amount and the order can vary.

This illustration above works for a blue print too. But a blueprint is much more complex. Remember the blue print is not intelligent it is just the source of the information that the builder uses. As dimensions, specs and requirements mutate (change), the plans become less complete. Randomly changing data in a mac and cheese recipe might not produce horrible deadly food, but even a small change in a blue print for a house could cause the whole thing to collapse (wrong nails, smaller boards, and improper connections).
But let's assume the mutations do not destroy the house. The color of the paint, the type of carpet, location of the light switch, maybe the direction the doors swing and various other aspects might change. Again this is not a new type of home but a variety of homes built around the basic same set of instructions.

Do Natural selection and mutations allow for an increase in the number/type/style of recipes or homes?
If we now look at the recipe for macaroni and cheese, what mutations could happen to form a different dish of food? Randomly adding or subtractive letters or numbers from this recipe MAY EVENTUALLY add a new, understandable item to the recipe but it will only be passed on by natural selection (i.e. the cook likes the recipe and keeps it for future use) if the recipe is good.

What if we randomly add 3 letters into the recipe? Or maybe numbers? A new step?

How long would it take to get spaghetti from macaroni and cheese?
-They both boil water-X
-They both use pasta-X
-Different pasta-mutation required
-they both strain the pasta-X
-One recipe calls for milk, butter, and cheese while the other uses tomato based sauce and meat-mutation required

Well one might look at that and say "only two little mutations" that is easy. But in real life these mutations would need to happen in full to be kept by the cook.

If macaroni and cheese mutated recipe called for, inoracam fo spuc 2 (inversion mutation for 2 cups of macaroni) the cook would not understand the recipe and the food would not be good. This mutated recipe would then be through away (natural selection deleting the unusable things) and the mutation would be gone.

If anyone can show me how you could:
    -take a short story, small simple recipe or dog house plans.
    -Randomly change numbers, text or words. (Added mutations)
    -After each mutation, read the data and use it. If the outcome is desirable (the information still allows for the final product to function or be used), keep the mutated instructions; if not then throw it away. (Natural selection again)
    -Increase the final information (remember, Information is a message that conveys meaning, so random letters are not information)
    -Produce: novels, textbooks, and magazines that is understandable and cover a variety of topics; a large number of recipes for many dishes varying in style, type and ingredients and blue print for a mansion, condominium, skyscraper and shopping mall.
    -The items listed above must be completely new and original. Since the theory of evolution states that there is no guide and no determined outcome, these new items should not be influenced by anything already created. (i.e. Don't show me how William Shakespeare's writings can be "randomly" generated. That type of random generation has a predetermined out come or desired design.

If anyone can do this, I will believe in evolution.
And I am actually given you more to work with than evolution would. We already have a system of information. I am asking for evolution of a new original work within that system from random mutations.

However evolution claims, as I have stated before, the system originated at the same time the information for the system originated.

Neoteny wrote:3) Your mutations are random argument confuses me. You don’t use randomness at all but instead bring up chemical resistance. Anyway, of course the resistance was in the population already. If it wasn’t, all the lice would die. Instead the mutation already happened. Mutations, like you said, are not guided by anything, including chemicals. Lice don’t say, ā€œhey there’s this bad chemical, let me mutate.ā€ It’s more like, ā€œwhere did all my friends go?ā€ The mutation occurred beforehand. Your argument doesn’t lead any credibility toward creationism or against evolution.


I agree that the lice do not say ā€œhey there’s this bad chemical, let me mutate.ā€ but then how are some resistant.

There are two ways of looking at it
1) They always had the resistance.
2) They mutated a resistance to the chemical before the chemical was around.

But if natural selection is used to preserve useful information, why would the lice have kept a mutated set of instructions to protect themselves from chemicals, if those chemicals did not exist yet? One could say that those instructions were passed along with other genes that were favorable and so the (at the time) useless resistance gene, eventually was useful.

So I agree with you, neither way can prove either evolution or creation.

Neoteny wrote:4) You go on to bring up your information hypothesis again, which I’ve already touched on above. The key fault to your argument is that you are assuming that everything is happening by chance. You have mentioned it several times. That is not true. Mutations happen by ā€œchance.ā€ Evolution does not. If your book were subjected to natural selection, all your mutations that caused any loss of information would die and not reproduce. However, books that had mutations like my fat rat/wee bat mutations would be successful and propagate. These could lead to maintenance of information, or even (gasp) addition of information.


I already touched on this above

Neoteny wrote:5) ā€œEnvironmental exposure does not cause mutations.ā€
I like this statement a lot. I don’t see your reasoning for putting it in and it doesn’t make any sense. I myself have caused mutations in yeast by altering environmental conditions. UV light is a known mutagen. Ethidium bromide is a known mutagen. Environmental exposure does cause mutations. What the hell are you talking about? Seriously?


All I have to say here is MY BAD. I know what I meant to say I just did not explain it clearly.

When I wrote that sentence, I was thinking over the previous paragraphs. Those explained how environmental conditions do not determine the type of mutation that occurs. For example a polar bear does not get a mutation for thick hair because it is cold or a giraffe a mutation for a long neck because food is high in a tree.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... 0_0/evo_32
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... tations_07
This is straight from Berkleyā€s evolution page.
    Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs."

So this is what I should have said:
Environmental exposure does determine the direction of mutation and whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.

Again, I am sorry. I will update the error in my previous post.

Neoteny wrote:6) Moving on, natural selection is not random. You are missing the point. Mutation is random. A bird eating a green beetle is not. You are wrong again in saying natural selection should be adding information. That is mutation’s job. Natural selection selects for or against a mutation.


Again I agree. Could you please show me where this was written so I can edit it?
It was never my intention to explain Natural selection this way. Thanks

Neoteny wrote:7) Mutation has never been beneficial? You silly person you. Once again, I have performed experiments to that nature. Take a bunch of E. coli that will not grow on ampicillin and expose them to UV light. Try to grow some colonies on ampicillin agar and voila, if you do it enough, you will grow colonies. I didn’t check any of your sources but they are clearly wrong. It’s really hilarious when people tell me that things that I’ve done are impossible. Also, for a current experiment I am working on, I have isolated several mutated yeast strains that grow brown on an iron medium. Some do grow slower but at least one does not show any signs of weakness and tends to act just like wild-type yeast. So even if the mutations aren’t beneficial, they are not always harmful. The slow growth issue is probably a completely separate mutation from the brown coloring. You are wrong again.

As far as your ā€œeach gene affects everythingā€ statement goes, most genes have multiple effects, but they definitely don’t affect everything and not all genes have multiple effects.


I can see how you interpreted what I said that way. If you look through what I types you will see that I am referring to the overall state of the organism. When mutations occur the mutation may be beneficial in the short term but the overall aspect of the organism is compromised. As stated above, mutations cause a loss of original information. This is known as genetic load.

Look at sickle cell anemia. It is a mutation that affects the blood hemoglobin and as a result is more resistant to malaria. At first you could say that this is a benefit. But the overall genetic load of the human is higher. If sickle cell anemia is such a good mutation, do you want it? Of course not. Here are some of the side effects of this mutation: acute attacks of abdominal and joint pain, ulcers on the legs, defective red blood cells, and severe anemia -- often leading to death. Do those sound good?

Sickle cell anemia might help out with malaria but not with the overall organism.
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby WidowMakers on Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:13 pm

Bavarian Raven wrote:...a little side note off topic here but did anyone else see how worried some members were of the church when they released the golden compass movie? quotation: "a parent could take their kid to the movie with little harm. But they might go too far and buy their kids the book set for christmas and expose them to the horrors of atheism."

sounds they the church is worried the kids might start thinking for themselves :roll:
I have heard this as well. I plan on seeing it sometime. The movie looks cool and I don't really care what the message is. I have a brain and if I feel the story contradicts what I believe I can make my own judgments.

Everyone said the Da vinci code was a bad movie for Christians to see and I loved that movie. It all depends on how you want to look at it.

WM
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby hrryflashman on Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:16 pm

what an absurd thread.
User avatar
Corporal hrryflashman
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2007 3:37 pm
Location: Thrashing Brown.

Postby Frigidus on Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:27 pm

Sorry if I'm intruding on the argument, but what is this grammatical metaphor trying to show? Call me thick but I just can't figure it out. :oops:
User avatar
Sergeant Frigidus
 
Posts: 1638
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:15 pm
Location: Illinois, USA

Postby Heimdall on Fri Dec 07, 2007 6:51 pm

WidowMakers wrote:The fat cat ate the wee bat.
The fat rat ate the wee bat.


WidowMakers wrote:Macaroni and Cheese
1-Boil 5 cups of water
2-Add 2 cups of macaroni
3-Boil for 7 minutes
4-Strain water from macaroni
5-add ½ stick of butter
6-add ½ cup milk
7-add cheese


Well good intentions in trying to dumb down science of evolution with 2nd grade grammar and a college student recipe but unfortunately these simple analogies can't hold in any scientific debate.


"1) Mutations commonly create new material by duplicating stretches of existing DNA. And as you yourself note, they also alter sequences, creating new information.

2) New organs can and do develop. For example, people have been born with extra fingers and/or toes. Most evolution of organs, however, doesn't add new organs, but gradually changes existing ones into something new.

3) The vast majority of mutations are neutral, not harmful. And since selection removes the harmful ones, the net effect is not harmful. Furthermore, mutations that are harmful in one environment may be beneficial in another.

4) DNA gets altered by mutations, so the fact that selection doesn't alter DNA is a non-issue. By choosing which organisms survive, natural selection alters the frequency of genetic traits in populations. And it is populations, not individuals, which evolve.

5) If there are barriers to microevolution, nobody has ever found any evidence of them. The fact that creationists can't provide a criterion for defining "kinds" strongly indicates that there are no barriers which determine kinds.

6) If you expect a fruit fly to turn into something radically different in just a few years, you oppose creationism, not evolution. (And were you aware that there are hundreds of species of fruit flies?) For an example of evolution on a greater scale, see Tjis Goldschmidt's book Darwin's Dreampond.

7) Real science does not lie because it is supported by observations of the actual world. It does not just make up whatever "facts" it wants."

8) For each successful mutation (i.e. a new species) there were thousands of unsuccessful mutations.
User avatar
Lieutenant Heimdall
 
Posts: 556
Joined: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:44 pm
Location: Vancouver!

Postby Snorri1234 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 7:40 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Well Neoteny. I broke up your post into parts that way people could better follow my response.
Neoteny wrote:1)….Anyhow, I have already discussed thermodynamics sufficiently and your probability hypothesis is too painful for me to want to explain, though I suppose I could if anyone actually wants me to.

z
I must have missed it but I do not remember seeing you write anything on thermodynamics or probability. But in brief I still don't understand the argument.

Could you please explain how the issues below are NOT in violation of the laws of thermodynamics?.
    Beginning with the ā€œBig Bangā€ and the self-formation and expansion of space and matter, the evolutionist scenario declares that every structure, system, and relationship—down to every atom, molecule, and beyond—is the result of a loosely-defined, spontaneous self-assembly process of increasing organization and complexity, and a direct contradiction (i.e., theorized violation) of the second law.

    This hypothesis is applied with the greatest fervor to the evolutionists’ speculations concerning biological life and its origin. The story goes that—again, in violation of the second law—within the midst of a certain population of spontaneously self-assembled molecules, a particularly vast and complex (but random) act of self-assembly took place, producing the first self-replicating molecule.

    Continuing to ignore the second law, this molecular phenomenon is said to have undergone multiple further random increases in complexity and organization, producing a unique combination of highly specialized and suitably matched molecular ā€œcommunity membersā€ which formed what we now know as the incredibly efficient, organized self-sustaining complex of integrated machinery called the cell.



Response:

1. The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

* the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
* entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
* even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

2. The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

3. Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

4. Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby Snorri1234 on Fri Dec 07, 2007 8:17 pm

WidowMakers wrote:
Neoteny wrote:2) On to the genetics, my favorite:

The fat cat ate the wee bat.
The fat rat ate the wee bat.

Oopzors… where did that information come from?

ā€œThe fat ate the wee rat,ā€ is also a complete sentence. It is only illogical because we associate fat with an inactive object. It is still conveying applicable information. Maybe in a world of sentences, shorter sentences that make sense would win out. So your ā€œfat ate the wee ratā€ would be successful and multiply and pass on its genes to the next generation. Thus, your mutation types argument is thus useless.


First let's look at information. Information is only good if there is a system to decode it. For instance I can randomly draw lines in the sand with a stick or make shapes on a piece of paper but it has no meaning to anyone else unless there is a frame of reference to understand it or decode it.

Since evolution requires that information randomly came into being, it also requires that information randomly was understandable by the very random pieces that made it up. And since information is not dependent on the medium in which it is written (The message: I like pizza has just as much meaning if it is written on paper, typed on a computer, sewn into a shirt, printed in binary, molded in clay…..) evolution must come up with where the methods of understanding the information evolved from.

Let's look at it another way. If DNA randomly formed, for it to be useful it would have, at the same time needed to randomly form in a manner in which it understood itself and could use those instructions (that randomly formed) to duplicate itself. Basically DNA had to randomly form into an information system and then decoder of the language at the same time.

Information is a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.…Information is not matter.

Here is an example of a scientific study that declare information coems from intelligence.
    Scientists with the SETI institute are using huge radio telescopes to search for messages from intelligent beings out in space. (The letters "SETI" mean Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence.) They correctly state that intelligent messages are created only by intelligent beings. The first step in their search is to separate between static and message. So far all they have found is static, but if they find a message from space, they will have shown that there are intelligent beings out there somewhere. If exceptions existed, and intelligent messages could be sent out without any intelligence involved, their whole search would be meaningless.

Can someone please give an example or explanation as to how information/intelligent messages/decodable data can randomly happen without intelligence when it is clearly stated, by SETI, that intelligence is required.




What you quite nicely missed here is the fact that information does not have to be complicated.
And seriously, you assert that information requires intelligence, but it quite frankly does not. Communication with another species would, however.

But anyway. You seem to think that DNA formed spontanously. But DNA also evolved. That is, there was some very basic and simple sort of DNA which functioned nothing like ours except that it replicated.
For a comparison look at the difference between: "Shall we go out and have dinner at that nice place were they serve good steak?" and "We. Eat. *point to animal*" They both convey the same basic message. I mean, I could dumb it down and make the whole sentence compromised of only pointing gestures, but I figure you could grasp this.

Also, SETI is not talking about evolution. They are talking about communication with extraterrestial lifeforms, something that involves communication.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby WidowMakers on Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:45 pm

Heimdall wrote:2) New organs can and do develop. For example, people have been born with extra fingers and/or toes. Most evolution of organs, however, doesn't add new organs, but gradually changes existing ones into something new.
Another finger is just duplicating an existing piece of genetic data. You say that new organs gradually form. Prove it. Show me evidence of gradual formation of organs.


8) For each successful mutation (i.e. a new species) there were thousands of unsuccessful mutations.
Everyone around here seems to call an organism a new species if they look different or have different mutated wings. Micro evolution (variation within a kind) does not turn bacteria into frogs into dogs into apes into people. It is easy to say it does in theory but NEVER has it been seen. Show me micro evolution where an organism is born or mutated into a higher level one. (chromosomal number change)
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby WidowMakers on Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:08 pm

Snorri1234 wrote:What you quite nicely missed here is the fact that information does not have to be complicated.
And seriously, you assert that information requires intelligence, but it quite frankly does not. Communication with another species would, however.
I never said information had to be complicated I said:

    Information is a message that conveys meaning, such as a book of instructions.

How can information randomly develop at the same time the meaning is developing without intelligence?

But anyway. You seem to think that DNA formed spontaneously. But DNA also evolved. That is, there was some very basic and simple sort of DNA which functioned nothing like ours except that it replicated.
For a comparison look at the difference between: "Shall we go out and have dinner at that nice place were they serve good steak?" and "We. Eat. *point to animal*" They both convey the same basic message. I mean, I could dumb it down and make the whole sentence compromised of only pointing gestures, but I figure you could grasp this.
But it is understandable because we know the meaning of the gestures. We have intelligence. Inanimate matter does not. Proteins, enzymes and DNA do not have brains.

Basically this is like randomly putting together legos to form the instructions on how to put legos together to form lego cars truck and buildings.

YOU NEED A MEANING FOR INFORMATION BEFORE THE INFORMATION MEANS ANYTHING. It can't happen at teh same time. Or am I wrong? and then please give me an example.

Also, SETI is not talking about evolution. They are talking about communication with extraterrestrial lifeforms, something that involves communication.
What I meant to say from the SETI perspective was that if DNA and genetic code randomly formed patterns and information why couldn't' radio waves? Remember information is not matter. It is not based on the medium that delivers it.

If SETI found patterned radio waves, there is no reason to think that they require intelligence. They could have randomly found order in a pulsing signal and were found here on earth.

All I am saying is that if a ordered information from space is considered from intelligence, why is ordered information on earth considered random and accidental?


WM
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby Neoteny on Fri Dec 07, 2007 11:21 pm

No time to respond now (my girlfriend and an ass-basket of Natty light await), but I will give you a taste of what's to come: Macaroni and cheese soup is not half bad. Trust me, I'm a terrible cook. I know these things. :lol:
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby Snorri1234 on Sat Dec 08, 2007 11:41 am

WidowMakers wrote:stuff


Ah my bad, I misunderstood you a bit.

What I don't understand however is your exclamation about intelligence needed for information. Because what you miss is that the environment gives information to an organism which it reacts too. Reactions of atoms and molecules do not require intelligence.

All I am saying is that if a ordered information from space is considered from intelligence, why is ordered information on earth considered random and accidental?


Ah I see your big thinkin fault here. The information is not seen as random and accidental. It's selected. Complex molecules form that either increase the chance of survival or not. You miss the natural selection portion it. Your method consists of picking apart things and then saying those things don't make sense because you do simply not account for the rest of the things.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."

Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
User avatar
Private Snorri1234
 
Posts: 3438
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2007 11:52 am
Location: Right in the middle of a fucking reptile zoo.

Postby Bavarian Raven on Sat Dec 08, 2007 1:42 pm

there is a bit of difference in cooking mac and cheese, and in mutations in genes
Sergeant 1st Class Bavarian Raven
 
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 10:52 pm
Location: Canada, Vancouver

Postby comic boy on Sat Dec 08, 2007 2:16 pm

WM

All you are doing is trying to disprove aspects of evolution yet have given us not one shred of evidence to support creationism. If evolution was utterly discredited tommorow then creationism would still be on a par with literally any other theory or madcap idea one would care to name.
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Postby unriggable on Sat Dec 08, 2007 6:55 pm

WidowMakers wrote:Everyone around here seems to call an organism a new species if they look different or have different mutated wings. Micro evolution (variation within a kind) does not turn bacteria into frogs into dogs into apes into people. It is easy to say it does in theory but NEVER has it been seen. Show me micro evolution where an organism is born or mutated into a higher level one. (chromosomal number change)


Hence four billion years of trial and error. We've only been around to witness it for, what, 15000?
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Carebian Knight on Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:13 pm

comic boy wrote:WM

All you are doing is trying to disprove aspects of evolution yet have given us not one shred of evidence to support creationism. If evolution was utterly discredited tommorow then creationism would still be on a par with literally any other theory or madcap idea one would care to name.


:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Why are you so thick headed?

We've said it on almost every page, WE CANNOT PROVE CREATIONISM, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, PROVIDING SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THAT YOU ASK FOR WOULD GO AGAINST CREATIONISM ITSELF.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby Carebian Knight on Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:19 pm

You've all said WM is wrong, yet no one has provided the evidence she asked for.

In order to prove evolution to us, you must do this:

Write a 1000 page book.
Change a few letters in the book, but it still must make sense.
Change a few more letters, but it still must make sense.
Continue doing this until you have a book that is on a different subject. There may still be similarities, but it must convey a different message.

That is basically what evolution says about apes evolving into man.

Saying there are 100's of species of fruit flies says nothing to prove what we are talking about. We've already said that we agree that natural selection happens and that organisms change to adapt to their evironment.

This means that there are obviously changes in species. However, is there proof that a genus changes into another genus. I don't know of any. Until you can do all that WM and me have asked, you have no chance of proving evolution to us.
User avatar
Private 1st Class Carebian Knight
 
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2007 8:42 pm
Location: Central Missouri

Postby comic boy on Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:21 am

Carebian

The thread is about comparing Evolution and Creationism,as you concede
there is no case for creationism so clearly there is no comparison. Scientists strive to learn more about Evolution every day, just as they do every other theory, Knowledge grows and one can choose to accept progresive thought or simply stand still and accept nothing new.
User avatar
Brigadier comic boy
 
Posts: 1738
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 3:54 pm
Location: London

Postby WidowMakers on Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:09 am

Carebian Knight wrote:You've all said WM is wrong, yet no one has provided the evidence she asked for.
Not that it really matters to this thread topic but

I am a HE. :)

WM
Image
Major WidowMakers
 
Posts: 2774
Joined: Mon Nov 20, 2006 9:25 am
Location: Detroit, MI

Postby Neoteny on Sun Dec 09, 2007 11:31 am

unriggable wrote:
WidowMakers wrote:Everyone around here seems to call an organism a new species if they look different or have different mutated wings. Micro evolution (variation within a kind) does not turn bacteria into frogs into dogs into apes into people. It is easy to say it does in theory but NEVER has it been seen. Show me micro evolution where an organism is born or mutated into a higher level one. (chromosomal number change)


Hence four billion years of trial and error. We've only been around to witness it for, what, 15000?


You need add a zero and perhaps change that 15 to a 20. :]

Carebian Knight wrote:This means that there are obviously changes in species. However, is there proof that a genus changes into another genus. I don't know of any. Until you can do all that WM and me have asked, you have no chance of proving evolution to us.


What the hell are you talking about? Do you even know what a species is? Or a genus?
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
User avatar
Major Neoteny
 
Posts: 3396
Joined: Tue Sep 18, 2007 10:24 pm
Location: Atlanta, Georgia

Postby unriggable on Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:15 pm

WM, we know that mutations for the better happen. Meaning, we KNOW, it's a FACT. It's the reason humans can drink milk their whole life instead of just during their infancy. It's the reason some bacteria can eat nylon.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:24 pm

Evolution is probably very flawed, but hey, Biblical Literalism is a load of bollocks. Literalists should stop discrediting Christianity.
That is all.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby unriggable on Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:49 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:Evolution is probably very flawed, but hey, Biblical Literalism is a load of bollocks. Literalists should stop discrediting Christianity.
That is all.


How is evolution flawed? It's a theory, theories become corrected by mistakes they make.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:51 pm

unriggable wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Evolution is probably very flawed, but hey, Biblical Literalism is a load of bollocks. Literalists should stop discrediting Christianity.
That is all.


How is evolution flawed? It's a theory, theories become corrected by mistakes they make.


Exactly. Evolution has holes in it. Thy will likely be plugged as science progresses. There's an off chance Evolution will turn out to be bollocks. It isn't hugely relevant to Theology.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

Postby unriggable on Sun Dec 09, 2007 1:52 pm

Napoleon Ier wrote:
unriggable wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Evolution is probably very flawed, but hey, Biblical Literalism is a load of bollocks. Literalists should stop discrediting Christianity.
That is all.


How is evolution flawed? It's a theory, theories become corrected by mistakes they make.


Exactly. Evolution has holes in it. Thy will likely be plugged as science progresses. There's an off chance Evolution will turn out to be bollocks. It isn't hugely relevant to Theology.


Theology should not have anything to do with history. The two are separated, and neither should get in the other's pants.
Image
User avatar
Cook unriggable
 
Posts: 8037
Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2007 9:49 pm

Postby Napoleon Ier on Sun Dec 09, 2007 2:34 pm

unriggable wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:
unriggable wrote:
Napoleon Ier wrote:Evolution is probably very flawed, but hey, Biblical Literalism is a load of bollocks. Literalists should stop discrediting Christianity.
That is all.


How is evolution flawed? It's a theory, theories become corrected by mistakes they make.


Exactly. Evolution has holes in it. Thy will likely be plugged as science progresses. There's an off chance Evolution will turn out to be bollocks. It isn't hugely relevant to Theology.


Theology should not have anything to do with history. The two are separated, and neither should get in the other's pants.


Ok, not sure why that's relevant to my post, but...

cf. My post about the historical Jesus.

Also, Theology encompasses discussing conceptions of God...such as in a historical context.
Le Roy est mort: Vive le Roy!

Dieu et mon Pays.
User avatar
Cadet Napoleon Ier
 
Posts: 2299
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 10:33 am
Location: Exploiting the third world's genetic plant resources.

PreviousNext

Return to Acceptable Content

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users