Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
i disagree.
judging from what i know about DNA, it can easily be compared to some type of bar code.
not only is this information, it's coded information.

here, check this out:
ds9a.nl/amazing-dna/


That is what people call "analogies".

It's not actual code as in .NET or C++

It's just molecules engaged in a gigantic chemical reaction that works in an orderly fashion - but again merely follows the laws of physics and chemistry.

It's easy to draw analogies to some batch software routine. And people do that to make it easier to understand the big picture.
Also note that I said "batch software". It's a sequential "instruction set". It's not analogous to object orientation or any other advanced software engineering paradigm.

But saying that because we can draw an analogy from Y to X, it means that Y and X are the same thing.... Surely you would agree that that is nonsense, right? ........right?
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Calling it information is again begging the question, as it's not information in the way you would like to imply, it's chemistry, and interesting link, though funny how it actually backs up my side of this, you can compare it to computer code, but you can only compare it, in computers errors cause problems, in DNA they ultimatly lead to new life forms and novel features, scientists speak in anologies and best comparisons, but it doesn't make these things and not perfect ones.

DNA is a self replicating, self changing strand of chemicals, that interact to form living things, it's the interaction with the genes and the other parts of the cell that form life, the DNA creatures proteins that intearct with other proteins and the cell to form a living body, it's closer to oragami then a blueprint. A change in the way a protein, changes how it folds, wich changes how it interacts with other proteins wich alter the shape, and function of the living organism.

I don't see how this counts as code, or instructions, it's chemicals creating chemicals that interact with chemicals that happen to form complex structures, that allow something to survive, or do better. There is no goal in the DNA, no plan. it's all chemistry all the way down.
regardless of what you might think, DNA is an information carrier.
not only does it instruct how to produce proteins, but when as in cases of puberty.
DNA contains code that isn't used, and this code must somehow be skipped over, it takes information to do that.
to imply DNA isn't information is simply wrong.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
regardless of what you might think, DNA is an information carrier.

Again, no more then any other chemical compound that engages in chain reactions.
Every chemical reaction can be said to contain "information" and an "instruction set" to successfully accomplish the reaction and produce the output - whatever it may be.

DNA simply is easier to represent in such a manner, because it's such a ginormous chemical compound/reaction.

not only does it instruct how to produce proteins

The physical reality of this "instruction" is in effect no more or less then a chemical reaction.

DNA contains code that isn't used, and this code must somehow be skipped over, it takes information to do that.

And the physical reality of this "skipping" is again simply the arrangement of the molecule.

to imply DNA isn't information is simply wrong.

And to imply that because we can call it, it means something other then chemistry doing what it does, is equally wrong - if not more.
 
Upvote 0

justlookinla

Regular Member
Mar 31, 2014
11,767
198
✟20,665.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Again, no.

I'm just talking about mainstream biology.

YOU are talking about some particular view. A view that is quite irrelevant to mainstream biology.

The facts of mainstream biology are based upon the scientific method, while Darwinist evolution isn't.
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Again, no more then any other chemical compound that engages in chain reactions.
Every chemical reaction can be said to contain "information" and an "instruction set" to successfully accomplish the reaction and produce the output - whatever it may be.

DNA simply is easier to represent in such a manner, because it's such a ginormous chemical compound/reaction.



The physical reality of this "instruction" is in effect no more or less then a chemical reaction.



And the physical reality of this "skipping" is again simply the arrangement of the molecule.



And to imply that because we can call it, it means something other then chemistry doing what it does, is equally wrong - if not more.
but yet you agrue in favor of boxcar2d, which doesn't even come close to simulating DNA.
how quaint.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
the process of evolution is simple, the things it creates are complicated, but you can get incredible things from basic patterns, simple processes can create incredible thing, with no input needed.

I think god created the universe that allows for things to form and evolve from the start, but hasn't done any input into evolution since, once humans appeaered he interacted and deals with us, but evolution is still a hands off process, because there is no need for god to do so.
First of all you don't know if you can get incredible things from basic patterns and simple processes with no input. If you are discussing the algorithm there is input and substantial input at that.

What you think and what seems to be the case seem based more on your opinion rather than any real evidence for that opinion.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The exact same principles are used.

It's an implementation of the evolutionary process. Step by step.

Please also answer the question I asked.

Do you consider the two pictures I posted to have the same level of "appearance of design"?

I wanted to say "the two cars", but let's face it... the one in generation 0 can't exactly be called a "car". Which in itself, kind of already answers my question.
No, the "exact" same principles are not used unless you want to concede to intelligent design which I doubt. Your comment about the many programmers is a hint to how this supports intelligent design and not a reflection of a mindless, purposeless, unguided, unplanned and completely random process.

It doesn't matter if one looks "more" designed than the other. The information and form are provided in the program.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Following the exact same trail of thought leads to the conclusion that ice in the arctic isn't natural, because freezers are designed.
You just can't get away from oversimplifying issues. It doesn't lead to any such conclusion.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
but yet you agrue in favor of boxcar2d, which doesn't even come close to simulating DNA.
how quaint.

Genetic algortims don't simulate DNA.

They simulate the evolutionary process.

The "chromosome" in a genetic algoritm is rather analogous to DNA.

Which is not the same thing.

Processes are simulated. DNA is not a process.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
the most important is missing, namely atoms and their associated laws and equations.
writing a program based on these laws and equations should be a simple matter, and it has no doubt been done already.
i will give you one guess as to why we don't see such a thing.
Exactly, we haven't even discussed the need for the laws of physics and all the cosmic necessities for evolution to even work. Bring in the fact that we see complex life right from the beginning, which evolution doesn't explain in itself.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God intended for human like beings, but his intention was sentient animals with a soul, after all unless you want to argue god some how looks like humand, he was refering to our soul when he spoke of, "Make man in our image."
So if evolution ended with the common ancestor of both the chimp and human it wouldn't have mattered?
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
First of all you don't know if you can get incredible things from basic patterns and simple processes with no input.
Yes, we do. GA's prove it every time they are used successfully.

The "input" is the previous generation and some mutations.

I guess what lovefor means by "input" is rather "intervention".

If you are discussing the algorithm there is input and substantial input at that.

As said, the input is the previous generation + a few random mutations.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
No, the "exact" same principles are not used

Except that they are.

unless you want to concede to intelligent design which I doubt.

There is no intelligent design.
There is a blind process producing design.


Your comment about the many programmers is a hint to how this supports intelligent design and not a reflection of a mindless, purposeless, unguided, unplanned and completely random process.

And you ignoring my clarification thereof and the continued rethoric against controlled conditions only makes your arguments against the evolutionary process more embarassing.

If a GA is evidence of "intelligent design" in nature, then a freezer is evidence of "intelligent freezing" at the north pole.

It doesn't matter if one looks "more" designed than the other.

Yes people.... you read that correctly.

That was oncedeceived, the person that has been screaming for months "appearance of design, therefor design", who just stated:

It doesn't matter if one looks "more" designed than the other

The information and form are provided in the program.

No, they are not.

Just like the freezer doesn't "provide the information" on how water can turn into ice.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I know you disagree, but I find the evidence for evolution extremly compelling and facinating, and enjoy how intricate and amazing it is. So in my mind/knowledge evolution is correct, so short of some huge evidence wich I've never seen disproving evolution, or I accept it and god. Other wise I would reject god, but I know he's real.

thats the issue we have, with how much I know, understand and have learnt about evoloution your guys arguments don't work because they have flawed reasoning and falicies. I can only go where the evidence leads, wish I could explain it all, but probably need a chalkboard or something heh, I so often find trying to translate ideas into words just doesn't work for me.
I find the evidence for evolution compelling, intricate and amazing as well. I don't however believe the notion that this process alone, nor that it is a mindless, unguided, undirected process with no plan or goal. Evolution as defined is correct, but claims based upon it I feel are not in keeping with the evidence. Once you know God is real, you have the most important knowledge of all. :)

Now how are our arguments showing flawed reasoning and fallacies? I don't know what evidence is leading you to believe that God had no input into the process, but I could put forth many evidences that would cast great doubt on that opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Exactly, we haven't even discussed the need for the laws of physics and all the cosmic necessities for evolution to even work. Bring in the fact that we see complex life right from the beginning, which evolution doesn't explain in itself.
you can almost count on it.
i fail to believe that science wouldn't make use of such programs.
the only conclusion i can see is, they have, and they failed.
the RNA world simply doesn't work.
mutations destroy it before enough nucleotides are accumulated to sustain it.
this is supported by the MA experiment i recently posted.
one scientist proposes that there are an infinite number of universes, and this gives the origin of life a certainty.
personally i find the above proposal ludicrous.
 
Upvote 0

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
You just can't get away from oversimplifying issues. It doesn't lead to any such conclusion.

Sorry once, but that is an exact application of the "logic" and "reasoning" you are using here.....


If a genetic algoritm is evidence of "intelligent design" in biology, then a freezer is evidence of "intelligent freezing" on the north pole.

We will keep running around in circles until you understand why that is the case.

To solve this incredibly ignorant misconception you have, I suggest reading up on GA's and "controlled conditions" in general.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,670.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I would say naturalistic, I put god back towards creation of the universe, he knew how things could turn out eventually, he's all knowing all powerful, he setup the universe so that life such as us would form and evolve, it would eventually be inevitable.

Again evolution is naturalistic, but god set the rules.

To go back to a previous conversation, with the Flagellum experiments, god created a system where DNA would rotate through combinations and if something broke there was the ability for another mutation to form.

God doesn't need to program DNA to do X, he can setup the rules in a way that DNA when it formed would do these things, that life would go through many forms and change, experimenting and finding the best solutions for various problems.

To me the fact that we come from earlier life is amazing, that while we have a soul, we are still part of nature, that were not fully seperate, not something so disconected.

Oh and PS your quote broke took me a moment to figure it out.
I would assume then that you argue that God wound up the clock and let it go? Yet, there is no evidence that life could have gotten started without the universe having the parameters that it does for life to even exist. Then we move to the earth and the necessary elements required being present. We then move to the first life which has no evidence whatsoever but the chicken or the egg in this process gives no support to an unaided origin. We move on to reproducing life and that in itself is so complex that evolution can't explain it as evolution didn't evolve. So what "evidence" exactly has lead you to believe that God was not needed?
 
Upvote 0

whois

rational
Mar 7, 2015
2,521
119
✟3,336.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Except that they are.
except they aren't.
boxcar2d leaves out the very thing you keep stressing DNA is, namely just atoms and chemicals.
the boxcar2d program doesn't even implement any of the laws of chemistry, but yet you keep touting it as a valid scenario.
do you know why you do that?
simply because it supports your opinion.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

DogmaHunter

Code Monkey
Jan 26, 2014
16,757
8,531
Antwerp
✟143,395.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Exactly, we haven't even discussed the need for the laws of physics and all the cosmic necessities for evolution to even work.

Why? Do the laws of physics not exist?
Does chemistry not exist?
Does the planet not exist?
Does the sun not exist?

What are you smoking? Cause I think I want some. :)

Bring in the fact that we see complex life right from the beginning, which evolution doesn't explain in itself.

Evolution explains what happens to life once it exists. It doesn't explain the origins of life.


And, just to be clear, the argument from complexity is just a different species of the argument of ignorance.

Not that you care though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bhsmte
Upvote 0