Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[Oncedeceived]

I don't get how some theists insist on have their deity create all life forms as is. As if it takes away some of the "power and awe" of their god, if this god's creation act was done through evolution.

Consider this.... which is the most impressive engineer?

- The one who creates a fully functional machine
or
- The one who creates a fully functional self-assembling machine?

Off course, I'm an atheist and thus don't believe in any gods.
But if I would be a theist, I sure would think that the deity that creates a self-assembling machine would be a lot more impressive...

Who is arguing that point?

 

[DogmaHunter]

So if evolution ended with the common ancestor of both the chimp and human it wouldn't have mattered?

Evolution only ends when life goes extinct.

As long as living systems reproduce with variation and compete for resources, evolution is happening.

 

[Oncedeceived]

hehe I wish the rest got it as much as you did :> I've been trying to argue that for the last ...about 24 hours hehe.

Well that explains a lot. You have been arguing a straw man.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

Abiogenesis is not evolution. Evolution is not abiogenesis.

The origins of species is not the origins of life

The origins of life is not the origins of species.

I can't say it any clearer then this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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/

Right, the oversimplification is running wild.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

What part of "GA's simulate the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS" didn't you understand?

The evolutionary process being: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat

 

[DogmaHunter]

Who is arguing that point?

Cdesign proponentsists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Right, the oversimplification is running wild.

The way to explain a complex phenomena is by stripping it down to its bare essentials. Simplification.

That's how you explain things.

If the explanation is as complex as the thing being explained, then you have accomplished nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Evolution only ends when life goes extinct.

As long as living systems reproduce with variation and compete for resources, evolution is happening.

True that but that wasn't my point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Cdesign proponentsists.

That is simply untrue.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What part of "GA's simulate the EVOLUTIONARY PROCESS" didn't you understand?

The evolutionary process being: mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat

It isn't that we don't understand it is that you don't understand.

 

[Loudmouth]

a couple of things about smiths paper.
first complexity.
smith uses the word then mentions transitions., then lists those transitions.
one of those is the acquisition of language.
i wouldn't necessarily call this an increase of complexity, but smith does.
anyway, smith is right in stating complexity is very hard to define.
second is the date, this stuff was still being passed around as late as 1995.
in other words "these are the problems, and this is what needs to be done" was current as of then.

What needs to be done?

not everyone that questions current thinking on this subject is a creationist.

eldredge, gould, ayala, koonin, noble, none of these people are creationist, but they had serious questions about what was then known about current theory.​

​

As already shown, your claims about their positions are way overblown. You take single quotes way out of context and ignore the rest of their work.

At least three processes complicate such a view of a tree of life, horizontal transfer, symbiogenesis, and differential lineage sorting of genes.

Since you like Koonin:

"The comparative infrequency of HGT in the eukaryote part of the biological world means, however, that in this case the conceptual implications for the TOL might not be as drastic: the evolutionary histories of many eukaryotes appear to produce tree-like patterns."--Eugene Koonin
http://www.biologydirect.com/content/6/1/32

Funny how you refuse to listen to Koonin when he says things you don't like.

 

[Loudmouth]

i disagree.
judging from what i know about DNA, it can easily be compared to some type of bar code.

How so?

 

[Loudmouth]

not only does it instruct how to produce proteins,

How does it instruct to produce proteins?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

References?

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

I don't know if you realize it or not but the information in one human molecule of DNA is equivalent to filling 1,000 books or million-page encyclopedia. That is a lot of information. It holds instructions for all elements of life.

Information:
the process of informing and the act of receiving...
Data that is (1) accurate and timely, (2) specific and organized for a purpose, (3) presented within a context that gives it meaning and relevance, and (4) can lead to an increase in understanding and decrease in uncertainty.





Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/information.html#ixzz3hrXgWBPy

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

How do the laws of physics exist?
How does the chemistry exist?
How does the planet exist?
How does the sun exist?

In other words, why does the universe exist and how did it originate with all the laws of physics, chemistry and life on this planet with the sun located exactly where it needs to be?

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

It doesn't explain the complexity of life after life exists. The necessities for reproduction of that life require already complex systems and molecular machines that are themselves unexplained by evolution.

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

Actually it is not argument from ignorance because it is an argument based on what we know is required for life to reproduce, it is an argument based on evidence of the life forms that first appear in our fossil evidence.

Not that you care though.

It seems your argument is more from ignorance as you don't seem to appreciate the implications of the evidence nor the actual argument from design.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The way to explain a complex phenomena is by stripping it down to its bare essentials. Simplification.

That's how you explain things.

If the explanation is as complex as the thing being explained, then you have accomplished nothing.

You can't strip away the realities of biological evolution which is what you are doing.

 

[justlookinla]

You can't strip away the realities of biological evolution which is what you are doing.

So true.