Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

That is false. There are creationists that accept both.

True.

 

[Jimmy D]

True.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

So you can't really call them 'creationist's' can you, not in any meaningful sense of the word anyway, are you going to retract your statement or try to quibble over semantics?

Virtually all academics working in the field of biology accept evolution and common descent as a fact, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Why do you and Oncedecieved, with no formal education in the field know better than them?

 

[Phenotype]

Why not? Nothing he ever proposed has turned out to be correct. Every single one of his finches interbreed and produce fertile offspring - showing the stupidity of continuing to try to claim they underwent speciation and became separate species. A subject all of you seem so eager to avoid discussing for some reason?

From observing the marked variations between Galapagos finches, Darwin deduced that natural selection had obtained. He deduced that differences in environmental conditions, rainfall, food sources etc. had created selection pressure, such that individuals with some naturally occurring attribute through mutation lending adaptive advantage for survival, passed on those selected characteristics. Heritability was already known and documented in biology. A multitude of generations affords multiple opportunities for mutations to be selected for, if they conduced to survival. Don't forget sexual selection.

Darwin had his light bulb moment, apprehending evolution by natural selection. That insight had been gestating in his mind, just like reasoning one's way out of religion can take a while.

To argue that because Galapagos finches from separate islands, clearly the result of isolation and adaptive changes, are still able to interbreed and hence are not separate species is merely the protagonist showing impatience. Evolution takes time, except in the example of pathogens which replicate so prolifically and are faced with bottle neck selection pressure from the antibiotics we have developed. It is called an arms race in biology.

It is expedient to contemplate deep, geological time. It requires exercising one's imagination. Geologists and evolutionary biologists do this as their normal paradigmatic way of thinking. The understandings in these disciplines are based on empirical evidence and theories that have been tested to destruction with experiment and technology. Only the best explanation survives. Young earth creationism militates against such comprehension and of therefore understanding the account of life, sadly and dangerously. We need research scientists to come up through the ranks. That career choice germinates from early and inspiring exposure to real science. Creationism is antagonistic to science. It cannot embrace the essential falsifiability criterion of genuine science. It is desperately striving only to prove itself and the bible right, because of the teaching on sin and redemption through Calvary, Judgement, heaven or hell in the afterlife.

 

[justlookinla]

So you can't really call them 'creationist's' can you, not in any meaningful sense of the word anyway, are you going to retract your statement or try to quibble over semantics?

Everybody is a creationist of one form or another.

Virtually all academics working in the field of biology accept evolution and common descent as a fact, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Depends on the view of evolution to which you're referring. There's disagreement concerning how mankind was created.

Why do you and Oncedecieved, with no formal education in the field know better than them?

All I'm asking for is evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view of evolution which concludes that humanity was created by a mindless and purposeless naturalistic process.

 

[DogmaHunter]

And they are closed every time because the evolutionists purposefully get them closed so they don't have to attempt to respond to the science

What a ridiculous thing to say....

If that were true, why does this thread exist??

 

[DogmaHunter]

nice analogy, but i believe justas complaint is "where did the original one and zero come from".
additionally gene expression is by a fixed number of base pairs, if i'm not mistaken, 3.
mixing these up by transposons can result in different genes, but it still doesn't introduce any new information.
in order to do that, using your analogy above, you would need to add another number, in this case it would be 2, to get 0,1,2.

like maynard stated, there is no empirical evidence of this increase nor is there any theory that would explain how it would occur.
this is probably the primary reason science has concluded life most likely arose from a pool of organisms instead of just one.
i can see no other alternative to why science would conclude such a thing.

That makes no sense in light of argument on the table.

You are basically saying that for a human to write a new book holding new information, he would have to invent new letters, other then those found in our A-Z alphabet.

Surely you get how that doesn't make sense

Microsoft Word and Grand Theft Auto are 2 radically different programs. The code of each contains radically different information.

However, both executables consist ONLY of 1's and 0's.
The only difference is the amount of bits and the order they are in.

 

[whois]

However, both executables consist ONLY of 1's and 0's.
The only difference is the amount of bits and the order they are in.

unless you are intimately familiar with bits, bytes, and how they are used and arranged, i suggest you stay away from any type of computer coding scheme type of argument.
a standard computer byte can hold only 256 different combinations, and that is all it can hold
the only possible way to get an increase of combinations is to add extra bytes.
we can get this increase only by various methods of software trickery, it doesn't happen simply by adding another byte.
in other words, computers have limits, they are not number lines where you can simply just keep adding numbers.
memory size is a prime example of this.
a computer with 16 address lines can only address 65366 memory locations, and that's it, no more.
only by the addition of extra memory and various software trickery can it address more.
also keep in mind that a computer cannot do this on its own, it must be programmed by an intelligence to do it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

unless you are intimately familiar with bits, bytes, and how they are used and arranged, i suggest you stay away from any type of computer coding scheme type of argument.

I'm a professional software engineer with 14 years of big enterprise level experience.

I *think* I know how software works.

a standard computer byte can hold only 256 different combinations, and that is all it can hold

And with those limits, you can have dos based interfaces on the one hand and Toy Story the movie on the other.

That's the whole point.

The western alphabet only has the letters A to Z.
Do you require the invention of NEW LETTERS to write a book with a story that was never told before? Would you say that no new book since the standardization of this alphabet ever contained "new information"?

the only possible way to get an increase of combinations is to add extra bytes.

Ie: more combinations thereof.

Ie, new patterns of 1s and 0s.

Just like a book holding new information is a new pattern of letters A to Z.

we can get this increase only by various methods of software trickery, it doesn't happen simply by adding another byte.

Rearranging to order of the 1s and 0s (ie, the genotype) results in different information processing and thus different output (ie, the phenotype).

So you're wrong.

ALL software code is nothing but 1s and 0s. The only difference is the amount of 1s and 0s and the order they find themselves in.

in other words, computers have limits, they are not number lines where you can simply just keep adding numbers.

Life has limits to.
We won't be evolving plastic hair, for example.

memory size is a prime example of this.
a computer with 16 address lines can only address 65366 memory locations, and that's it, no more.

And yet, the amount of different algoritms (ie: patterns of 1s and 0s) that can be loaded into such limited memory is nearly infinite. Especially if we also include modules that can be loaded into memory when they are needed.

Which, incidently, is exactly what computers do.

GTA5 has an installation directory of several dozen gigabytes. But it doesn't require the same size in RAM, because it only loads what is needed at that time.

Never argue about this stuff to a software engineer

only by the addition of extra memory and various software trickery can it address more.

It doesn't need to address more.
I can perfectly render a 3d movie on a pc from 1992. It would just take longer.

also keep in mind that a computer cannot do this on its own, it must be programmed by an intelligence to do it.

No poo, Sherlock...

You know what else a computer can't do? Reproduce with variation while competing for limited resources.


ps: these days, artificial intelligence (like genetic algoritms) are actually being used to design algoritms in research labs.

 

[whois]

I'm a professional software engineer with 14 years of big enterprise level experience.

I *think* I know how software works.

you can know programming quite well without understanding the hardware aspect of computers.
you can write programs in JAVA all day long without ever knowing how the computer stores things on disk.
the only exception i can think of is assembler

And with those limits, you can have dos based interfaces on the one hand and Toy Story the movie on the other.

That's the whole point.

yes, but the point you are neglecting is that you are switching coding concepts in the process.
to my knowledge, DNA operates on one coding process.
if you are going to use a computer analogy, then you need to define that analogy, AND STICK WITH IT.
this is what you keep doing when you made the analogy above.

And yet, the amount of different algoritms (ie: patterns of 1s and 0s) that can be loaded into such limited memory is nearly infinite. Especially if we also include modules that can be loaded into memory when they are needed.

actually it is not even close to infinite.
again, what you are doing is switching coding schemes.

the rest of your post, well, until you are willing to discuss just one coding scheme, the one associated with DNA, then the discussion is moot.

 

[The Cadet]

we can get this increase only by various methods of software trickery, it doesn't happen simply by adding another byte.

Huh? We totally do that all the time. We make bigger processors with both more and larger registers. I can go out and buy a 1GB, a 2GB, or if I really feel like playing Crisis on maximum, a 16GB RAM stick. My 256GB SSD is seeming relatively puny now that there are 1TB SSDs on the market.

But really, it's an analogy, and like any analogy, if you push it too far, it fails. Just adding "another byte" in genetics is really really easy. It happens all the time.

 

[DogmaHunter]

you can know programming quite well without understanding the hardware aspect of computers. you can write programs in JAVA all day long without ever knowing how the computer stores things on disk

I love how you simply assume that I don't understand how computers work. I love even more how you think I'm a Java developer.

I stay away from that horror language as much as I can, for the record.

In any case... try making a bit less assumptions.

the only exception i can think of is assembler

While assembler is low level, it still isn't machine code (as in 1s and 0s only).
Even assembler is compiled into 1s and 0s only.

yes, but the point you are neglecting is that you are switching coding concepts in the process.

No, I'm not.
There is no difference at machine level. It's 1s and 0s.

The only difference between word and gta is the amount of 1s and 0s and the order in which these 1s and 0s are computed.

to my knowledge, DNA operates on one coding process.

So does an application running on an intel machine.
No matter if its a 3d multiplayer game or a text processor.

if you are going to use a computer analogy, then you need to define that analogy, AND STICK WITH IT.

I did.
Apps are but a pattern of 1s and 0s. The difference between the apps is determined by amount and order of those bits.

actually it is not even close to infinite.
again, what you are doing is switching coding schemes.

No, I'm not.
You just don't understand how software works.

The "coding scheme" of a 3d game and Word is the exact same. They are even written in the same language and compiled by the same C++ compiler.

There is no "different coding scheme" here. It's just 1s and 0s at the machine level.

the rest of your post, well, until you are willing to discuss just one coding scheme, the one associated with DNA, then the discussion is moot.

No, you just can't respond properly to the point being made.

You clearly stated earlier in the thread that "an increase in information" would require an additional building block. In the case of binary code, that would be an additional value instead of just 1 and 0.

I gave you another analogy as well, which you seem to be avoiding like the plague...

To write a NEW book holding NEW information, one doesn't require the invention of new alphabet letters. The amount of available letters is just as limited as the amount of available bits or bytes or DNA building blocks.

But you wouldn't dare to state that it's impossible to write a book with NEW information using only the current alphabet letters, right?

So... what's that about?

 

[The Cadet]

if you are going to use a computer analogy, then you need to define that analogy, AND STICK WITH IT.

The analogy is not quite to computers so much as it is to information theory. It's going from a quaternary alphabet (CAGT) to a binary one, and it allows for some very vivid illustrations. Because all of computing is done with just a binary language, it quickly becomes patently obvious that in order to insert new information, you don't need a "2". Skyrim is new information, no matter how you want to slice it, and there is nothing in Skyrim.exe that cannot be made by taking "01", copying it a few billion times, and flipping some bits.

...But yes, I'd love to see your response to DogmaHunter's new analogy as well.

 

[Loudmouth]

you can know programming quite well without understanding the hardware aspect of computers.
you can write programs in JAVA all day long without ever knowing how the computer stores things on disk.
the only exception i can think of is assembler

The big difference is that the physical and chemical properties of the letters in your code have no tie to the function of the program. This isn't so with DNA. It is the actual physical and chemical properties of DNA that give it function. The code in DNA is no different than other molecules that can be represented by chemical forumulas. DNA is as much a code as H2O.

 

[whois]

I love how you simply assume that I don't understand how computers work.

you said you was a "software engineer" or something to that effect.
i said you can write software (i used JAVA as an example) all day long without knowing how computers store things on disc.
and it's a fact.

There is no difference at machine level. It's 1s and 0s.

correct, and it's only understandable with the coding process you used to produce it.
the intel 486 assembler is only understood by the 486, software coding (reprocessing) will allow that code to be ported to other machines.
you cannot do this if DNA does not allow for it.
i really don't care to carry on this discussion with you, simply because you keep introducing intelligent aspects such as software recoding.
now, do you want to admit that DNA partakes in intelligent software recoding?
a byte is a set lenght and it CAN NOT be increased in size unless another byte is added.
a computer MUST BE TOLD how to add this byte.
if you want to debate this area then you need to define the hardware (DNA) and the software (transcription system), and then stick to those definitions.
all we are doing now is arguing over who knows what, and it's useless

 

[Loudmouth]

correct, and it's only understandable with the coding process you used to produce it.
the intel 486 assembler is only understood by the 486, software coding (reprocessing) will allow that code to be ported to other machines.

Does the function of computer code depend on the physical interactions between the letters of the code, and how they form a physical three dimensional structure? If not, then they are not analogous to DNA, RNA, and protein.

For example, here is a model for transfer RNA and how it produces 3 dimensional structures needed for the RNA to function.

 

[whois]

yes, computer code can be written that simulate 3D objects.
google mandelbox for some spendid examples of this.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you can't really call them 'creationist's' can you, not in any meaningful sense of the word anyway, are you going to retract your statement or try to quibble over semantics?

Virtually all academics working in the field of biology accept evolution and common descent as a fact, regardless of their religious beliefs.

Why do you and Oncedecieved, with no formal education in the field know better than them?

Prove I have no formal education in the field.

 

[The Cadet]

Prove I have no formal education in the field.

You have no knowledge of the evidence for evolution, or no understanding of why it's evolution.

 

[justlookinla]

Does the function of computer code depend on the physical interactions between the letters of the code, and how they form a physical three dimensional structure? If not, then they are not analogous to DNA, RNA, and protein.

For example, here is a model for transfer RNA and how it produces 3 dimensional structures needed for the RNA to function.

Pretty impressive design.

 

[Loudmouth]

yes, computer code can be written that simulate 3D objects.

Not the same thing. The computer code would need to interact with itself. Do complementary "If=Then" statements in your code physically bend as you watch them on the screen and bind to each other? If not, then it isn't the same. Does your computer screen bend in half so that complementary commands at the top and bottom of the screen can bind to each other? If not, it isn't the same.