Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Reasonably Sane]

DNA isn't a "fact". It is a molecule. (That DNA is a molecule is an example of a fact.)

Genetics (what I suspect you meant) is, in fact, the *STRONGEST* evidence for the "tree of life" and descent of all creatures from a common ancestor including the relationships between smaller groups (like the placement of humans with the rest of the great apes, or cats, dogs, hyenas in the "carnivorae").

You're right. I updated my post. I added "the existence of..."

I'm a retired COBOL programmer. Not only is DNA like a computer program, but it even uses Job Control Language (JCL) that allows a program to produce different output depending on the contents of the JCL. It's even more convincing than the old "eyeball" example. The idea that it could exist "accidentally" is laughable, no matter how many billions of years you throw at it.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You're right. I updated my post. I added "the existence of..."

I'm a retired COBOL programmer.

COBAL pfft! Try a real language like Fortran.

Not only is DNA like a computer program, but it even uses Job Control Language (JCL) that allows a program to produce different output depending on the contents of the JCL.

I'm not a molecular geneticist, but I don't recall any of them saying they could write a program in DNA (or Fortran). DNA is a chemical that interacts with a soup of protiens and other ribonucleaic acid complexes in chained a cyclical reaction networks.

It's even more convincing than the old "eyeball" example. The idea that it could exist "accidentally" is laughable, no matter how many bullions of years you throw at it.

What about bouillons of years? But seriously, simple self-replicating nucleic acid complexes can form in the lab, it really isn't that hard. (Then there are the self-replicating computer programs...)

 

[Neogaia777]

You're right. I updated my post. I added "the existence of..."

I'm a retired COBOL programmer. Not only is DNA like a computer program, but it even uses Job Control Language (JCL) that allows a program to produce different output depending on the contents of the JCL. It's even more convincing than the old "eyeball" example. The idea that it could exist "accidentally" is laughable, no matter how many bullions of years you throw at it.

Are you saying that the billions of years is laughable? Or are you saying that saying that it is not a part of some kind of program is laughable?

 

[Reasonably Sane]

COBAL pfft! Try a real language like Fortran.


I'm not a molecular geneticist, but I don't recall any of them saying they could write a program in DNA (or Fortran). DNA is a chemical that interacts with a soup of protiens and other ribonucleaic acid complexes in chained a cyclical reaction networks.


What about bouillons of years? But seriously, simple self-replicating nucleic acid complexes can form in the lab, it really isn't that hard. (Then there are the self-replicating computer programs...)

Fortran is for kids! You want assembler!

Nobody can write programs in DNA yet. All we can do is move the code around and see what happens. We're not good enough yet. It's a very complex language and we're basically trying to reverse engineer it. I had to do that with a COBOL program once. The program was important to the company so they ran the batch program every day, but the source program was lost. I had to examine input files and compare to the output files to figure out what the program was doing to the data. It took a while.

I did the same thing with a few DYL 280 programs but it was REALLY tough with DYL 260.

Regarding DNA as a program, I think people tend to see it as one of those "billion monkeys on a billion typewriters for a billion years" sort of things where eventually one monkey comes up with the entire writings of Shakespeare. But the reality is that the odds of it ever happening are, in practical terms, zero. People just think that if it is mathematically possible, it is therefore possible. But it really isn't. Sometimes the likelihood is so close to zero that in the real world it really IS zero.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Are you saying that the billions of years is laughable? Or are you saying that saying that it is not a part of some kind of program is laughable?

I'm saying that explaining away its complexity and usefulness as possible "accidentally" if you just throw enough time at the problem is laughable. As I said in my post above this one. Mathematically, nothing is impossible, though it may be astronomically unlikely. In reality it is so unlikely that it is reasonable to assume it is not possible. Using the billion monkeys thing, DNA is infinitely more complex than Shakespeare.

 

[BCP1928]

Fortran is for kids! You want assembler!

Pooh. ALGOL is better because that's the one I learned in school.

Nobody can write programs in DNA yet. All we can do is move the code around and see what happens. We're not good enough yet. It's a very complex language and we're basically trying to reverse engineer it. I had to do that with a COBOL program once. The program was important to the company so they ran the batch program every day, but the source program was lost. I had to examine input files and compare to the output files to figure out what the program was doing to the data. It took a while.

LOL! I've worked with quite a few programmers who don't seem to be able to do it any other way.

I did the same thing with a few DYL 280 programs but it was REALLY tough with DYL 260.

Regarding DNA as a program, I think people tend to see it as one of those "billion monkeys on a billion typewriters for a billion years" sort of things where eventually one monkey comes up with the entire writings of Shakespeare. But the reality is that the odds of it ever happening are, in practical terms, zero. People just think that if it is mathematically possible, it is therefore possible. But it really isn't. Sometimes the likelihood is so close to zero that in the real world it really IS zero.

It appears to be mostly creationists who think it works that way. It's akin to saying "The odds of my ticket winning the lottery are so small that nobody can possibly win."

 

[sjastro]

Instead of discussing facts which disprove evolution of which there is none, a common line of argument against evolution is that it violates the second law of thermodynamics.

The line of reasoning used is evolutionary theory contends that current species developed from earlier life forms which were simpler in having fewer capabilities and less complex systems.
Evolutionary theory claims that organisms get better ordered over time but the second law of thermodynamics holds that entropy increases where systems over time become more disordered.
Therefore, both evolutionary theory and the second law of thermodynamics cannot both be correct.
Since the second law of thermodynamics is based on empiricism evolutionary theory must be wrong.

The problem with this argument is that the second law of thermodynamics applies to isolated systems where neither energy or matter is exchanged with the surroundings in which case entropy will increase.
For closed systems energy can be exchanged with the surroundings but not matter and it is still highly probable but not 100% certain entropy will increase.
To put this is in others words, it is highly improbable a system will return to its original state of lower entropy unless energy from the surroundings is added to the system to lower the entropy.

Living organisms which can exchange energy and matter with its surroundings are examples of open thermodynamic systems where the entropy does decrease.
Living organisms are islands of low entropy in a universe of higher entropy, as exemplified by a cell.

Evolution occurs through mutation increases the efficiency of energy transfer and less waste in the form of lower entropy when compared to the surroundings.
The second law of thermodynamics is therefore not an effective argument against evolution.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Fortran is for kids! You want assembler!

Assemblers are for CS-types. I have things to achieve.

Nobody can write programs in DNA yet. All we can do is move the code around and see what happens. We're not good enough yet. It's a very complex language and we're basically trying to reverse engineer it.

The way in which DNA is clearly "a code" is in the sense of an encoding of one type of information in a different medium. DNA encoding for proteins has been decoded for a long time (it was in all of our HS bio textbooks) and is more akin to the encoding of letters (and words) into binary bits with ASCII. For DNA that is encoding amino acid sequences in a series of chemical nucleic bases. The existence of an "end of sentence" symbol doesn't make it a language. (DNA is also not a code in the encryption sense, not even at the rot13 level.)

I had to do that with a COBOL program once. The program was important to the company so they ran the batch program every day, but the source program was lost. I had to examine input files and compare to the output files to figure out what the program was doing to the data. It took a while.

I did the same thing with a few DYL 280 programs but it was REALLY tough with DYL 260.

Your reverse engineering example actual is useful for one of the issues with "unlikely DNA sequences". When you finished your reverse engineering, you had no reason to think that your code matched the original even if you used the same instruction set on the same machine. Perhaps you found a clever and more efficient solution to a problem the original authors did (or vice versa). These aren't problems with unique solutions and various biological functions are similarly non-unique in solution.

Regarding DNA as a program, I think people tend to see it as one of those "billion monkeys on a billion typewriters for a billion years" sort of things where eventually one monkey comes up with the entire writings of Shakespeare. But the reality is that the odds of it ever happening are, in practical terms, zero. People just think that if it is mathematically possible, it is therefore possible. But it really isn't. Sometimes the likelihood is so close to zero that in the real world it really IS zero.

This is a very common misunderstanding about the mathematics and modeling of evolutionary systems or the building of biochemistry, but observations and experiments show us how utterly varied things are and the multitude of possible paths to a solution. There is nothing special about any one particular single-celled organism or the various biochemical pathways it uses to live. There isn't even anything special about the particular form of DNA/RNA or the amino acid set used in Earth life. There are many other possible bases (even other possible nucleic acids) that could be included in a DNA protein code and alternative amino acids that could be added to our set (or even substitute some). Even if we keep the same set of amino acids and bases the encoding didn't have to be the one we have.

-- 48 61 6E 73

 

[Larniavc]

but it even uses Job Control Language (JCL)

Evidence please.

 

[Astrid]

It highlights the absurdity of the ToE. It's completely relevant.

You believe we all originated from a mudskipper fish. While this is not very accurate a statement, it is still technically true, by ToE standards.

You do not have the capacity to show ToE
is absurd, certainly not by asking a question
about the outermost edges of possible. Or,
more likely totally impossible, depending in what
you mean by a dog, or gills.



The understanding that certain fish are ancestral
to land vertebrates is not a belief.

There is nothing absurd about understanding the evidence,
what's absurd is having no idea, making things up
then acting as if your knowledge is greater than that
of any scientist on esrth.

And you got so wise withoud any study.
Right.

You don't even read answers provided here.

The amusement has worn off.
You are not serious, are not trying.

So, may I request now that if you cannot
read answers to questions OR provide any facts as per
request in op, plz leave until you are willing or
able to behave in an at least semi sensible way.

 

[friend of]

The understanding that certain fish are ancestral
to land vertebrates is not a belief

What is it then? Is it an evolutionary fact, per chance?

 

[Astrid]

Why do you think that would happen?

It wouldn't be a dog anymore.
And the evolutionary route that ledd to
fish type gills would be impossible for
a mammal to replicate.

Some turtles have "gills" that operate throug
the um, back end. Salamanders that respire underwater
via a huge skin area with lots of fringe.

" dog gills"...?


In the event, gills cannot provide enough
oxygen for a warm blooded animal.

Absurd ideas only point to how absurd the originator is
being.

 

[Astrid]

What is it then? Is it an evolutionary fact, per chance?

"Evolutionary fact" is more of your fantasy.
There is no such thing. You want facts? Here's some.

Try this-
Fact: All relevant data is fully consistent with ToE,.
Fact;:There is no other explanation for the data set
Fact: There is not one datum point on planet earth
that is contrary ( therefore disproves) ToE.

Fact: I started this thread to illustrate that creationists
do not have any facts with which to disprove ToE.

Now- are you going to just continue this silliness?
I can't make you stop but I will ignore you, if not.

 

[Astrid]

And land dwelling creatures evolved to live in the sea. The most efficient was not to modify lungs to be gills but to improve their ability to hold their breath.

Gills are very inefficient compared to lungs.
Some sort of underwater air exchange in addition lungs is feasible to supplement bresthing. Turtles and
amphibians do it.

To then take over and replace lungs would not be
feasible. At best like maybe putting sails on a car.
Not remotely worth doing as a supplement.cost more than pays.
In place of an engine? No way.

 

[friend of]

"Evolutionary fact" is more of your fantasy.
There is no such thing. You want facts? Here's some.

Try this-
Fact: All relevant data is fully consistent with ToE,.
Fact;:There is no other explanation for the data set
Fact: There is not one datum point on planet earth
that is contrary ( therefore disproves) ToE.

Fact: I started this thread to illustrate that creationists
do not have any facts with which to disprove ToE.

Now- are you going to just continue this silliness?
I can't make you stop but I will ignore you, if not.

I'm done. You created this thread for argument, but you're saying anyone that disagrees with you is not allowed, as per the "facts" you just mentioned. Why make the thread at all if your just going to try and censor people with different viewpoints? The fact of the matter is that bonobos needed to come from a land dwelling mammal, because that's what they are. They are here because they apparently evolved. When we attempt to answer where said mammals originated we get all the way back to its ancestral emergence through a fish that walked on land. The link is rather indirect in view of speciation, but it is there. If you want to reject that part of ToH, be my guest, you do yourself little service to your cause by doing so. I am merely asking a series of regressive questions but you can't seem to handle it. Goodbye

 

[Astrid]

I'm done. You created this thread for argument, but you're saying anyone that disagrees with you is not allowed, as per the "facts" you just mentioned. Why make the thread at all if your just going to try and censor people with different viewpoints? The fact of the matter is that bonobos needed to come from a land dwelling mammal, because that's what they are. They are here because they apparently evolved. When we attempt to answer where said mammals originated we get all the way back to its ancestral emergence through a fish that walked on land. The link is rather indirect in view of speciation, but it is there. If you want to reject that part of ToH, be my guest, you do yourself little service to your cause by doing so. I am merely asking a series of regressive questions but you can't seem to handle it. Goodbye

My fault that you can't do better than act silly
And make things up.

Whatever,said parting is well made.

 

[friend of]

@Estrid All I am asking is; where did the bonobo ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestors come from? Ad infinitum. Until we reach the junction of divergence.

You bury your head in the sand in the face of simple Socratic method. If you were more honest with yourself, I think, you wouldn't do that.

 

[Astrid]

@Estrid All I am asking is; where did the bonobo ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestor come from? Then, where did that ancestors come from? Ad infinitum. Until we reach the junction of divergence.

You bury your head in the sand in the face of simple Socratic method. If you were more honest with yourself, I think, you wouldn't do that.

You somehow did not see my answer?
Seriously, if you missed it, like you did with
my response (post 37, which you never acknowledged)
I can find the number.

Accusing me of dishonesty is very inappropriate.

The info and fscts are all on my side.

Ok,here...
211- " parents"
Which is brief but accurate.
That's literally all there is to it.


I responded again at 223 and 253; I asked what more you want, i gave example of no first poodle.

I asked what more you want. You never said.

It's really not hard to understand. Every organism
has ancestors going back hundreds of millions of years. Most of us don't much look like our parents of 10,000,000 yrs ago. Chimps don't. We don't. Far fewer resemble their ancestors of 100,000 000 years ago. Clams do. None of the mammals do.


I (honestly ) don't know what you are asking for,
dont see.

Can you explain what you are missing?

 

[friend of]

The info and fscts are all on my side.

Then why even make the thread? You already know everything. Nobody from my camp is going to dissuade you. The appeal to authority fallacy is alive and well with you, it would seem.

 

[Astrid]

Then why even make the thread? You already know everything. Nobody from my camp is going to dissuade you. The appeal to authority fallacy is alive and well with you, it would seem.

You ask the question after I already answered.
Then you answer your own q. with things you make up,
and of course miss every time.

You is startin' to thrash about lIke a foul-hooked
alligator, lookin' for somethin' to bite !