Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[jacks]

Then why even make the thread?

Threads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.

 

[Astrid]

Threads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.

Miracle! Look at the unlikely duo you got,to
agree on something!

 

[Neogaia777]

Threads like this are made so those who like to argue can do so. It's more of a sport, than anything else. Only play if it is fun for you and don't take any of it too seriously.

857K views · 32K reactions | We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the... | By The Gentlemen's Barber Shop | Facebook

We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the...

www.facebook.com

 

[Neogaia777]

857K views · 32K reactions | We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the... | By The Gentlemen's Barber Shop | Facebook

We have endless “small town” memes quotes & post, posted daily on this page. Like our post? hit that like button it’s how you drop a quarter in the...

www.facebook.com

I can't just copy the video, and sorry it's a FB reel/link, but it really does apply to this here, so you should click on it to check it out, lol.

 

[Ophiolite]

What about bouillons of years?

References to the prime evil soup should not go unremarked!

@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

The Ancestor's Tale - Richard Dawkins, of which wikipedia says "The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life is a science book by Richard Dawkins and Yan Wong that delves into the topic of evolution. The book adopts a unique approach, retracing the path of humans in reverse chronological order through evolutionary history."

This answers your questions in great detail, with very many examples and extensive references. It addresses the points that are difficult to properly address in a medium such as this forum.

 

[friend of]

This answers your questions in great detail, with very many examples and extensive references. It addresses the points that are difficult to properly address in a medium such as this forum

Thanks

 

[Larniavc]

The fact of the matter is that bonobos needed to come from a land dwelling mammal, because that's what they are.

You’ve had that explained to you. If you’re not going to address the OP why are you here?

 

[AV1611VET]

You’ve had that explained to you. If you’re not going to address the OP why are you here?

What sort of facts could disprove it?

It will take a miracle to disprove it.

Any mundane attempts to disprove it will lead to excessive posts, off-topic chit chat, tempers flaring, and even talking to yourself.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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

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.)


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.


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

I'll just leave this mini-discussion with this: A single-celled organism most definitely IS special. Again, it's more complex than all the writings of Shakespeare combined. And it's result is amazing. It's very special.

BTW, I read an article in a science journal back in the early 80's regarding RNA. It was called "selfish genes, selfish memes". It made the argument that the only reason we exist is because RNA wants to reproduce itself. Of course it was tongue in cheek. But interesting nonetheless.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Evidence please.

An article I read about 8 years ago. I didn't save it. But I can explain how JCL works:
It is designed to run "batch" programs. Typically, programs designed to process records in large files. A good example would be a program at a bank that runs at night against all savings accounts, adding interest by computing the amount of money in the account against the interest rate. This is a simplification, but you get the idea.

The JCL is a very short program, as little as three or four lines, that tells the computer what input file to read, what output file to use, and what program to run. However it may include lines that contain a label and a value. For example, the value could be "A", or "B" or "C", and in the COBOL batch program, One of the first lines would be a simple piece of code asks the question:
If CODE = A, perform 'calculate-interest'
Else
If CODE = B, Perform 'subtract-interest'
Else
If CODE = C, Perform 'Add-1-million-dollars-to-my-account'
Else
Display "invalid code"

This is how a programmer could literally give himself a million dollars, because the paragraph would simply find a particular account number and then add one million dollars to it. And the program would end.

Which is why we always validate and peer review code.

BTW, I've not written or even read COBOL for ten years, so there may be some specifics missing there. But the point is that a program can have what looks like "junk code" but in reality it is only used when certain input values are entered. Like DNA.

 

[AV1611VET]

An article I read about 8 years ago. I didn't save it. But I can explain how JCL works:

Were you a JCL co-ordinator?

And did you work with an IBM 370?

 

[sfs]

Because sea dwelling creatures evolved to live on land.

I already explained why land-dwelling creatures are unlikely to evolve anything like gills when they return to the water. Did you miss it or did you not understand it?

 

[sfs]

I'm a retired COBOL programmer. Not only is DNA like a computer program

I'm a non-retired Python/C/C++/etc programmer and a geneticist. DNA isn't remotely like a computer program. Make almost any change to a functioning computer program and you have something that doesn't do anything at all. Make almost any change to functional DNA and you have something that still does something -- possibly the same thing, possibly a slightly different thing, possibly a very different thing.

If your basis for rejecting evolution is this analogy to computer programs, you have no basis for your rejection.

 

[NxNW]

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.

It has been calculated that a single light-sensitive cell can evolve into a fully-functioning eyeball in a few hundred thousand generations. The eye has evolved independently many times in nature. So much for being laughable.

 

[NxNW]

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.

Don't confuse random with 'driven by natural selection', which is more powerful than random.

 

[NxNW]

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.

Pointing to the data and the repeated successful predicitions of the ToE is not an appeal to authority.

 

[NxNW]

BTW, I read an article in a science journal back in the early 80's regarding RNA. It was called "selfish genes, selfish memes". It made the argument that the only reason we exist is because RNA wants to reproduce itself. Of course it was tongue in cheek. But interesting nonetheless.

Sounds like a reference to the Richard Dawkins book. He's also the person who invented the word 'meme'.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Were you a JCL co-ordinator?

And did you work with an IBM 370?

Yes I did.

One funny story: I became, for a little more money on the side, my contracting firm's liaison with the other contractor programmers. One of them was originally from the Soviet Union. I talked of using 370's there with bootlegged IBM software. They were literally running IBM's with no documentation on how the machine software worked.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'll just leave this mini-discussion with this: A single-celled organism most definitely IS special. Again, it's more complex than all the writings of Shakespeare combined. And it's result is amazing. It's very special.

All extant single-celled organisms are descendants of 3-4 billion years of evolution and competition. There is no reason to think that the first cells were anything as complex as modern single-celled organisms.

BTW, I read an article in a science journal back in the early 80's regarding RNA. It was called "selfish genes, selfish memes". It made the argument that the only reason we exist is because RNA wants to reproduce itself. Of course it was tongue in cheek. But interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps it was a popular magazine or news article by or about Richard Dawkins. (Selfish genes is a concept he developed as are memes.)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

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.

Keep in mind, brother, that the Appeal to Authority Fallacy is a separate thing from making an Appeal to Authority.

One is a misapplication of the other.

If we're talking about Richard Dawkins, then depending on which exact verbiage we might quote from him, appealing to him could, at times, be the commission of the Appeal to Authority Fallacy.