Facts to disprove theory of evolution

[Reasonably Sane]

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 thing.

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

That is the genius of the design of DNA. Maybe I should say it this way: A computer program is analogous to how DNA works. Of course they are not exactly the same. But they both involve instructions on how to do a thing. Except, of course, DNA is far more complex and actually creates at the molecular level. That's pretty cool.

I also don't reject evolution. I'm talking about DNA and its very existence being proof for intelligent design. And, in fact, part of its design could be that it handles changes in the environment in ways that we have labelled "evolution".

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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.

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

Regarding your first sentence, opinions vary.
Regarding your last sentence, you are probably right. It was a long time ago.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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.

Read what you responded to more carefully. I was saying it is BETTER than the eyeball example. I wasn't referring to the eyeball example.

 

[AV1611VET]

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.

Interesting.

I was a computer operator on one.

My official title was "Console Commander."

I vaguely remember those User and System errors.

I think a U232 was a "time out."

Like when the computer called for a tape on drive nnnn, and you didn't put one on it.

It would "time out" after about 90 minutes and abort the program.

I still remember having to IPL (Initial Program Load) those things!

 

[NxNW]

I also don't reject evolution. I'm talking about DNA and its very existence being proof for intelligent design. And, in fact, part of its design could be that it handles changes in the environment in ways that we have labelled "evolution".

All you need to do is explain when and where the intelligence 'helped' evolution.

I see nothing in this world that requires a supernatural explanation.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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

First, I used neither phrase. But, more importantly, "natural selection" is just a phrase for "happy" random choices.

But we're arguing nonsense. None of us were there. It's all merely various hypotheses. Arguing that something as complex as a single cell is a product of evolution is as impractical as finding a billion year old Rolex watch and declaring it happened through evolution, even though it is far simpler. And that is because we know who designed and created watches, and how they are made. The assumption is that the watch was designed and created.

And many of us also know the Creator of life, so it's as obvious to us that it was designed and created as it would be to many that that old watch was designed and created. But those that don't know this creator, look at life and desperately try to come up with some other explanation. Don't get me wrong. I think it's a noble effort to find out how life functions. But glomming on to kinda silly hypotheses and saying that is a more likely cause of the existence of life than an intelligent creator sort of exposes a bias. And when a person knows the creator, "creation" is the Occam's razor explanation.

And it's ok if that is the answer, is it not. I mean, this is a Christian site.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Interesting.

I was a computer operator on one.

My official title was "Console Commander."

I vaguely remember those User and System errors.

I think a U232 was a "time out."

Like when the computer called for a tape on drive nnnn, and you didn't put one on it.

It would "time out" after about 90 minutes and abort the program.

I still remember having to IPL (Initial Program Load) those things!

As a programmer, I remember the common (OC7). Non numeric data in a packed (numeric) field. Those were usually pretty easy to trace. OC4's were the scariest. I had a beeper and when one of those happened I sometimes ended up spending all nighters.

One fun one: I worked for a bank and a weekly program abended (abnormally ended) and I got called in. Turns out that the program had a numeric field that handled the bank branch number and as our bank had expanded, the number of branches had grown larger than the field could handle. Easy fix. I added a digit (two just to be safe) to the storage of that value so it could handle the quantity of branches we had and way into the future.

But the funny part: I'm ashamed I didn't think of this, but a few days later the monthly job abended too. Yeah, same problem. At least at that point I looked up the quarterly, semi-annual and annual jobs that did the same thing. And those I fixed the next day. Live and learn...

Edit. Sorry for the off topic stuff. It's been a long time and it was fun.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

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

Yes, I suspect it was. I thank that article for knowing immediately what people were talking about when "meme" started showing up as a meme.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Regarding your first sentence, opinions vary.

I only went "fuzzy" to not spend time searching for a better number, but there is no scientific debate about life existing on earth for about 3 billion years.

Regarding your last sentence, you are probably right. It was a long time ago.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

All you need to do is explain when and where the intelligence 'helped' evolution.

This is such a conceptually specious comment to make, especially where Natural Historians would be interpreting evidences encased in Deep Time.

If God brought about biological life, there isn't really a Paleyian discernment to be made like we would with a Ken or Barbie Doll.

I see nothing in this world that requires a supernatural explanation.

And there's nothing requiring that the concept of the supernatural be conflated with what would be seemingly obvious and classifiable according to our modern scientific praxes.

 

[BPPLEE]

What sort of facts could disprove it?

Does anyone have any?

What could prove it?

 

[Astrid]

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.

Its the same laughter as from a some clever ten yr old
who thinks grownups are dumb, for pretending that
algebra / calculus is math when everyone know math
uses numbers. Not letters and funny squiggles.

 

[BPPLEE]

Its the same laughter as from a some clever ten yr old
who thinks grownups are dumb, for pretending that
algebra / calculus is math when everyone know math
uses numbers. Not letters and funny squiggles.

Not the first time you’ve used this

 

[Astrid]

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

See " thrash about for something to bite'

 

[Astrid]

That is the genius of the design of DNA. Maybe I should say it this way: A computer program is analogous to how DNA works. Of course they are not exactly the same. But they both involve instructions on how to do a thing. Except, of course, DNA is far more complex and actually creates at the molecular level. That's pretty cool.

I also don't reject evolution. I'm talking about DNA and its very existence being proof for intelligent design. And, in fact, part of its design could be that it handles changes in the environment in ways that we have labelled "evolution".

An awful lot of people claim the have the key to
proving god. Others say they can square the circle.

 

[Astrid]

Regarding your first sentence, opinions vary.
Regarding your last sentence, you are probably right. It was a long time ago.

Opinions vary. Some think they earth is flat.

Data doesn't respect opinions.


Show us data for the earth being significantly
older or younger

 

[Reasonably Sane]

I only went "fuzzy" to not spend time searching for a better number, but there is no scientific debate about life existing on earth for about 3 billion years.

I believe it probably did. As I say to my friends in church. I don't believe the earth is only six thousand years old. But I believe the age that it is talking about IS about that old. I see the earth as a canvas that has had many paintings applied to it. Each whitewashed with a new painting over it. And if we peal back the current painting, we find signs of the previous paintings. Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. But that is outside the scope of the function of the bible as much as grammar is outside the function of an algebra book. One does not reach for a bible when discussing science. That's not in its swim lane. It discusses something for those seeking a much more important answer, to the question, "why?".

 

[Reasonably Sane]

An awful lot of people claim the have the key to
proving god. Others say they can square the circle.

I don't try to prove God. He doesn't need my help. I simply like to share the message. Some (as I did) will accept it and others will not. And the bible is pretty clear. We don't choose him. He choses us.

 

[Reasonably Sane]

Opinions vary. Some think they earth is flat.

Data doesn't respect opinions.


Show us data for the earth being significantly
older or younger

I know of no evidence for the earth being young. I know of plenty regarding the earth being old. My answer to your request is actually in this post just above: Post #358

Short version: I think when the bible talks of the earth in the context of creation, destruction and recreation, it is speaking of the surface of the earth. That gets made "new" quite a bit. Hence the buried forests in the Sahara.

 

[Astrid]

I believe it probably did. As I say to my friends in church. I don't believe the earth is only six thousand years old. But I believe the age that it is talking about IS about that old. I see the earth as a canvas that has had many paintings applied to it. Each whitewashed with a new painting over it. And if we peal back the current painting, we find signs of the previous paintings. Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, etc. But that is outside the scope of the function of the bible as much as grammar is outside the function of an algebra book. One does not reach for a bible when discussing science. That's not in its swim lane. It discusses something for those seeking a much more important answer, to the question, "why?".

"Why" is not amenable to fact or resson and as such, discussion is of no demonstrable purpose. And this is a phys sci thread.

The idea of stripping away the old for a whole new
painting could use some detail.

There have been events, some dramatic such as ice ages but no real discontinuities such as you seem to describe.

Details ?