Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If evolution was useful, then some monkeys or whales, would have higher level reasoning. Our brains are not that big, that only humans have it. We would live on planet with many peer species.
So we can perform the same analyses with a Commodore Vic20 that we can with Deep Blue? Good to know.Biological unique properties of the human brain. It's not larger that make it unique.
We have animal brains, silly.It's functionally different than animal brains
When talking about different degrees of the same functions, sure. Humans do communicate in a more complex fashion. But that doesn't mean the underlying processes of communication are unique to humans.
As for empathy, I think this says it all:
One of Washoe's caretakers was pregnant and missed work for many weeks after she miscarried. Roger Fouts recounts the following situation:
"People who should be there for her and aren't are often given the cold shoulder--her way of informing them that she's miffed at them. Washoe greeted Kat [the caretaker] in just this way when she finally returned to work with the chimps. Kat made her apologies to Washoe, then decided to tell her the truth, signing "MY BABY DIED". Washoe stared at her, then looked down. She finally peered into Kat's eyes again and carefully signed "CRY", touching her cheek and drawing her finger down the path a tear would make on a human (Chimpanzees don't shed tears). Kat later remarked that one sign told her more about Washoe and her mental capabilities than all her longer, grammatically perfect sentences."
Washoe (chimpanzee) - Wikipedia
I saw what you did there...But how could natural selection apply to the evolution of new proteins? Most proteins have more than 100 amino acid molecules in a specific order and some have more than 1000. A mutation in the DNA of the gene that encodes the protein may result in a change in a particular amino acid.
Would there be a benefit at each mutation along the way toward a new functional protein needed for the progress of evolution? NO! The overwhelming majority of chains of amino acids don't even fold correctly and therefore do nothing useful at all. No benefit. Natural selection has no benefit to select.
With your obvious in-depth background in biochemistry and biology, tell us all what constitutes a "new" protein.So it's up to random chance to get to the new protein.
Right - because each "new" protein (whatever those are) is the result of a one-off, pure "random chance" arrangement of amino acids.But the fact that there are 10^130 (ten to the 130 power) permutations of even a short protein with 100 amino acids, would seem to rule chance out too. After all, the universe is less than 10^18 seconds old.
The assumption is that along the path to the protein that's needed for the next step in evolution, each "stepping stone" functional protein is beneficial at that time. But for example, if the eye hadn't yet evolved, what benefit would rhodopsin provide? It would be just as worthless as a chain that doesn't fold correctly.
I no longer take offense when I read things like this - working, as I did, for 5 years as a graduate student doing original research on these issues.That's right. My views don't matter. I know.
But I'm fascinated by evolution because I'm still shocked to see that so many intelligent, knowledgeable people have been duped into having faith in the indefensible. You don't have to have a PhD to see that science has been twisted to support it.
And on top of that, most proteins (and thus the underlying genes) are members of families, and are not 'de novo' proteins, but are the results of duplications/modifications/rearrangements of the 'original' proteins.To put things in context, they discovered 4 functional proteins for binding ATP out of 6x10^12 total sequences. Meanwhile the estimated number of current bacterial organisms on Earth is about 5x10^30. And they've been evolving for about 4 billion years.
Really? What controls it? Don't tell me natural selection.
There are creationists that think the universe is less than 10,000 years old (YEC), and those that accept that it is billions (OEC). They use the same source material. I'd think you might be a bit humbler.And whose definition of evolution are you using? At last count there were 7. Evolutionists can't agree on a definition.
Actually, he has major issues, perhaps even some mental ones. He refers to himself as "we", for example.I got that from "Science against Evolution", site set up by a computer scientist who worked for the military, including the AIM-9 missile. He's a genuine genius. And very funny.
Science Against Evolution Official Home Page
The dudes a Boomer with an electrical engineering degree and is a biblical literalist who thinks analogies are evidence.Since 1996, it has been Science Against Evolution's objective to make the general public aware that the theory of evolution is not consistent with physical evidence and is no longer a respectable theory describing the origin and diversity of life.
That web site sure looks like it was made in 1996. It's even using <FONT> tags!
Right - and you know this because some dumpy old misogynist bible kook said so.Many evolutionists have little idea of how things work in reality. Try this for a paper on how cold blooded creatures "evolved" into warm blooded.
When You’re Hot, You’re Hot!
I know something about temperature control. The people who wrote the paper obviously do not. Equally uninformed are the people who published it.
Makes perfect sense - why, if those old people never took drugs to treat their health problems, they would live to be 900, like Noah didn't.Because they will end up on a long list of drugs that will only kill them in the end.
Not DNA.Yes! because he knows how things work.
So how can Do-While Pogge understand it?DNA is the most amazing coding system, far more complex than anything man has come up with.
Totally on-point and apt analogy.... which thus counts as evidence...And no, such things don't come about by accident. An explosion in a scrabble factory is not going to produce a dictionary.
ever heard of the fallacy of appeal to false authority?I read the section of the paper relating to the temperature control system. The "poor" critique is by an expert in the field. USAF pilots needed his expertise to ensure that air to air missiles functioned correctly. The "experts" in evolution do not know how closed loop systems work. That did not stop them from making incorrect assumptions and coming to incorrect conclusions.
And while there are unlimited details to be learned in the study of biology, enough of it can be learned in a short period to put the lie to what is taught about microbe-to-man evolution. (New species and new genera are observed, but they're not the issue.)
I accept his findings and am delighted by the clarity. (He never uses the popular terms "micro-evolution" or "macro-evolution", but they would clearly apply.)
Then what DO you mean?That's not what I mean by a "new protein".
What does that even mean?I know about nylonase. It was created with TWO point mutations. I don't know about the other. How many point mutations is it away from it's starting point?
Why would an organism 'need' this?Suppose the next step in the evolution of an organism needs a new protein that's different from it's closest neighbor by 50 amino acids.
How do you know that?Natural selection can't help because there's no benefit to any intermediate chain until it's almost correct and complete.
The totally hypothetical one that you dreamed up with unrealistic "required" alterations?Make a few assumptions and do a little math. See if you can produce the correct protein in less than a trillion years. Seriously.
Why do so few creationists understand things like genetic drift, or neutral variation?Natural selection selects organisms with features that give it a benefit for survival, but that can't happen on the long path to a new protein. It would have to pass through many states that don't have any benefit. There's no "selection pressure" when there's no benefit.
Natural selection can't help evolve new proteins. (Note that little tweaks of a couple amino acids might be called "new", but it's not a new protein.)
Evolution tends to produce results that are good enough for survival/reproductive success but no better - additional functionality that does not enhance survival/reproductive success is an unnecessary resource drain, particularly cognitive functions, which are very energy demanding.If evolution was useful, then some monkeys or whales, would have higher level reasoning. Our brains are not that big, that only humans have it. We would live on planet with many peer species.
Exactly.Nice post thanks! AFAIK emergent systems have a "novel statistical signature". Meaning I think, that the top level behavious of the flock for instance becomes the best, easiest way to to talk about all those birds.
If you consider mental activity as a set of processes, neural activities in the brain, the reification simply becomes a convenient way of talking about their emergent property (mind itself).Still I'm having issues though, because mind is an new ontological property, and in all other cases of emergence, the behaviour is merely on the physical plane.
I don't know what this means; it seems too vague to comment - what attraction? what force? rational in what way (and how)? irrational in what way?If there is rational attraction to being, then there is a force (i.e. being responsible for ourselves) acting on us that causes a movement towards the source of that force (i.e. existence, the world, the universe). Such that properly or appropriately responsible action draws us towards existence.
If there is irrational attraction to being, then life forms are drawn towards existence by means of irrationality (random mutation) and purely physical feedback (natural selection). Life is again drawn towards existence, but in a non-conscious or non-rational way.
Two distinct models. Dualism again.
Any comments?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?