Evolution is not really a theory

[inquiring mind]

ID is only creationism in a cheap lab coat. It is a sham.

Good deflection from my point. I was just suggesting that the OP’s comments didn’t seem to limit this discussion to evolution, as you were suggesting.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Good deflection from my point. I was just suggesting that the OP’s comments didn’t seem to limit this discussion to evolution, as you were suggesting.

You missed the point. ID does not deal with abiogenesis either.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I know that English is probably not your first language, but that makes no sense as a test. Either clarify what you meant or think of another test. From what I can understand it fails as a reasonable test.

I can tell you right now that to date no intelligent decision making processes have been found in the origin of some organisms.

But intelligent decisionmaking processes have not been excluded either, and the evidence points towards that they are there. In any case, it is just like anything else, you just have to straightforwardly look for them, and if it's not there, then it is falsified.

 

[xianghua]

Yes, the efficient functional complexity of it requires intelligent design.

like this one:

 

[xianghua]

As I said, your "theory" predicts nothing at all about genome comparisons.

its actually also true for evolution, so this is a pointless claim.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Free will is a very difficult concept for me to get my head around. I feel like I have free will, but all my thoughts and choices are built from my experience and inclinations, so i guess it's possible that i don't have free will.

It's also completely irrelevant to the intelligent design debate. People on all sides of the spiritual and scientific debates both believe and disbelieve in free will.


Many animal decisions can be predicted with reasonable statistical accuracy. They are also affected by their natures, instincts and experience. But it's also irrelevant. The ability of complex animals and humans to both choose and design things in way is evidence that life is itself a product of choice.

When you get down to the ultimate detail of life, DNA, it's governed by the laws of chemistry. It reacts, it doesn't choose.


Finding choice in the universe doesn't mean the entire universe is run on choices. Just like Isaac Newton saw the pattern of motion and force of Newton's Laws, and extrapolated them to the whole universe... and he was wrong.

Newton's laws much like pattern matching to assume design are often correct, but hey are not universal.


Except DNA doesn't make decisions and isn't like a human mind. It's a chemical reaction.


Why would we assume that is possible?


What you are describing is the chemistry of mutations and DNA replication... not choices.

And not every DNA sequence is as likely as any other. Most will not form viable organisms and so won't have an opportunity to replicate.

You evaluations of inteligent design are obviously meaningless, because you cannot even conceptualize choice.

What I said, in some state the catg are equally likely etc, so you have a FUTURE of every possible DNA combination, to make new dna. Choosing works by making an alternative future the present.

To apply the regular laws of chemistry to dna, that leaves the the 200 + petabytes of digital information storage capacity per gram of dna, as some kind of wild meaningless coincedence. Nobody believes that anymore, do they? Bio informatics is an established discipline.

It's very obvious that there is an abstraction taking place. An abstraction from the things in the universe. Output AND input from the universe proper, to the DNA world. Organisms are not reactive but responsive. Even single cell organisms appear responsive.

 

[lasthero]

But intelligent decisionmaking processes have not been excluded either, and the evidence points towards that they are there. In any case, it is just like anything else, you just have to straightforwardly look for them, and if it's not there, then it is falsified.

Okay, can you stop saying ‘decisionmaking’ like it’s one word? Please?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Okay, can you stop saying ‘decisionmaking’ like it’s one word? Please?

You have problems with free will?

 

[lasthero]

You have problems with free will?

I have problems with poor grammar.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

And? You still not explaining why what your saying has anything to do with evolution. Mutations are random and the mutations that have benefits are selected for by pressure. There is no choice or intelligence required, your trying to add something not required.

With choice you can have trillions upon trillions of combinations of dna in the future, and then make one of those alternative futures the present. That is needed to get functional dna.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

I have problems with poor grammar.

Or are you emotionally triggered, hyper sensitive about anything related to free will.

 

[loveofourlord]

With choice you can have trillions upon trillions of combinations of dna in the future, and then make one of those alternative futures the present. That is needed to get functional dna.

actually no, your engliish is weird so hard to tell what you mean, but there is no reason life had to end up as it did, life has no goal or aim with evolution, it could have easily been birds that became the intelligent species or anything else. Mutations create oportunities that nature and chance chose what will survive.

Mutations create the antibacterial resistances, nature and the drug create the choice, no free will required there, your adding something thats not required, any more then free will is required to make hydron and oxygen combine to form water, it's a natural consequence.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

actually no, your engliish is weird so hard to tell what you mean, but there is no reason life had to end up as it did, life has no goal or aim with evolution, it could have easily been birds that became the intelligent species or anything else. Mutations create oportunities that nature and chance chose what will survive.

Mutations create the antibacterial resistances, nature and the drug create the choice, no free will required there, your adding something thats not required, any more then free will is required to make hydron and oxygen combine to form water, it's a natural consequence.

I think you just have no clue about choosing and are ideologically opposed to it. The available evidence points to intelligent design.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

With choice you can have trillions upon trillions of combinations of dna in the future, and then make one of those alternative futures the present. That is needed to get functional dna.

How does DNA or single celled organisms make decisions?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you just have no clue about choosing and are ideologically opposed to it. The available evidence points to intelligent design.

Sorry, but it does not. In fact I do not know of any evidence at all for intelligent design. This statement of yours indicates that you do not understand the concept of evidence. Can you read my sig? That is a brief description of scientific evidence. To even have scientific evidence one must first have a scientific hypothesis. I asked for a reasonable test of ID and you failed to provide one. You can try again, but I doubt if you can think of one since no creationist has since Behe came up with "irreducible complexity" and that concept was refuted by a mousetrap. He tried to redefine it, but it still was refuted by observations of nature. That is a failed hypothesis which means that it no longer has any evidence.

 

[Belk]

But intelligent decisionmaking processes have not been excluded either, and the evidence points towards that they are there. In any case, it is just like anything else, you just have to straightforwardly look for them, and if it's not there, then it is falsified.

What evidence is that?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

How does DNA or single celled organisms make decisions?

By putting the stuff to make the bases CATG at the ready, and then having any of them equally likely to be made. So that there is a future of all possible combinations.

And variations thereof.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

By putting the stuff to make the bases CATG at the ready, and then having any of them equally likely to be made. So that there is a future of all possible combinations.

And variations thereof.

How? How does it choose to do so? How can it decide to do so?
DNA and single celled organisms do not have the capacity for complex mental thinking.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

How? How does it choose to do so? How can it decide to do so?
DNA and single celled organisms do not have the capacity for complex mental thinking.

Choice is fundamental in physics. I don't think the dna would work if for instance base C was more likely to occur than base A. Don't you agree? Even on evolutionary terms if C was more likely than A, then you would get C's all over the place in the DNA, and it would not work.

So they must be equally likely. And if they are equally likely, then that is also most suitable for choosing them.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Choice is fundamental in physics. I don't think the dna would work if for instance base C was more likely to occur than base A. Don't you agree? Even on evolutionary terms if C was more likely than A, then you would get C's all over the place in the DNA, and it would not work.

So they must be equally likely. And if they are equally likely, then that is also most suitable for choosing them.

But how can something that does not have a mind make a choice? That's the question I'm asking. You are continually saying that all of the things for evolution are down to choice, but to make a choice, a thing must have an intellect. DNA and single celled organisms do not possess what can be considered an intellect, ergo they cannot make choices.