Evolution is not really a theory

[Nando Ronteltap]

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.

No fundamentally choices are spontaneous. You are confusing sorting with choosing. A chesscomputer generally calculates and sorts moves, it does not choose anything.

But it's true that there needs to be an intelligent way to deal with all the trillions of possible dna permutations in the future, for intelligent design to work.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

That does not even imply that a decision making process is involved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No fundamentally choices are spontaneous. You are confusing sorting with choosing. A chesscomputer generally calculates and sorts moves, it does not choose anything.

But it's true that there needs to be an intelligent way to deal with all the trillions of possible dna permutations in the future, for intelligent design to work.

this sounds like terribly circular reasoning.

 

[sfs]

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?

One base usually is more likely than another. In Plasmodium falciparum, to take an extreme example, A's are about four times as likely to occur as C's.

 

[St. Helens]

MOD HAT ON
Do not personally attack (insult, belittle, mock, ridicule) other members or groups of members on CF. Address only the content of the post and not the poster.
MOD HAT OFF​

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No fundamentally choices are spontaneous. You are confusing sorting with choosing. A chesscomputer generally calculates and sorts moves, it does not choose anything.

But it's true that there needs to be an intelligent way to deal with all the trillions of possible dna permutations in the future, for intelligent design to work.

That's not very good logic. And comparing a chess-computer, a machine created with the purpose of making choices depending on situations with a single-celled organism or DNA, both of which lack fundamental logic making elements, is very very poor.

And not once has anyone shown any evidence for intelligent design working.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

That's not very good logic. And comparing a chess-computer, a machine created with the purpose of making choices depending on situations with a single-celled organism or DNA, both of which lack fundamental logic making elements, is very very poor.

And not once has anyone shown any evidence for intelligent design working.

You just have emotional problems with accepting free will in general.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You just have emotional problems with accepting free will in general.

No. I have problems with people who make outlandish claims then refuse to provide any evidence or even basic explanations for them.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

No. I have problems with people who make outlandish claims then refuse to provide any evidence or even basic explanations for them.

I don't think so. I explained how choices are essentially spontaneous, you don't get it. We are not communicating.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

No. I have problems with people who make outlandish claims then refuse to provide any evidence or even basic explanations for them.

The chesscomputer was an example of how sorting works, it is not how choosing works.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You just have emotional problems with accepting free will in general.

Please, the moderator just made a comment about this sort of post. Rather than making claims about others please find a source that supports your claims about 'choice'.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think so. I explained how choices are essentially spontaneous, you don't get it. We are not communicating.

Perhaps because English does not appear to be your first language. Have you thought that you might be using the wrong terminology?

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

Perhaps because English does not appear to be your first language. Have you thought that you might be using the wrong terminology?

For about the fourth time, free will has been considered a problem in philosophy for centuries. When I get attitude in response, then it is most likely they have a problem with free will in general.

 

[Subduction Zone]

For about the fourth time, free will has been considered a problem in philosophy for centuries. When I get attitude in response, then it is most likely they have a problem with free will in general.

Yes, free will is a problem in philosophy since it does not appear to exist. I am not arguing either way about that. That has little to do with our discussion. And no, saying people have a problem with free will is technically a personal attack. Facing the fact that it may not exist does not mean that someone "has a problem with it". Personally I would prefer free will to be real thing rather than an illusion. The problem is that in a complex world it may not be possible to determine whether it exists or not.


And if you claim that free will exists, please note that I am not making a claim either way, then you put the burden of proof upon yourself. If you can't do more than wave your hands then it is clear that you do not know what you are talking about. But one consolation is that even if you do not know what you are talking about in the case of free will you might still be correct.

So, do you have any reliable evidence that supports the existence of free will or not?

The reason that you are getting what you called "attitude" is that you made claims and then were not able to support them. If I declare the Earth to be Flat and then cannot support that claim I will get "attitude" as well.

 

[Nando Ronteltap]

It's obvious that since choosing is the mechanism of creation, it requires some basic understanding of the concept of free will in order to evaluate creationism / intelligent design theory. I already mentioned there is terrific evidence for choosing, namely I myself make choices. Various other evidence exists. I think it is enough to establish someone doesn't accept free will, to judge their evaluation of creationism as irrellevant.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's obvious that since choosing is the mechanism of creation, it requires some basic understanding of the concept of free will in order to evaluate creationism / intelligent design theory. I already mentioned there is terrific evidence for choosing, namely I myself make choices. Various other evidence exists. I think it is enough to establish someone doesn't accept free will, to judge their evaluation of creationism as irrellevant.

This is rather poorly worded. Again English does not appear to be your first language so that is somewhat understandable. People do not choose the mechanism of creation. We can discuss how it likely happened, and the word "creation" itself is improper since that assumes that our universe was made.

And if there is evidence then you need to post it. Claiming that it exists does not do you any good at all.

Do you understand your errors here? You can't use the word "creation" until you at the very least provide some evidence for creation. Claiming that it exists does not do you any good. I could claim there is evidence that proves there is no God, but that claim would be worthless without evidence.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't think so. I explained how choices are essentially spontaneous, you don't get it. We are not communicating.

Exactly, and the problem is you, because you are explaining nothing. You are claiming things, but giving no evidence of explanations for your claims.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The chesscomputer was an example of how sorting works, it is not how choosing works.

Except that sorting is synonymous for choosing. It is choice.

 

[VirOptimus]

It's obvious that since choosing is the mechanism of creation, it requires some basic understanding of the concept of free will in order to evaluate creationism / intelligent design theory. I already mentioned there is terrific evidence for choosing, namely I myself make choices. Various other evidence exists. I think it is enough to establish someone doesn't accept free will, to judge their evaluation of creationism as irrellevant.

You are trying to mix metaphysics with physics. That wont work and is wholly unscientific.

 

[46AND2]

namely I myself make choices.

Can you make a choice that surprises the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe? In other words, can you choose the option that is contrary to what he already knows you will choose?

If you cannot..then you are not making a choice, and do not have free will. As you are only doing what the creator decided you will do upon creation of the universe.