Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

DogmaHunter · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
All the program has done is produce shapes. When those shapes become complex, functional and purposeful creations, design is inherent in the creation.

It starts with random polygons.

It results in highly specialised, functional and irreducibly complex designs of cars.

Dance around the issue all you like. The fact remains that a simple flash program employing the principles of evolution proved your nonsense to be incorrect.

Functional? Check.
IC? Check.
Specified? Check.
Specialised? Check.

In complete denial? Check.

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
And this gene duplication is the product of a programmed process?

This is nothing more than a guess.

Right. Macro evolution. There's a world of difference between that and the view that those chance based, random genetic changes produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form.

Impressive stuff. But no new life forms were created in the process..

hehe and you complained when I posted that video yet this is pretty much, "OBJECTION!! those hurt my case." with nothing but UHUH's.

No gene duplication isn't a programmed process, it's a error in copying, some times when a gene is to be used it's accidently copied instead, leading to the sperm/egg cell having two copies of a gene accidently, allowing for them if having two copies isn't harmful to mutate independantly. Alot of 'new' genes in our genome are created by this process as I listed.

And no it's not a guess, we know how these things are, your assertion it's not X is just a guess, and a bad one at that, as it's only, "that doesn't count because ...well because."

And so your saying that the ancestor of venemous lizards and snakes gaining the ability to have venom doesn't lead to a new life form? So snakes and lizards from non venemous ancestors is not new life? What would you qualify as life then? or the platypus coming from a non venemous simular animal?

Thats all that evolution is, these small changes over time acumilate to form new animals.

Funny how the nested hierchy works and aligns with multiple lines, that the differences and simularities between species including thigns that are uneeded fit the pattern.

You or one of the others was asking for examples of new information or such.

Is a imune system protein in platypus becoming venom count? It's just using the information there, it wasn't even a whole cloth gene formed from nothing, it was using a existing gene to duplicate then mutate.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

DogmaHunter said:
It starts with random polygons.

It results in highly specialised, functional and irreducibly complex designs of cars.

Dance around the issue all you like. The fact remains that a simple flash program employing the principles of evolution proved your nonsense to be incorrect.

Functional? Check.
IC? Check.
Specified? Check.
Specialised? Check.

In complete denial? Check.

Nothing in the program produced a car. Find a car that's been manufactured without a designer and get back to me

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
Nope, never heard of that. It would be like engineers saying, let's put the steering wheel in the trunk of the car and see what happens. Gosh durn it, well that didn't work....never saw that coming.

heh, but that wouldn't be evolution either would it? Evolution is modifications over time small ones, they take a modern car, and mutate it sructurally looking for the most efficient new car, or plane, or circuit board. It's not like they suddenly move the steering well to the trunk, but it could shift the position of the entire driver part to somewhere more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

whois · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
Right. Macro evolution. There's a world of difference between that and the view that those chance based, random genetic changes produced all life we observe today from an alleged single life form.

in all honesty, science cannot reduce the TOL down to a single origin.
this has a couple of possible implications.
first, its quite apparent that some genes do not evolve in the darwinian sense.
second, each "kind" of animal does indeed have a unique origin.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
hehe and you complained when I posted that video yet this is pretty much, "OBJECTION!! those hurt my case." with nothing but UHUH's.

No gene duplication isn't a programmed process, it's a error in copying, some times when a gene is to be used it's accidently copied instead, leading to the sperm/egg cell having two copies of a gene accidently, allowing for them if having two copies isn't harmful to mutate independantly. Alot of 'new' genes in our genome are created by this process as I listed.

There's not a programmed process for copying genes?

And no it's not a guess, we know how these things are, your assertion it's not X is just a guess, and a bad one at that, as it's only, "that doesn't count because ...well because."

Sure it's a guess.

And so your saying that the ancestor of venemous lizards and snakes gaining the ability to have venom doesn't lead to a new life form? So snakes and lizards from non venemous ancestors is not new life? What would you qualify as life then? or the platypus coming from a non venemous simular animal?

I'm saying that snakes and lizards are snakes and lizards no matter the potency of their venom.

Thats all that evolution is, these small changes over time acumilate to form new animals.

Merely an assertion with no evidence based on the scientific method.

Funny how the nested hierchy works and aligns with multiple lines, that the differences and simularities between species including thigns that are uneeded fit the pattern.

Funny how it's very common for folks to try to change the focus from HOW all life was created.

You or one of the others was asking for examples of new information or such.

Is a imune system protein in platypus becoming venom count? It's just using the information there, it wasn't even a whole cloth gene formed from nothing, it was using a existing gene to duplicate then mutate.

A platypus is a platypus is a platypus.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
heh, but that wouldn't be evolution either would it? Evolution is modifications over time small ones, they take a modern car, and mutate it sructurally looking for the most efficient new car, or plane, or circuit board. It's not like they suddenly move the steering well to the trunk, but it could shift the position of the entire driver part to somewhere more efficient.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_algorithm

Please go back and read the post to which I was responding.

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
Nothing in the program produced a car. Find a car that's been manufactured without a designer and get back to me

Does this count? http://www.geek.com/science/genetic-algorithms-create-a-better-race-car-555526/

And now your changing the goal post, manufacturing isn't the same as designing, thats like asking, find a life form that wasn't produced from a 'parent' of some kind, were showing you designed without a designer.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

whois said:
in all honesty, science cannot reduce the TOL down to a single origin.
this has a couple of possible implications.
first, its quite apparent that some genes do not evolve in the darwinian sense.
second, each "kind" of animal does indeed have a unique origin.

Right, the view of a single original life form from which all life was produced isn't a scientific view. While some scientists may embrace the view, there's no evidence, based on the scientific method, for the view.

This is an informative read concerning the search for a universal common ancestor to all life, but as the article points out, it's only a view using computer modeling (with the inherent limitations and assumptions) and doesn't actually answer the question.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/universal-common-ancestor/

The paper concludes with......

"On a more foundational level, Penny says, the paper should not put an end to the assessment of ancestral assumptions. Instead it should be a reminder that "we have never thought of all possible hypotheses," he says. "So we should never stop considering some new approach we haven't thought of yet."

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
There's not a programmed process for copying genes?

Sure it's a guess.

I'm saying that snakes and lizards are snakes and lizards no matter the potency of their venom.

Merely an assertion with no evidence based on the scientific method.

Funny how it's very common for folks to try to change the focus from HOW all life was created.

A platypus is a platypus is a platypus.

UHUHH!!!! arguments shall now be ignored, all this response is a string of, "UHUH!!!, thats not evolution because I'm trying to redefine it and don't understand it."

SCIENTISTS say thats science and of course it's evidence, your rejection of it because it hurts your case doesn't make your argument true, so I think I will take them over someone who doesn't understand the subject he's critiquing. Evolution IS by definition, small changes over time, it's what we see it's what all the evidence points too, it's not a assertion when we have evidence. And yes, they are just platypus, lizards, and snakes, what else do you ever expect? Thats ALL evolution is, you don't get anything beyond it's ancestors. From fish to humans we still retain our past, we are still our ancestors, but the lizards that eventually became snakes changed, they became something more then just plain lizards. You go from a lizard without venom to a lizard with this is a change in species and a change fairly big.

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
There's not a programmed process for copying genes?

Sure it's a guess.

I'm saying that snakes and lizards are snakes and lizards no matter the potency of their venom.

Merely an assertion with no evidence based on the scientific method.

Funny how it's very common for folks to try to change the focus from HOW all life was created.

A platypus is a platypus is a platypus.

oh and no it's not a programmed process for duplicating genes, thats actually not supposed to happen and it's a error/mutation when it does, genes are not meant to be reinserted into the DNA

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
Does this count? http://www.geek.com/science/genetic-algorithms-create-a-better-race-car-555526/

The designer of our genes was a pretty smart fella.

And now your changing the goal post, manufacturing isn't the same as designing, thats like asking, find a life form that wasn't produced from a 'parent' of some kind, were showing you designed without a designer.

I'm not changing the goal posts, I'm asking for evidence for a car which is produced without a designer.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
UHUHH!!!! arguments shall now be ignored, all this response is a string of, "UHUH!!!, thats not evolution because I'm trying to redefine it and don't understand it."

Once again, there's not a programmed process for copying genes?

SCIENTISTS say thats science and of course it's evidence,

Anyone can make a claim, including scientists. Is the evidence based on the scientific method though? If it is, show it.

your rejection of it because it hurts your case doesn't make your argument true, so I think I will take them over someone who doesn't understand the subject he's critiquing. Evolution IS by definition, small changes over time, it's what we see it's what all the evidence points too, it's not a assertion when we have evidence.

Nobody's disputing small changes over time. Bacteria are still bateria, finches are still finches, moths are still moths. Where the issue arises is when a view of evolution is presented which claims that all life was created from an alleged single life form by random, mindless, meaningless, purposeless and goalless naturalistic mechanisms. One view is based on the scientific method, the other on mere assertions.

And yes, they are just platypus, lizards, and snakes, what else do you ever expect? Thats ALL evolution is, you don't get anything beyond it's ancestors. From fish to humans we still retain our past, we are still our ancestors, but the lizards that eventually became snakes changed, they became something more then just plain lizards. You go from a lizard without venom to a lizard with this is a change in species and a change fairly big.

A lizard is a lizard is a lizard. Venom or no venom.

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
The designer of our genes was a pretty smart fella.

I'm not changing the goal posts, I'm asking for evidence for a car which is produced without a designer.

give evidence that genes were designed, since we know they can be produced without a designer, it's up to you to prove your assertions that any designer is needed, as I've shown these things come about on their own through mutations, now if you want to argue these mutations come about by some guided process by god then your argument is meaningless in any conversation. Because there is no way to tell wether god created it on his own, or as I said created the processes that allow for things to happen on their own.

If your going to just throw out god as a explanation how do we know if your wrong? If anything can just be responded with, "Well god just did that." it teaches and shows nothing, especially if your wrong. And why insert god doing all this fidling and microm managing when he's not needed beyond starting the ball rolling. Frankly I find the idea of god using evolution far more facnating and imaginative, then a god that has to fix every time mistake at all times.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
oh and no it's not a programmed process for duplicating genes, thats actually not supposed to happen and it's a error/mutation when it does, genes are not meant to be reinserted into the DNA

Ok, there is no programmed process....what is supposed to happen...and why? If there are no instructions for genetic duplication, how does genetic duplication occur without instruction?

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
The designer of our genes was a pretty smart fella.

I'm not changing the goal posts, I'm asking for evidence for a car which is produced without a designer.

Gave you examples, ignoring that cars arn't in anyway analagous to evolution, even though they are being created the same way.

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
give evidence that genes were designed, since we know they can be produced without a designer, it's up to you to prove your assertions that any designer is needed, as I've shown these things come about on their own through mutations, now if you want to argue these mutations come about by some guided process by god then your argument is meaningless in any conversation. Because there is no way to tell wether god created it on his own, or as I said created the processes that allow for things to happen on their own.

Prove that genetic information is the result of random naturalistic mechanisms.

If your going to just throw out god as a explanation how do we know if your wrong? If anything can just be responded with, "Well god just did that." it teaches and shows nothing, especially if your wrong. And why insert god doing all this fidling and microm managing when he's not needed beyond starting the ball rolling. Frankly I find the idea of god using evolution far more facnating and imaginative, then a god that has to fix every time mistake at all times.

Why insert no God needed?

justlookinla · Aug 3, 2015

loveofourlord said:
Gave you examples, ignoring that cars arn't in anyway analagous to evolution, even though they are being created the same way.

Cars are complex, functional and purposeful creations with a designer.

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
Ok, there is no programmed process....what is supposed to happen...and why? If there are no instructions for genetic duplication, how does genetic duplication occur without instruction?

Via coding errors, a gene is used t produce the protein needed, in the case of platypus, a gene in the imune system is duplicated in order to create the proteins needed, by by a accident it gets reinsertd back into the genome, so you now have two copies of a gene where there was once one, this happens alot, infact some species are 99% just this, and some diseases are created when certain genes are duplicated having more then the normal copy of theme leading to over production of certain proteins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_duplication

loveofourlord · Aug 3, 2015

justlookinla said:
Cars are complex, functional and purposeful creations with a designer.

They neither evolve outside of programs, and neither self replicate such as animals do, I assume you at least accept the concept of micro evolution wich cars can't even do other then like I said through evolutionary algorythems.

Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

Code Monkey

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

rational

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Regular Member

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency