Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

[justlookinla]

Via coding errors,

What kind of code? Remember, there's no programming, no information.....what kind of code exists without programming and information?

a gene is used t produce the protein needed,

How? What process (void of programming and information) produces that gene?

 

[loveofourlord]

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



Why insert no God needed?

Your the one asserting that god does it, we have the natural mechanisms already and can see them doing it on their own, the onus is upon you to show that what we clearly see isn't whats going on.

Fact errors occur during replication, and such especially during egg/sperm
Fact each human has a hundred or so errors that were not present in the progenators.
Fact if these error arn't fatally dangerous they are kept in the genome
Fact over time these errors can acumilate and prodouce beneficial traits as I've already shown multiple times.

You want to say these things come about by god, or something god did, I'm saying we have these facts no need to say every time these happen it's god, unless you want to assert that the multitude of embryo's and such that never make it to childbirth or die shortly afterwards due to fatal errors was god creating these errors on purpose each like, that a child born with harlequins disease due to a genetic error, was gods plan for that to happen.

 

[justlookinla]

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.

While cars cannot self-replicate as animals do, when one examines a car there's no question that it's a designed product.

 

[justlookinla]

Your the one asserting that god does it, we have the natural mechanisms already and can see them doing it on their own, the onus is upon you to show that what we clearly see isn't whats going on.

No, the burden is on those who claim that there is scientific evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity and all life we observe today from a single life form of long ago.

Fact errors occur during replication, and such especially during egg/sperm
Fact each human has a hundred or so errors that were not present in the progenators.
Fact if these error arn't fatally dangerous they are kept in the genome
Fact over time these errors can acumilate and prodouce beneficial traits as I've already shown multiple times.

You're simply describing micro evolution.

You want to say these things come about by god, or something god did, I'm saying we have these facts no need to say every time these happen it's god, unless you want to assert that the multitude of embryo's and such that never make it to childbirth or die shortly afterwards due to fatal errors was god creating these errors on purpose each like, that a child born with harlequins disease due to a genetic error, was gods plan for that to happen.

If you wish to claim that only naturalistic mechanisms created a pine tree and elephant from a common life form, it's up to you to support it.

 

[loveofourlord]

What kind of code? Remember, there's no programming, no information.....what kind of code exists without programming and information?



How? What process (void of programming and information) produces that gene?

You really just ignore everything said to you that conflicts with your beliefs don't you?

I've already given the method that produces genes multiple times, these are through progressive mutations that we see and have evidence for, things such as gene duplication and so on. The creation of venom from a precursor imune system gene, thats a whole new gene, and many of the early genes were likly formed early in the process of life, or abiogenesis, where they were more freely able to mutate untill something cae about that worked.

And your equivalcating, coding simply refers in this case to the DNA becoming RNA wich then becomes proteins, it's not the word you think it is. It's a short hand for how DNA goes from a gene to the protein and so forth.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

I see you are back to the usual intellectual dishonesty.

Notify me when you are ready to discuss the point honestly.

 

[loveofourlord]

While cars cannot self-replicate as animals do, when one examines a car there's no question that it's a designed product.

yes because we know they are designed, and have no known mechanism for being produced otherwise, life does.

 

[DogmaHunter]

first, its quite apparent that some genes do not evolve in the darwinian sense.

Such as?

second, each "kind" of animal does indeed have a unique origin.

What do you mean by "kind" in that sentence?

 

[loveofourlord]

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



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



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.



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

saying bacteria is still bacteria, is like saying fish is still chordate, bacteria is the largest group of life forms and are as diverse and different as humans are from trees.

And yes evolution is baesd upon the scientific method, glad you agree, and the mere assertions that god is required isn't valid response.

 

[loveofourlord]

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



Why insert no God needed?

we already HAVE the evidence is there, I've shown you it, your the one saying that what we can clearly see isn't true, if your just going to reasert over and over that it isn't then your on ignore. We have ALL the evidence of this working naturally, there is no need to insert god thats it, nothing more nothing else. You want to insert god into a mechanism that doesn't require him, thatn prove it, untill then I'm ignoring anything you say.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

And humans are humans and remain humans.
And primates are primates and remain primates.
And mammals are mammals and remain mammals.
And tetrapods are tetrapods and remain tetrapods.

See, the hierarchical nature of a branching tree of life in context of evolution doesn't produce completely different animals from existing animals.
All mammals are still tetrapods.
All primates are still mammals.
All humans are still primates.
And if humans further speciate in the future, all those sub-species would still be humans in addition to whatever-the-hell they speciated into.

No, according to evolution theory, cats will not produce dogs.
Moths will not evolve into non-moths.

Mammals will not evolve into non-mammals.

A platypus is a platypus is a platypus.

A human is a primate, a mammal, a tetrapod.

 

[loveofourlord]

While cars cannot self-replicate as animals do, when one examines a car there's no question that it's a designed product.

re aserting the same argument over and over again doesn't make it any less stupid, you can't compare something that requires a designer to even exist, to something that has natural mechanisms to happen.

 

[loveofourlord]

No, the burden is on those who claim that there is scientific evidence that only naturalistic mechanisms created humanity and all life we observe today from a single life form of long ago.



You're simply describing micro evolution.



If you wish to claim that only naturalistic mechanisms created a pine tree and elephant from a common life form, it's up to you to support it.

Macro is just Micro over longer periods of time, if you want to say macro is impossible provide a mechanism that prevents micro from becoming macro over time.

Explain how a paw couldn't become the hand of ape over long periods of time, no new genes, no real new information required, just changes to what is already there, since at this level your just changing the body plan progressivly over time. How does a monkey become a human? Small progressive changes over time to the body plan, that only changes what exists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

Nobody here is claiming that actual cars are the result of an evolutionary process.

So I have no clue what you hope to accomplish by asking such a question.

 

[DogmaHunter]

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

These "car designs" aren't created by a "designer":

Rather, these specified, functional and irreducibly complex designs were evolved by the simple process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

 

[The Cadet]

Your response? An intellectually dishonest one liner that can literally be used against ANY controlled experiment. Pure anti-science rethoric.

This is perhaps important to hold up.

Oncedeceived is rejecting simulations as evidence.

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.

Yeah citation needed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And it has been presented.

The response from your side is exactly what loveofyourlord said: "I object" followed by nonsense.

You claimed that evolution is incapable of producing things that appear designed.

I just gave you black on white evidence that this is incorrect...
Which is an evolutionary process that starts with random shapes like
View attachment 161660

And which results in shapes like this, each of them highly specialised for the track they find themselves on

View attachment 161662

Which is a direct refutation of your point. Literally.

Your response? An intellectually dishonest one liner that can literally be used against ANY controlled experiment. Pure anti-science rethoric.

If you aren't even capable of acknowledging a simple point like this one (that evolution is more then capable of producing designs), then what is the point in continuing with more advanced, more complex things?

Intellectual honesty is something that I fear you have no understanding of or of determining. You make a straw man out of my arguments while not addressing any of the actual issues involved and then say I am intellectually dishonest. Pot Kettle Black is all I can say.

You are in this field and you should know that all information is provided by an intelligent agent. No information just arises in the computer to simulate "evolution". How many intellects were used to create the program? What did they provide? Information. Do you remember saying "if that were true, there would be no need to employ a massive team of programmers to implement the GA"? The need for a massive amount of intelligence is needed to produce this simple "very" simple simulator.

 

[Oncedeceived]

These "car designs" aren't created by a "designer":

View attachment 161664

Rather, these specified, functional and irreducibly complex designs were evolved by the simple process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

The car designs themselves were not designed but the intelligence behind the ability to produce them very much designed the program using information that was not randomly produced or articulated into the program.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do these cars appear designed to you?

View attachment 161663

They look to be outcomes from a intelligently designed program that pre-programs information into a computer simulation and using that information creates random simple to complex car designs using the principles known for evolution.

 

[The Cadet]

I never specified designed purpose. You asked what purpose was in living forms. Move the goalposts much?

No. Because what you just did was a massive equivocation. There is no "purpose" to a single-celled organism. Its structures have "purpose" in the sense that they fulfill certain roles within the cell. This is not the same thing as the kind of purpose something has when it is designed! Ergo, you have not provided evidence of purpose in design! You want to call that a goalposts shift? Fine. But that just means I asked the wrong question to begin with. I left the goalposts two inches from the starting line.