justlookinla
Regular Member
Darwinist evolution says that our brains were constructed through a series of random natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.
Upvote
0
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.
No it isn't, but Evolution says nothing about how information is stored in our brains. It is a theory about how species evolved, and nothing more than that.
Darwinist evolution says that our brains were constructed through a series of random natural mechanisms acting on an alleged single life form of long ago.
No it doesn't. It says nothing about how or why organisms with a nervous system first appeared.
So in the same vein, are not our thoughts according to ToE just chemical reactions? If information is not information since it is just chemical in nature your thoughts as well are just results of chemical reaction and none of the "information" you hold is actually information and thus has no relationship to right or truth. This refutes your position as your position is one that prevents information being shared between the two of us due to "information" being nothing but chemical reactions.
Then cadet is wrong. It is like saying that a book contains no information, because it is "nothing but" ink on a physical substrate (the paper).
Genetic algorithms are not perfect evolutionary simulations
in that they have a predefined goal which is used to compute fitness.
They demonstrate the power of random variation, recombination, and selection to produce novel solutions to problems
, but they are not a full simulation of evolution (and are not intended to be).
First of all I am female. Secondly, do you think that our neural make up is different from any other product of evolution?
What information? There is no information according to Cadet.
Do you think that information on a computer is equivalent to that information in a human brain or in a cell?
No it is completely relevant to the argument we are having because the same physical chemical reactions that you claim are not information are the same that our thoughts are suppose to be produced by. Thus, if chemical reactions as you have implied have no semantic meaning our brains can hold no semantic meaning or information either. Either DNA holds semantic meaning and information and so does our brain or both don't but you can't have DNA having no information and our brains having it.The issue of consciousness is a hard one, but how exactly our consciousness works is rather immaterial once we know that it does work. Whether our consciousness is an emergent property of a complex biochemical machine or an illusion or something else entirely has no impact on how we interpret abstract concepts.
This is completely irrelevant to the argument we are having.
When we write down 2+2=4 we are conveying a message in written form that has meaning..two objects plus two objects makes four objects. That meaning is conveyed by written language. We understand it because it is a message given by intent for a purpose. We understand it because it is written down in a language that conveys messages given by intent to share (purpose) and communicate something. One of the properties of language is that it contains and transmits information. By any formal definition of language, DNA is language. The DNA molecule itself is an encoding-decoding system that transmits reproducible information.When I write down "2+2=4", did I just create an actual object that is "2"? The book and the ink are physical substrate according to the definition of information theory. The actual information is an abstract concept we create by observing the substrate and imposing a cypher onto it. I realize this is counterintuitive, but this is how information is defined by information theory, and it solves quite a few rather difficult problems.
This is on topic and you can't talk about DNA without talking about information. AS I just posted:Try being a bit intellectually honest.
Cadet was speaking about the DNA molecule.
Not about the manifestations and emergent properties of a neural network.
No.
Please stop conflating things.
If you wish to discus how brains work, create a thread where that is the topic.
Which is determined by intelligence.="DogmaHunter, post: 68428602, member: 346237"]Genetic algoritms literally use the evolutionary process.
It's called natural selection in the real world.
The best performers have the most chance of spreading their genes.
However, it can't be called a "predefined goal" as the implications of those words do not apply in any sense.
The correct term is "selection pressure".
Intelligently designed programs only confirms intelligence. Information is necessary for the program. You are not showing a blind evolutionary process. Why can't you understand that? The program is good at what it does but it doesn't show blind evolutionary processes.Yes, they do. Exactly.
You know what else it demonstrates:
That blind evolution produces designs, or the "appearance of design", if by the word "design" you imply a personal designer.
Which is a direct refutation of your claim that there is "no explanation" for the "appearance of design".
There is.
It's called evolution.
Absolutely not. Like I said, this is not even meant to show evolution in all its aspects. You are taking an intelligently designed program and telling us that it is blind evolution...it is not.Are you about ready to acknowledge this point?
And by extension, never again claim that "the appearance of design" is evidence of "design produced by a personal designer"?
Why do you not acknowledge this mega-obvious point?
Or at least, why do you not acknowledge this point explicitly?
This program does not show blind evolution. This is not providing an accurate depiction of evolution. It is not blind and is intelligently designed, it just supports intelligence is needed for design.[/Quote][/QUOTE]They are a full simulation of the evolutionary process.
All elements of the process are present.
The process is very much capable of producing "the appearance of design".
You know.... your original claim? That "the appearance of design" is evidence of "actual design" and that there is no explanation for how "the appearance of design" is just an illusion?
Before you started moving the goalposts all over the place....
I never moved from your original argument.
Are you about ready now to concede the mega-obvious point?
Language is the method in which information is communicated.
There are no examples of information being created without intent. We have NEVER seen language or a code coming from anything other than a mind...NEVER.
Our minds communicate information from the information we hold in our brains, the chemical reactions in our brains are no more or no less than those we see in the DNA molecule and having communication, information and intent are earmarks of intelligence. If information requires intelligence and language communicates an intent and DNA is information and a language it stands to reason that DNA required intelligence in its formation.
Which is determined by intelligence.
Intelligently designed programs only confirms intelligence.
What defines a language? Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics.DNA is not a language.
DNA is a molecule.
Great if it is blind evolution and IS EVOLUTION, then provide evidence in nature of this appearance of design that is created in the artificial program. Give us for instance how the cell's systems were evolved from simpler form and show it evolve into the cell that has the appearance of design.FALSE.
View attachment 161801
The information that was not deliberatly created that describes how this thing looks and works:
0.24,0.622,0.848,2.626597810257226,0.4205,3,0.05,0.27712579048238695,0.05,1.492,0.259,0.883,1,3,0.4775,0.6799999999999999,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,5.089380098815465,1.5,2,3.8242242744053905,1.5,2,5.340707511102648,1.4118160991929471,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,3.015928947446201,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,5,2.9530970943744053,1.038,9043968,7172723,61440,13639213,13349497,13349497,15764055,15777024,0,0,6172137,11931568,12779520,12779520,16121856,16121856,8
This information was not created.
No intent.
Nothing deliberate.
No looking in the future, thus no planning
Instead, just blind evolution.
What evidence are you providing that supports your premise that no mind is involved in the information?No "mind" is involved in the creation of the above "information".
Yes, so you've said but where is the evidence? You have provided an artificial program, provide evidence from natural events that provide support to your assertion. Provide evidence that simpler form evolving step by step gradually to the cell that has the appearance of design.It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat
Oxygen depletion?Yawn.
I seriously can't believe that you expect anyone that knows anything about evolution would be convinced that this was a true depiction of evolution. I am not stubborn, I am informed and you expect me to forget all I know about evolution so that you can explain design in nature by using an artificial simulation that does not have all the factors needed for evolution to happen in the way it actually has happened. You are the one that is throwing out logic and science because even though there have been others as well as yourself trying to show that design is not needed to explain the design observed in nature; scientists themselves say that these programs while very informative in their way do not actually show evolution as it is in nature.
Because it's a computer program.
In the real world, selection pressures automatically exist.
I'm starting the think that you are just messing with me. That you really understand all this stuff and are just trolling me or something.
I have serious problems believing you really are this stubborn.
A part of me hopes that I'm correct in that.
Intelligently designed freezers only confirm "intelligent freezing"
It's incredible how you try to argue against the validity of an experiment or simulation by using as argument that the experiment or simulation is designed to do what it does....
That if you want to test something, that you actually need to do something to ....actually perform the test. Somehow that invalidates the test... :-/
I mean for real....
This logic throws all of science out the window.
Why do I even bother.
Nope you aren't going to get out of supporting your own dogmatic worldview without support any longer. You and others seem to think that there is no need to show how evolution really does have the evidence it claims to have. Provide it.***
Nope. You don't get to play that game. You're stretching out that lazy, tired old ID argument. You provide empirical proof.
Sorry, this time it is on you or anyone that claims as Richard Dawkins does that living things have an appearance of design with a purpose but this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolution. So it is a positive claim which has not been supported by any evidence.staff edit
Nope you aren't going to get out of supporting your own dogmatic worldview without support any longer. You and others seem to think that there is no need to show how evolution really does have the evidence it claims to have. Provide it.
It's just the blind process of:
- mutate
- survive
- reproduce
- repeat
Yawn.
Nothing.They're not. They'll offer the same evidence that Dawkins offered for the illusion of design......nothing.
Yes it does. All constructs of life are solely by naturalistic mechanisms.
What defines a language? Language is the ability to acquire and use complex systems of communication, particularly the human ability to do so, and a language is any specific example of such a system. The scientific study of language is called linguistics.
Your computer programs are a language that we have encoded into a secondary media.
Great if it is blind evolution and IS EVOLUTION, then provide evidence in nature of this appearance of design that is created in the artificial program. Give us for instance how the cell's systems were evolved from simpler form and show it evolve into the cell that has the appearance of design.
What evidence are you providing that supports your premise that no mind is involved in the information?
Yes, so you've said but where is the evidence?
You have provided an artificial program, provide evidence from natural events that provide support to your assertion. Provide evidence that simpler form evolving step by step gradually to the cell that has the appearance of design.
Oxygen depletion?
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?