Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

Oncedeceived · Jul 29, 2015

The Cadet said:
You have no knowledge of the evidence for evolution, or no understanding of why it's evolution.

What makes you think I have no knowledge of the evidence for evolution, or no understanding of why it's evolution? You simply mistake my demanding evidence for specific evidence for claims being made for a lack of understanding.

whois · Jul 29, 2015

The Cadet said:
Huh? We totally do that all the time. We make bigger processors with both more and larger registers.

yes, correct, address space has steadily increased.
but this is a done deal once manufacrured, you are still constrained by what i pointed out above.
you are apparently missing something, or i'm not explaining it properly.

frankly, i find this a very interesting concept, DNA as hardware and transcription as software.
the question is, is it correct, can we make this analogy.
let's forget about the "increasing complexity" bit and concentrate on this concept.
does anyone know where we need to start?
can we use the standard CPU architecture, fetch the instruction, set the machine state, then execute?
i don't know enough about this DNA stuff to even suggest a starting point.

Loudmouth · Jul 29, 2015

whois said:
frankly, i find this a very interesting concept, DNA as hardware and transcription as software.
the question is, is it correct, can we make this analogy.

To make it work, you would probably need something closer to a mechanical computer instead of an electric one.

At the end of the day, there is no level of abstraction in DNA. It is purely chemical and physical interactions. RNA transcriptase binds and starts produce mRNA at a specific position because of the physical interaction between charges in the protein and DNA. tRNA's bind to codons because of the charges and alignment of hydrogen bonds between complementary bases. Where are the analogous features in software?

The Cadet · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
yes, correct, address space has steadily increased.
but this is a done deal once manufacrured, you are still constrained by what i pointed out above.
you are apparently missing something, or i'm not explaining it properly.

frankly, i find this a very interesting concept, DNA as hardware and transcription as software.
the question is, is it correct, can we make this analogy.
let's forget about the "increasing complexity" bit and concentrate on this concept.
does anyone know where we need to start?
can we use the standard CPU architecture, fetch the instruction, set the machine state, then execute?
i don't know enough about this DNA stuff to even suggest a starting point.

As said, it's an analogy. And like all analogies, it eventually falls apart. It's not a 1:1 perfect comparison. DNA and computers are not perfectly analogous, but binary code and the code we read into DNA have certain analogous qualities that help explain how you can get new information with just four base pairs. This does not mean it is somehow a perfect equivalence that needs to be drawn to absurdity.

Jimmy D · Jul 30, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
Prove I have no formal education in the field.

Have you? If so I apologise.

Oncedeceived said:
What makes you think I have no knowledge of the evidence for evolution, or no understanding of why it's evolution? You simply mistake my demanding evidence for specific evidence for claims being made for a lack of understanding.

If you really want specific evidence why don't you go and research it instead of wasting time with the same old back and forth generalities on a forum?

DogmaHunter · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
you said you was a "software engineer" or something to that effect.
i said you can write software (i used JAVA as an example) all day long without knowing how computers store things on disc.
and it's a fact.

Maybe as a hobbyist.
I don't know a single professionally trained software engineer who doesn't understand how computers work.

But whatever, assume away.

correct, and it's only understandable with the coding process you used to produce it.

The code being written in visual studio or whatever is not the point of the analogy.
The point is that the only difference between word and gta is the amount of 1s and 0s and the order they are in.

How those 1s and 0s came about is not important and not part of the analogy.

the intel 486 assembler is only understood by the 486, software coding (reprocessing) will allow that code to be ported to other machines.
you cannot do this if DNA does not allow for it.

Not to mention that it doesn't matter.

i really don't care to carry on this discussion with you, simply because you keep introducing intelligent aspects such as software recoding.

I really don't care to carry on this discussion with you, simply because you aren't capable acknowledging the point being made.

That point being that no, one doesn't need to invent "new letters" to achieve new information.

now, do you want to admit that DNA partakes in intelligent software recoding?

No, there is no "programming" involved in the natural process of evolution.
The point of the analogy of computers was not the "programming" part, but the 1s and 0s part.

Just like the point of the example of books was not the act of "writing", but rather the limited amount of letters being used in new patterns to produce new information. And all that without needing to invent new letters.

a byte is a set lenght and it CAN NOT be increased in size unless another byte is added. a computer MUST BE TOLD how to add this byte.

Yes. A computer must be told to do that.
In nature, that role is played by mutation.

if you want to debate this area then you need to define the hardware (DNA) and the software (transcription system), and then stick to those definitions.

If you want to debate this area, you should first try to understand how analogies work.

The analogy of software is limited to the scope of how simple letters (1s and 0s) can produce radically different things, simply by changing the amount and pattern of the letters.

But software/computers aren't competing systems that reproduce with variation. So they are not analogous to the evolutionary processes we see in nature.

This should be extremely obvious to anyone who actually understand the basics of evolutionary principles.

all we are doing now is arguing over who knows what, and it's useless

Only because you fail to stick to the actual points being made.

I'll ask once more the part you consistently have ignored throughout the exchange of posts:

do you need to invent new letters to write a new story?
Is it possible for a book to hold new information without it making use of new letters?

Oncedeceived · Jul 30, 2015

Jimmy D said:
Have you? If so I apologise.

If you really want specific evidence why don't you go and research it instead of wasting time with the same old back and forth generalities on a forum?

You are great with assumptions. You just assume I have no education in the Biological sciences and then go on to assume that I've neglected to research the topics and am looking for answers. I am pointing out that there is no evidence for the claims that some are making in reference to biological evolution. I'm not "looking for information I lack" I am pointing out the lack of evidence for claims being made.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 30, 2015

whois said:
nice analogy, but i believe justas complaint is "where did the original one and zero come from".
additionally gene expression is by a fixed number of base pairs, if i'm not mistaken, 3.
mixing these up by transposons can result in different genes, but it still doesn't introduce any new information.
in order to do that, using your analogy above, you would need to add another number, in this case it would be 2, to get 0,1,2.

like maynard stated, there is no empirical evidence of this increase nor is there any theory that would explain how it would occur.
this is probably the primary reason science has concluded life most likely arose from a pool of organisms instead of just one.
i can see no other alternative to why science would conclude such a thing.

Oh they understand perfectly - but by using those false analogies it allows them to keep their false beliefs. All they are able to do is work within the framework of already existing genomes. Yet they want us to believe we started with C and ended up with CATG, when all biologists understand the impossibility of this, even evolutionary biologists. They continuously ignore their own biologists in plant and animal husbandry - the only place mutation experiments were performed regarding reproduction - the rest is just in their minds. Abandoning the actual reproduction experiments to go back to pure theory where there is no data to show the futility of their claims.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

"“In spite of an enormous financial expenditure, the attempt to cultivate increasingly productive varieties by irradiation, widely proved to be a failure.”

"“The objectives of practical plant breeding, to achieve new opportunities of a gradual and continuous amelioration of tried and tested breeding varieties could...not be realized.”"

“Also, the modified concept of a direct use of so-called “micro-mutations” remained unsuccessful, because achievable breeding progress by this method distinctly lagged behind useful variation, which could be developed from the broad stream of
conventional recombination breeding.”"

It got so bad that soon only what had already been produced by mutation could be reproduced. Nothing new failed to materialize.

"“The continually improved knowledge of mutants in Antirrhinum has provided some essential experience [or results]. During the years each new large mutation trial showed that the number of really new mutants recognized for the first time, was steadily diminishing, so that the majority of the genetic changes was already known.”"

"“The larger the mutant collections are, the more difficult it is to extend them by new mutation types. Mutants preferentially
arise that already exist.”"

"“Population improvement by means of artificial selection cannot continue indefinitely. A population may respond to selection until its mean is many standard deviations different from the mean of the original population, but eventually the population reaches a selection limit at which successive generations show no further improvement.”"

"“Whole families of plants in general are characterized by definite cycles of variability occurring through all genera and species making up the family.”"

Backs against a wall they just gave up, instead of continuing the research to ultimately show its failure in anything but theory. Again, they ignore the actual experimental results for imaginations of the mind - which is the only place mutations are effective.

They ignore that nothing new could be produced - just variants that already existed before.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 30, 2015

Phenotype said:
All that 'bless and do not curse' scripture dictum was imposed on my text, by some algorithm filter, I can only presume. That is puerile and ridiculous. Atheist and free thinking forums don't apply such nonsense.

Let's see you go to an evolution forum and start cursing and see how far you get???? Don't like the rules imposed - you are free to go elsewhere. No one forces you to stay.

Justatruthseeker · Jul 30, 2015

essentialsaltes said:
Out of curiosity, can you name 5 YEC with PhD's in biology and/or biochemistry?

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

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

YEC has nothing to do with anything. That's just one sects interpretation - just as every sect of evolutionary biology proposes a different set of beliefs.

Which one of the many theories of how life began do you personally believe in? Because if one is true - the others are all false, right?

Here's a list of just the top ten.

http://www.smashinglists.com/top-10-theories-on-beginning-of-life-on-earth/

http://www.livescience.com/13363-7-theories-origin-life.html

Justatruthseeker · Jul 30, 2015

The Cadet said:
My response at the time was:

Well, now I have a better answer.

View attachment 161441

...In retrospect, I probably should have googled genetic hitchhiking before wasting the man's valuable time. However, in retrospect, you really should have googled genetic hitchhiking before accusing the man of scientific fraud (a hefty accusation which, I feel the need to point out, runs pretty close to the premises of several existing libel cases, such as that of Dr. Andrew Weaver, except that this is a forum rather than a newspaper or blog site).

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

Nor did they find any evidence to suggest it didn't occur that way - except they chose to believe it didn't.

"Hitchhiking has different effects whether it is in the absence or the presence of recombination. Without recombination, hitchhiking gets rid of all linked variation. When recombination does exist, incomplete hitchhiking takes place"

So basically it's your excuse to ignore that recombination of genes that occurs naturally when two breeds mate. And since nothing is ever passed down to the next generation without recombination of genes - it is always incomplete. It is a natural process that has nothing to do with mutations at all.

Every experiment in plant and animal husbandry where the only reproductive experiments were performed in the real world - has already shown the futility of your dreams.

florida2 · Jul 30, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
You are great with assumptions. You just assume I have no education in the Biological sciences and then go on to assume that I've neglected to research the topics and am looking for answers. I am pointing out that there is no evidence for the claims that some are making in reference to biological evolution. I'm not "looking for information I lack" I am pointing out the lack of evidence for claims being made.

Once, I've seen an awful lot of your posts recently and as far as I can tell they boil down to this:

'Everything is designed. The evidence for design is that everything is designed.' (possibly the most incredible circular reasoning I've seen)

You then usually say something like 'Prove that it's just the appearance of design'

You seem to think you're getting somewhere despite just running around in mental circles.

There is nothing scientific about your proposition, if that's even your intention. You are the one claiming supernatural intervention and intelligent design - I'm sure others have talked about something called burden of evidence.

The Cadet · Jul 30, 2015

Justatruthseeker said:
Oh they understand perfectly - but by using those false analogies it allows them to keep their false beliefs. All they are able to do is work within the framework of already existing genomes. Yet they want us to believe we started with C and ended up with CATG, when all biologists understand the impossibility of this, even evolutionary biologists.

The formation of the original biomolecules is not the purview of evolution. Certainly in the organisms we're dealing with have CATG, and have had it. This distraction of "where did the other nucleotide bases come from" is pointless. The formation of early DNA is a matter of abiogenesis. However, there is no denying that all creatures alive have DNA, and that this DNA can be subdivided into nucleotide base pairs, and that those nucleotide base pairs are made up of Adenine, Guanine, Thymine, and Cytosine. There's no denying that any early organism, at least past the multicellular stage, must have had DNA.

However, let's go a step further and entertain your hypothesis. DNA is necessarily made up of base pairs; it is impossible to have "just C". So we necessarily need either CG or AT. And even with just CG or AT, guess what: we still have everything we need for an increase in genetic information, because now instead of a quarternary alphabet, we have a binary alphabet, and we already have established very firmly that yes, a binary alphabet can produce new information.

But what if we had just C? (For example, if all we have is RNA, rather than DNA.) Well, then what we have is a non-random system. RNA with just Cytosine no longer has any variables; you can always predict exactly what the next letter in the sequence will be, and therefore it carries no information.

So yeah, your argument makes absolutely no sense on several different levels, is completely irrelevant, and somehow is even more wrong than the typical "you can't add new information" arguments.

They continuously ignore their own biologists in plant and animal husbandry - the only place mutation experiments were performed regarding reproduction - the rest is just in their minds.

Once again, I feel the need to point out that Lönnig's view is not some consensus within plant and animal husbandry. His paper was published in an obscure, open-access journal and cited by... um... him. Four times. That's it. Given that this paper supposedly disproves the cornerstone of all of biology, that should raise a few eyebrows.

Meanwhile, mutation experiments are thick on the ground in molecular biology, virology, evo-devo, and numerous other fields. I'm not sure why you'd think that plant and animal husbandry are the only places where such experiments took place, or why those experiments would be considered particularly meaningful, given that the goal was never to show any particular divergence.

Funnily enough, Lönnig thinks your arguments about genetic information are bogus as well:

The status of mutation breeding today is that of “an occasionally used supplement to traditional methods”, just “occasionally useful in enlarging the genetic base of a programme in a limited and highly specific fashion”.

Oops.

In any case, I don't know enough about mutation breeding to comment, but I'm getting the impression that it generally only produces point mutations. If that's the case, then Lönnig's "law" is kind of a no-brainer; you can only accomplish so much with point mutations. Mutation breeding is not a proxy for evolution and was never performed with the goal of simulating evolution or creating new species.

Justatruthseeker said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_thinkers_in_science

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html

YEC has nothing to do with anything. That's just one sects interpretation - just as every sect of evolutionary biology proposes a different set of beliefs.

What a phenomenal non-answer. Just looking through that list from "Adherents", in the first five, I can see nobody who rejects the theory of evolution and one person there who is definitely not a Christian!

Justatruthseeker said:
Nor did they find any evidence to suggest it didn't occur that way - except they chose to believe it didn't.

Should I email him again? Because I totally can. However, I get the feeling that if they found no evidence to indicate that HGT was present, and you should find evidence if HGT is present, then there's good reason to believe it wasn't HGT.

Oncedeceived · Jul 30, 2015

florida2 said:
Once, I've seen an awful lot of your posts recently and as far as I can tell they boil down to this:

'Everything is designed. The evidence for design is that everything is designed.' (possibly the most incredible circular reasoning I've seen)

The evidence is design in all living organisms. An analogy would be the appearance of white fur on a polar bear is evidence that the bear has evolved traits that are advantageous to his habitat. We know this due to its appearance and we know that evolution produces such a trait to better suit a organism to its habitat. The appearance of design is the evidence such is the white fur but nothing has been shown to produce this appearance of design in all living organisms. Nothing circular there.

You then usually say something like 'Prove that it's just the appearance of design'

I always say, Dawkins claims that this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolutionary processes, yet he gives no actual evidence that evolutionary processes did produce the design observed in all living organisms.

You seem to think you're getting somewhere despite just running around in mental circles.

It is going nowhere because there is no evidence that evolutionary processes did indeed produce the design in living organisms. Everyone wants to claim that since evolution happens it must have produced it but that is not evidence.

There is nothing scientific about your proposition, if that's even your intention. You are the one claiming supernatural intervention and intelligent design - I'm sure others have talked about something called burden of evidence.

Dawkins makes a positive claim that he and others who claim the same must support with evidence. That hasn't been provided.

florida2 · Jul 31, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence is design in all living organisms. An analogy would be the appearance of white fur on a polar bear is evidence that the bear has evolved traits that are advantageous to his habitat. We know this due to its appearance and we know that evolution produces such a trait to better suit a organism to its habitat. The appearance of design is the evidence such is the white fur but nothing has been shown to produce this appearance of design in all living organisms. Nothing circular there.

You haven't shown that it is design. No scientific evidence at all.

Oncedeceived said:
I always say, Dawkins claims that this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolutionary processes, yet he gives no actual evidence that evolutionary processes did produce the design observed in all living organisms.

Then take it up with Dawkins. I don't really care about what he happened to say in a book and I have no need to defend him. Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

Oncedeceived said:
It is going nowhere because there is no evidence that evolutionary processes did indeed produce the design in living organisms. Everyone wants to claim that since evolution happens it must have produced it but that is not evidence.

Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

Oncedeceived said:
Dawkins makes a positive claim that he and others who claim the same must support with evidence. That hasn't been provided.

I'm astonished a ID proponent can say that with a straight face.

bhsmte · Jul 31, 2015

florida2 said:
You haven't shown that it is design. No scientific evidence at all.

Then take it up with Dawkins. I don't really care about what he happened to say in a book and I have no need to defend him. Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

Again, you haven't shown that there is design.

I'm astonished a ID proponent can say that with a straight face.

At this point, nothing should really be astonishing in regards to what these ID folks will spout.

justlookinla · Jul 31, 2015

Oncedeceived said:
The evidence is design in all living organisms. An analogy would be the appearance of white fur on a polar bear is evidence that the bear has evolved traits that are advantageous to his habitat. We know this due to its appearance and we know that evolution produces such a trait to better suit a organism to its habitat. The appearance of design is the evidence such is the white fur but nothing has been shown to produce this appearance of design in all living organisms. Nothing circular there.

The circular charge is simply evasion.

I always say, Dawkins claims that this appearance of deliberate design is produced by evolutionary processes, yet he gives no actual evidence that evolutionary processes did produce the design observed in all living organisms.

Not only does Dawkins propose this unsubstantiated claim, but others do also. They may not be forthright as Dawkins, but illusion of design is at the heart of their worldview.

It is going nowhere because there is no evidence that evolutionary processes did indeed produce the design in living organisms. Everyone wants to claim that since evolution happens it must have produced it but that is not evidence.

Dawkins makes a positive claim that he and others who claim the same must support with evidence. That hasn't been provided.

And after dozens of requests, we can rest assured it's not going to be provided.

florida2 · Jul 31, 2015

justlookinla said:
The circular charge is simply evasion.

'Everything is designed. The evidence that everything is designed is that everything is designed. I know that everything is designed because everything is designed because the evidence is that everything is designed.'

That seems to be what all these posts boil down to from what I've seen.

justlookinla said:
Not only does Dawkins propose this unsubstantiated claim, but others do also. They may not be forthright as Dawkins, but illusion of design is at the heart of their worldview.

And after dozens of requests, we can rest assured it's not going to be provided.

The first claim was made by you guys that there is intelligent design but you haven't provided any scientific evidence for your claim! This 'illusion' line is basically saying 'prove me wrong'

Hey, I just saw Elvis walking down the street
You serious? You got any evidence for that? Maybe it was just an illusion
Prove it was just an illusion!
But you're the one who claimed...
Ha! You offer no evidence it was an illusion - I win!
But you're the one who claimed...
You still offer no evidence it was an illusion!
*Sigh*

justlookinla · Jul 31, 2015

florida2 said:
'Everything is designed. The evidence that everything is designed is that everything is designed. I know that everything is designed because everything is designed because the evidence is that everything is designed.'

That seems to be what all these posts boil down to from what I've seen.

From what I've seen, claims are made that the design seen in life is an illusion. When asked for the evidence for illusion, the request is ignored and evasive responses are forthcoming.

The first claim was made by you guys that there is intelligent design but you haven't provided any scientific evidence for your claim! This 'illusion' line is basically saying 'prove me wrong'

The illusion line is concerning the claim of Dawkins.

Hey, I just saw Elvis walking down the street
You serious? You got any evidence for that? Maybe it was just an illusion
Prove it was just an illusion!
But you're the one who claimed...
Ha! You offer no evidence it was an illusion - I win!
But you're the one who claimed...
You still offer no evidence it was an illusion!
*Sigh*

Analogies never prove anything. They all break down at some level after a big was of time arguing about the analogy.

florida2 · Jul 31, 2015

justlookinla said:
From what I've seen, claims are made that the design seen in life is an illusion. When asked for the evidence for illusion, the request is ignored and evasive responses are forthcoming.

WHAT DESIGN?!?!

I have yet to see any convincing scientific evidence that there is design.

justlookinla said:
The illusion line is concerning the claim of Dawkins.

Analogies never prove anything. They all break down at some level after a big was of time arguing about the analogy.

Was merely a bit o'fun to show how many posters feel about circular reasoning.

Responding to Justa's Comments On Evolution

Senior Veteran

rational

Contributor

SO COOL

Well-Known Member

Code Monkey

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

SO COOL

Senior Veteran

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency