What does having 96% chimp dna mean to you?

[OldWiseGuy]

What's so mysterious about reproduction, genetic variations, natural selection, etc... ?



The step-by-step process is the same all the way through. It's basically recursive in nature with changes building on top of prior changes.

A great example of how it works can be seen in the use of genetic algorithms for design. Whereby the process itself is relatively simple, but the output can sometimes baffle even those who create the algorithm.

You just jumped the tracks. Science doesn't believe in "design" and doesn't apply it to evolution. Isn't the attempt to find design in nature an admission that something outside of science is needed to explain things?

I peruse "Gray's Anatomy" and find incredible design all over the place.

 

[xianghua]

The step-by-step process is the same all the way through.

no its not. if you need at least 2-3 parts for a new function you cant evolve it stepwise.

 

[pitabread]

You just jumped the tracks. Science doesn't believe in "design" and doesn't apply it to evolution. Isn't the attempt to find design in nature an admission that something outside of science is needed to explain things?

...

I was offering up comparative example of a recursive process, namely genetic algorithms, which in effect are evolutionary in nature. My point is simply that the step-wise process is the same and offering an example whereby the step-by-step outcomes can be observed.

I'm trying to provide an illustration of a recursive process, since you seem to find evolution so "mysterious".

The closest equivalent in biology would be laboratory experiments around evolution.

 

[pitabread]

no its not. if you need at least 2-3 parts for a new function you cant evolve it stepwise.

It has already been explained to you how "multi-part" functions can evolve. Go back and re-read one of the many conversations myself and others have already had with you on this subject.

Don't waste time here re-treading old ground.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

...

I was offering up comparative example of a recursive process, namely genetic algorithms, which in effect are evolutionary in nature. My point is simply that the step-wise process is the same and offering an example whereby the step-by-step outcomes can be observed.

I'm trying to provide an illustration of a recursive process, since you seem to find evolution so "mysterious".

The closest equivalent in biology would be laboratory experiments around evolution.

Please review my last post. I added to it.

 

[dmmesdale]

It a conclusion based on an immense array of empirical data. Don't confuse your lack of understanding with an absence of evidence.

Empirical includes observation. The common ancestor not observed. It is not empirical science. It is historical inference. An interpretation.

Nice but irrelevant.

They demonstrated they knew about the similarities and applied it to their work far before evolution understanding from the 1800s.

"I don't need it for the work I do" does not mean "worthless".

You said you do need it for the work you do. Me p.2

'Are you saying you cannot do your work without conceding to a belief in an imaginary extinct creature?'

Stripped of the tendentious wording, that's exactly what I'm saying. Many biologists would say the same. For example, I would have been unable to do some of the work I've done without relying on the fact that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.

Now you are contradictng. As OWG pointed out. How did they do their work prior to their understanding of common ancestor or TOE? Do you really believe the double helix would have never been discovered absent belief in a common ancestor?

I don't need a dump truck or a heart-lung machine, but that doesn't make them worthless.

Unlike your two examples, belief in imaginary creatures are worthless.

Have you ever considered studying biology?

Deflection. Stay on topic.

Bad analogies don't get better by repeating them.

The analogy demonstrates your overstatements about the alleged importance of your blind faith beliefs in unidentified common ancestors. Sexual reproduction from asexual reproduction. All via nonintelligent processes with no goals.

 

[pitabread]

Please review my last post. I added to it.

You added that you watch a TV drama. And?

 

[pitabread]

Belief in imaginary creatures are worthless.

Could you explicitly identify your ancestors from 1500 years ago?

If not, do you think they are imaginary?

 

[dmmesdale]

It has already been explained to you how "multi-part" functions can evolve.

All the parts have to be in place at the same time for the machine to properly function. It can't evolve step by step. Even if the parts serve other functions. Can evolve is theoretical, wishful thinking. Also does not explain assembly, instructions. If you have all that then the only indendepent evidence indicates intelligence, not nonintelligent non goal directed processes.

 

[pitabread]

All the parts have to be in place at the same time for the machine to properly function. It can't evolve step by step.

By this argument, a Roman arch could never be built:

 

[ImAllLikeOkWaitWat]

Both. They're both solid scientific conclusions. Note: I'm a Christian and a biologist, and I am thoroughly persuaded of the basic truth of evolution.

As a christian biologist what do you and other christian scientists think of stephen meyers work? Also just so I'm clear on macro evolution. Does macro evolution mean that humans today evolved from apes? If so how do you believe in that and a creator of the universe? My best guess of how to believe in the God of the bible and evolution is to say something like well God initiated the big bang and set it up with all of the required precision to slowly evolve over time into the world we see including having animals around, and having us come from some of those animals? Is this how you view it?

 

[Dawnhammer]

did you ever seen an ape created a car?

No, although if that is your definition of divine creation I fear heaven is populated only by engineers.

 

[dmmesdale]

By this argument, a Roman arch could never be built:

Not the argument. It is a misapplication. We are addressing a motor, not an intelligently designed arch. As a side, don't use ID to argue against ID. In the first place, the plan is there prior to the construction. In the second are all the parts needed for the whole?
The argument is simple. Remove parts and what is left is a nonfunctioning motor.

In your example above there would be a designer and a builder. The designer would convey building instructions to the builder. They would have to be on the same page as far as codes. Its intelligent design with metaphysical codes, complex information for a purpose. The builder would follow the instructions for the construction of the arch.

The only known independent source of this type is a mind. Not natural processes.
Genetic code intelligence - creation.com
All living things operate and replicate using vast quantities of coded information which is stored, read, transcribed and translated. All of these processes shout out purposeful, intelligent sophisticated programming (far more advanced than any technology we’ve yet conceived), not blind, purposeless, naturalistic processes...

Not only must the committed materialist believe that a code system spontaneously generated, they must also believe that a translation device specific to that exact code must also have “evolved” through natural causes!

 

[pitabread]

As a christian biologist what do you and other christian scientists think of stephen meyers work?

I can't speak for sfs, but having read commentary from other professional biologists on Meyer's works, he's generally regarded as a hack.

For example, there's a rather scathing review of Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell" on a blog by a retired biologist here: Quintessence of Dust: Signature in the Cell

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was watching a video about 15 body parts that we were supposed to lose over the next 500 years due to evolution ...

That would have to be guesswork.

So what do things like the closeness of our dna to chimps, and the fact that we have certain body parts that we don't even need mean to you in regards to your belief in God or lack of belief?

It's entirely consistent with my lack of belief.

 

[pitabread]

Not the argument. It is a misapplication. We are addressing a motor, not an intelligently designed arch. As a side, don't use ID to argue against ID. In the first place, the plan is there prior to the construction. In the second are all the parts needed for the whole?

Are all the parts need for a Roman arch? Yes. Remove a single block of stone and the whole thing collapses.

The argument is simple. Remove parts and what is left is a nonfunctioning motor.

Remove a block of stone and what is left is a non-functioning arch.

So how could anyone possibly have built such a structure? Must be magic.

 

[xianghua]

By this argument, a Roman arch could never be built:

its not the same since any step in this arch can be functional by itself. but if you have a part that its able to sense a sound wave, it will be useless without the part that its able to process the signal into hearing.

 

[pitabread]

its not the same since any step in this arch can be functional by itself

Nope. If you take out a single stone, the arch will collapse, therefore proving it's impossible to build a Roman arch.

Roman arches are magic.

 

[dmmesdale]

So how could anyone possibly have built such a structure? Must be magic.

From the bottom up. Not magic. Its planned.
They do have ancient structures not known how they were built. The precision cut stones fitted together.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the bible is mostly right brain thinking, not left brain. so unless you know the difference in how those two parts of the brain "reason" then you saying that Jesus literally believed in an historical adam and eve is invalid, because that is left brain thinking and I could argue that Jesus was mostly a right brain thinker.

That 'left brain / right brain' thinker stuff is a myth, folk science.