Why I do not accept evolution part two.

[Speedwell]

And I use the same technique in software development.

So we've established that creative intelligence can design systems which take advantage of random variation within pre-determined specified ranges- with a predetermined goal.

Rather like forced selective breeding.

Not saying 'natural cause' achieving the same is impossible, it's feasibility is just not as well established, and looking mathematically problematic I would submit to you.

I don't know. If we're just "looking" I would say that the interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information processing capacity to account for the biological complexity which they produce.

As Bill gates noted, "DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created.”

It is beginning to appear as if you regard natural causality and divine causality as mutually exclusive. I hope you are not prey to such metaphysical nonsense. It smacks too much of the ignorant creationist whine, "Evolution denies the existence of God."

 

[pitabread]

I'd say it speaks to my point, the researches did not built a radio by experimenting with the oscillator's settings- and could not have in a billion years, no matter how 'lucky'

They had to go beyond/under the design's own capacity for adaptation, and rewire that capacity- something more akin to altering gene regulatory networks perhaps..? but not simply extrapolating the already existing capacity for variation - because that was inherently constrained to viable options for the designed purpose.

I'm not sure what you mean by they had to "go beyond/under the design's own capacity for adaptation"?

Did you read the article?

Also, the full paper is here if you're interested: https://people.duke.edu/~ng46/topics/evolved-radio.pdf

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, that is true of forced selective breeding as I said.

I assume you have a creationist source for that misinformation; it would be interesting to know what it was. But I am not necessarily arguing for a naturalistic cause. I am only pointing out what has been observed.

I'm not a creationist and I've never even looked at a creationist source to my knowledge. (other than the Bible of course!) but even that was long after I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution

Again it is accepted in commonly secular circles that mutation of the gene sequence alone is insufficient to account for all observed variation across species, and that DNA represents a hierarchical structure as does computer software- this is how random variation can be used.

e.g. you can randomly alter the text settings in this box, and get a reasonable shot at a viable result- because the options are constrained to be viable. Now try randomly altering the operating system code and you instantly crash the system.

Same in DNA, you can randomly alter control genes for eye color and get viable variations, you can't randomly alter the regulatory systems that allow for this variation- and so you cannot simply extrapolate superficial variation into a comprehensive design mechanism at all levels.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not a creationist and I've never even looked at a creationist source to my knowledge. (other than the Bible of course!) but even that was long after I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution

Again it is accepted in commonly secular circles that mutation of the gene sequence alone is insufficient to account for all observed variation across species, and that DNA represents a hierarchical structure as does computer software- this is how random variation can be used.

e.g. you can randomly alter the text settings in this box, and get a reasonable shot at a viable result- because the options are constrained to be viable. Now try randomly altering the operating system code and you instantly crash the system.

Same in DNA, you can randomly alter control genes for eye color and get viable variations, you can't randomly alter the regulatory systems that allow for this variation- and so you cannot simply extrapolate superficial variation into a comprehensive design mechanism at all levels.

And the theory of evolution does not claim that such a thing is possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Rather like forced selective breeding.

I don't know. If we're just "looking" I would say that the interlocking stochastic processes which make up the biosphere have enough information processing capacity to account for the biological complexity which they produce.

processing capacity- sure, as does a new computer with no code installed- it boils down, as everything else, to information ultimately- how was it created? what mechanisms do we know of than can achieve this?

It is beginning to appear as if you regard natural causality and divine causality as mutually exclusive. I hope you are not prey to such metaphysical nonsense.

Many dismiss creative intelligence out of hand, it violates the laws of methodological naturalism

But I have no need to impose such restrictions, we have no precedent to base that on- we know both phenomena exist, so I say consider both and let them compete on their own merits

'nature is the executor of God's laws'

Galileo

It smacks too much of the ignorant creationist whine, "Evolution denies the existence of God."

again I'm not a creationist, but I don't insult them either- we all believe in something, as long as we recognize our beliefs as such- we can all get along I think?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And the theory of evolution does not claim that such a thing is possible.

we might agree on something then, extrapolating natural variation to a comprehensive design mechanism for all species is a gross over simplification- but it is often presented as explicitly a simple explanation that skeptics 'don't understand'

Must call it a night, thanks all for the civil discussion- stay well

 

[Aussie Pete]

Since all we have heard from the OP are strawman arguments at best here are some concepts that may help. Phylogenetics and cladistics are two key concepts in evolution. Cladistics is a classification system that is based upon phylogenetics.

Cladistics - Wikipedia

Phylogenetics - Wikipedia

And phylogenetics is the study the evolutionary history of life and how life is related. We have all seen the "Tree of Life" and other such images. They are drawn to make clearer how life evolved . Those paths that you see are all one way streets. We can go over why in more detail if needed. If you have heard the poor 'odds arguments ' of some creationists those flawed arguments tell you why an ant cannot evolve into a moth. But they in no way refute the fact that ants and moths share a common ancestor. Evolution becomes impossible if one puts a specific goal for life. Then we would need a specific set of mutations to occur in the right order.

We can all understand that there is a record of who won various lotteries. And there is nothing spectacular about that list. That various people would win such a game should be rather obvious to all of us. A creationist demanding that we show how an ant can evolve into a moth is akin to denying a list of winners until they repeat their wins in reverse order. It is not going to happen in the real world and it makes no sense either. When a person uses nonsensical arguments he only demonstrates a total lack of understanding.

Nonsensical? Like evolutionists who simply don't accept that evolution is impossible? The arguments against evolution are sound. It's the knee jerk reaction from evolutionists that is unsound. It's like kicking over an ants nest. Watch them rush to defend the indefensible! Why do you care? What will happen if you are proven to be wrong? A big deal over nothing. I'm fascinated as to the "why".

Components of blood (article) | Khan Academy

How can you believe that blood evolved? Which came first, the blood vessels (arteries and veins), the heart? If any of those are missing, it's death. How did white corpuscles know that they were needed? If an organism became infected, nothing was there to defend it. A scratch would be enough to kill it. Somehow this stunning defence mechanism just happened to be there. No way.

Multiply this kind of question a gadzillion times and that is just one of my reasons for rejecting evolution.

Common ancestry? Only in the sense that God created them.

 

[Speedwell]

Nonsensical? Like evolutionists who simply don't accept that evolution is impossible? The arguments against evolution are sound. It's the knee jerk reaction from evolutionists that is unsound. It's like kicking over an ants nest. Watch them rush to defend the indefensible! Why do you care? What will happen if you are proven to be wrong? A big deal over nothing. I'm fascinated as to the "why".

Components of blood (article) | Khan Academy

How can you believe that blood evolved? Which came first, the blood vessels (arteries and veins), the heart? If any of those are missing, it's death. How did white corpuscles know that they were needed? If an organism became infected, nothing was there to defend it. A scratch would be enough to kill it. Somehow this stunning defence mechanism just happened to be there. No way.

Multiply this kind of question a gadzillion times and that is just one of my reasons for rejecting evolution.

Common ancestry? Only in the sense that God created them.

That particular straw man certainly is indefensible. Go ahead and knock it down; we won't try to stop you. The hope was that you would want to learn how those systems are thought to have evolved--then you would have arguments against something we actually wanted to defend. Alas, it is not to be.

 

[pitabread]

Like evolutionists who simply don't accept that evolution is impossible? The arguments against evolution are sound.

Arguments based on personal incredulity, straw men and other fallacies are not sound arguments, especially when they appear derived from a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter.

It's like you're trying to argue with a mathematician that calculus is bogus when you haven't passed basic arithmetic.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsensical? Like evolutionists who simply don't accept that evolution is impossible? The arguments against evolution are sound. It's the knee jerk reaction from evolutionists that is unsound. It's like kicking over an ants nest. Watch them rush to defend the indefensible! Why do you care? What will happen if you are proven to be wrong? A big deal over nothing. I'm fascinated as to the "why".

Components of blood (article) | Khan Academy

How can you believe that blood evolved? Which came first, the blood vessels (arteries and veins), the heart? If any of those are missing, it's death. How did white corpuscles know that they were needed? If an organism became infected, nothing was there to defend it. A scratch would be enough to kill it. Somehow this stunning defence mechanism just happened to be there. No way.

Multiply this kind of question a gadzillion times and that is just one of my reasons for rejecting evolution.

Common ancestry? Only in the sense that God created them.

Isn't it ood that if the "arguements against evolution" are sound that all that you can demonstrate is a complete lack of understanding of the science. All you have are strawman arguments and false appeals to authority.

Once again, let's go over the basics and then deal with the claims one at a time. Until you understand the basics, and it is rather clear that you do not, you will never understand your errors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not a creationist and I've never even looked at a creationist source to my knowledge. (other than the Bible of course!) but even that was long after I became skeptical of Darwinian evolution

Again it is accepted in commonly secular circles that mutation of the gene sequence alone is insufficient to account for all observed variation across species, and that DNA represents a hierarchical structure as does computer software- this is how random variation can be used.

e.g. you can randomly alter the text settings in this box, and get a reasonable shot at a viable result- because the options are constrained to be viable. Now try randomly altering the operating system code and you instantly crash the system.

Same in DNA, you can randomly alter control genes for eye color and get viable variations, you can't randomly alter the regulatory systems that allow for this variation- and so you cannot simply extrapolate superficial variation into a comprehensive design mechanism at all levels.

Once again you need to find valid sources for your claims. There is more than enough variation to drive evolution and that can be demonstrated mathematically. Many creationists make the error of assuming that evolution is a linear process. That is not the case. In any population we have millions if not billions of "experiements" running at the same time. Just in one person there are on the order of 100 mutations from their parent's DNA. Most of those mutations will be in non-coding DNA and will have no effect. But more than enough are in the active regions and they are a contant supply of new variation. For the most part very very small ones, but it only takes a small statistical advantage for a mutaton to become part of the genome. It appears that you have some understanding of computers. What we have in evollution are millions of cases of constant parallel processing for each species. Please don't give us this unsupported claim of not enough variation.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Quoting out of context again. That is usually done as a method of lying.

Not a lie at all, it was in perfect context. Who is really lying here?

Your just baiting me now, right?

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, you didn't. You were given a more than reasonable goal to meet and you ran away.

A person that does not even understand multiplication is in no position to demand that calculus be explained to him.

Still not game I see. Look me up when you're ready to drop the excuses/stalling and do a I requested, but until then, there is nothing new here...just you repeating the same old stuff.

 

[Strathos]

Nonsensical? Like evolutionists who simply don't accept that evolution is impossible?

I'll gladly admit that evolution is impossible - the way you define it, i.e. 'a moth becoming an ant'.

The thing is, that's not what evolution actually says.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not a lie at all, it was in perfect context. Who is really lying here?

Your just baiting me now, right?

No, you are simply wrong in all of your claims. Please quote properly in the future.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Still not game I see. Look me up when you're ready to drop the excuses/stalling and do a I requested, but until then, there is nothing new here...just you repeating the same old stuff.

This is dishonest. I am game. You have demonstrated ignorance and refuse to attempt to learn. Until you do so your requests cannot be fulfilled. You will not understand any answer given.

 

[Kenny'sID]

No, you are simply wrong in all of your claims. Please quote properly in the future.

While you never prove I quoted improperly? I guess you need to do that now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

While you never prove I quoted improperly? I guess you need to do that now.

Easily done. Of this post:

"I am not wasting my time on you. I gave you a more than reasonable offer. I am aware of your history. You have quite a bit to atone for. Why do my questions frighten you? Why does the concept of evidence frighten you? It appears that you know that you are wrong.

You will have to participate. Your first step is to answer these questions:

Is there scientific evidence for evolution? If not why not? And if there is why can that claim be made?

The same questions apply to creationism. Is there scientific evidence for creationism? If not why not? If there is how would you justify that claim?"

You only quoted the first sentence and ignored the rest. That is misleading and dishonest.

 

[Kenny'sID]

This is dishonest. I am game.

What Game? Certainly not the game I mentioned.
I'll be waiting, but FWIW, you can't get into the game until you stop the excuses and just do it.

If you have anymore trouble remembering what the game is, just read back.

 

[Subduction Zone]

N

What Game? Certainly not the game I mentioned.
I'll be waiting, but FWIW, you can't get into the game until you stop the excuses and just do it.

If you have anymore trouble remembering what the game is, just read back.

Your "game" is simply a dodge on your part.

i am still willing to help you to learn.