Your Thoughts on Creation & Evolution

[Shemjaza]

Common sense, a zero ability proccess can't produce something a lot greater, look at computers for example.

Except that's false.

No one designed the DNA of dogs we just applied selection pressure to mutations and existing traits. That's why dog breeds have appearances and levels of intelligence not found in their wolf ancestors.

Adding or changing information randomly to improve something is related.

That's exactly how mutations can be demonstrated to work.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Common sense

Common sense can only be used for things that are known.
"Common sense" for example, wouldn't have come up with the relativity of time.
Counter intuitive evidence, did.

When it comes to things unknown at the frontier of scientific discovery, mere common sense is almost always wrong.

, a zero ability proccess can't produce something a lot greater, look at computers for example.

Computers aren't living organisms that reproduce with modification and which are in competition with peers over limited resources in an ever-changing environment. As such, they aren't subject to a self-optimizing process like evolution.

Comparing unliving (= not even dead) things to living things to make a point against evolution, is like pointing at "not falling" hammers in the international space station to make a point against gravity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Look at computers and see if by adding random bits to something you improve it, add functionality, discard errors, and perfect it.

As explained in my previous post: false analogies aren't a valid way to argue your case either.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Adding or changing information randomly to improve something is related.

Have you ever heared of natural selection?
And population genetics etc?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Evolution do not have an 'engine' to produce something.

Except that it does.

Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

 

[NBB]

Except that it does.

Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

Apply that to a simulation, what do you get, almost nothing, just random change added and if it survives it stays, thing is evolution can't stack improvements over improvements as they claim it can do.

 

[Aman777]

Except that it does.

Reproduce, mutate, survive, repeat.

That's descent with modification within kinds. Please quit calling it evolution. Don't you know what kinds means?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That's descent with modification within kinds. Please quit calling it evolution.

It's evolution. Please quit calling it descent with modification within kinds.

Don't you know what kinds means?

Nope, and neither do you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Apply that to a simulation, what do you get, almost nothing, just random change added and if it survives it stays, thing is evolution can't stack improvements over improvements as they claim it can do.

You're almost there - the survivors of natural selection continue to breed, resulting in generations of new individuals that acquire new mutational variations, which are then selected for survivability; the survivors breed again and so-on. Rinse and repeat. The survivors of each generation pass on the genetic mutations that aided their survival to their offspring. That's how advantageous changes accumulate.

 

[NBB]

You're almost there - the survivors of natural selection continue to breed, resulting in generations of new individuals that acquire new mutational variations, which are then selected for survivability; the survivors breed again and so-on. Rinse and repeat. The survivors of each generation pass on the genetic mutations that aided their survival to their offspring. That's how advantageous changes accumulate.

Random changes can't build anything if you think about it, more ''''common sense'''' And they don't explain why they do.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Random changes can't build anything if you think about it, more ''''common sense'''' And they don't explain why they do.

Random changes alone won't go anywhere useful, but random changes with non-random selection generation by generation can produce very successful results.

Genetic algorithms are widely used in industrial design to generate or improve designs using the same principle - generate a lot of variations, generate a new generation from a mix of the most successful variations, add some random variation, select the most successful of that generation, generate a new generation from them, add some random variation, etc.; continue until satisfied.

There are lots of examples online (search for 'evolutionary algorithms') - here's one very simple one. Here's one with animations; here's another.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Random changes can't build anything if you think about it, more ''''common sense'''' And they don't explain why they do.

This is the creationist two step. Ignore selection and claim that variation cannot produce anything. Then ignore variation and claim that selection only reduces "information".

The facts are that in any stable population variation will increase. Then when the environment changes selection will occur. This new population will have a different set of alleles than the earlier one did. Again as time goes on variation will build up and the cycle will be repeated again and again.


Meanwhile we do have massive evidence for evolution and creationist cannot even begin to form a testable hypothesis which means by definition they have no evidence for their beliefs.

 

[Aman777]

Aman:>>Don't you know what kinds means?

Nope, and neither do you.

Sure I do. If you don't know what kinds are, then you CANNOT understand Genesis.

His kinds are the temporary kinds which Jesus made with His own Hands. These "common ancestors" are subject to death.
Their kinds are the Eternal kinds which God the Trinity creates. These living creatures are NOT subject to death.

Adam was formed physically, subject to death, by Jesus/Lord God. Genesis 2:7 Humans (descendants of Adam) are His kinds.
Adam was "created" in God's Image or born Spiritually in Christ Eternally, by God the Trinity. Genesis 1:27 Christians are Their kinds, eternal kinds.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Aman:>>Don't you know what kinds means?



Sure I do. If you don't know what kinds are, then you CANNOT understand Genesis.

His kinds are the temporary kinds which Jesus made with His own Hands. These "common ancestors" are subject to death.
Their kinds are the Eternal kinds which God the Trinity creates. These living creatures are NOT subject to death.

Adam was formed physically, subject to death, by Jesus/Lord God. Genesis 2:7 Humans (descendants of Adam) are His kinds.
Adam was "created" in God's Image or born Spiritually in Christ Eternally, by God the Trinity. Genesis 1:27 Christians are Their kinds, eternal kinds.

Lol. So Christians are both kinds at the same time? Thanks for the QED, you really don't know what kinds means, do you?

 

[xianghua]

Your computer analogy makes no sense

what if we will find a computer that is able to replicate itself like a living thing?

 

[xianghua]

Random changes alone won't go anywhere useful, but random changes with non-random selection generation by generation can produce very successful results.

but it will never produce a complex system. if for instance we need at least 3 parts to evolve a new function random changes+ selection will not help in this case since there is nothing to select in that case.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Apply that to a simulation

That's been done many a times.
In fact, I even worked on such a project. It's called genetic algoritms.

Here's an example:
BoxCar2D

, what do you get, almost nothing,

Actually, what you get are highly optimized systems.

just random change added and if it survives it stays

Yes. If it survives, it stays. It means it performed better then those that didn't survive.
Repeat that process, and what you end up with are populations of individuals who are very good at what they do.

Because evolution works.

, thing is evolution can't stack improvements over improvements as they claim it can do.

That makes no sense.
Mutations accumulated. So yes, improvements stack up.

Just like in the example I gave you of the genetic algoritm.
You start out with random polygons wich might or might not have wheels attached, which might or might not break off at the first bump on the track, that spin at different speeds.

But what you eventually end up with, are "cars" that are completely geared towards performing good on the specific track they evolved on. Almost as if they were designed to ride that track. And you know what? They actually were designed to ride that track. The designer however, is not a "who". It's a process. A process of mutate, survive, reproduce, repeat.

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's descent with modification within kinds

Which is evolution

Please quit calling it evolution

Why? If it is evolution, it's fine to call it evolution.

Don't you know what kinds means?

Every creationist seems to have its own personal definition.
Biologically, it has no specific meaning. It's not scientific jargon. It has no scientific implications or connotations.

Assuming an abstract definition, where "kind" can apply to any taxonomical context, the statement that "things reproduce after their kind", is correct.

Every newborn is of the same species as its direct parents.
And the process of speciation is vertical, not horizontal. Which means that speciation always results in sub-species.

The common ancestor of house cats and lions, was a feline. Both are "still" felines.
The common ancestor of humans and chimps, was a primate. Both are "still" primates.
The common ancestor of primates and chimps, was a mammal. Both are "still" mammals.
Etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Random changes can't build anything if you think about it, more ''''common sense'''' And they don't explain why they do.

Ignoring the role of natural selection, won't make it go away. Nore does it make a valid argument against evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

what if we will find a computer that is able to replicate itself like a living thing?

What if you would stop bringing up imaginary non-sensical examples?