Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

@layman,

For one species to become another it has to survive. That is what survival means. Without survival, natural selection will weed out that species, gene sequence etc.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

For one species to become another it has to survive. That is what survival means. Without survival, natural selection will weed out that species, gene sequence etc.

Actually, technically you are right however survival doesn't necessarily mean you will have offspring. It really comes down to having the ability to procreate. For example many spider species the female kills the male during the act of reproduction. She may even consume other males who may wander by after she has already been fertilized. Survival is not absolutely necessary, but instead spreading your DNA is.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Survival of the species would tend to indicate it is having offspring since we don't really know of any species that are immortal.

0 Replies

@FBM,

FBM wrote:

I have zero belief in the current cosmological model ...

Zero belief means that you belief 100% that it it not true, or that it is absolutely false or fake or whatever.

FBM wrote:

... but I acknowledge that it's the logically stronger argument compared to ...

What does 'logically stronger' mean when you compare two absolute zeros? How can one of the zeros be 'logically stronger' that the other zero?

FBM wrote:

'You do understand this' ...

Yes, I really don't understand how can one believe in something without understanding it, but to believe in it just because it is supported by the status quo.
Yes, I really don't understand why you deny that you have belief in the Big Bang 'theory', which is different from 0.00% - what is so scary? Obviously in your understanding of the things it is quite dangerous to announce one's own beliefs, and it is much safer to adhere to the status que and the misrepresentation ... yes, the logic really is 'great' - WFM.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

How can a species, whether old or new, pass on it's genetic material if it doesn't survive?

The real question is: How can a species, notwithstanding whether brand new or derivative of an old one, create it's genetic material out of nothing and without having the information for encoding that - simply by some stochastic events? Can you give an example of a software, written by stochastic concurrence of the circumstances? Can you give an example of a brand new chemical element (outside the Periodic table), having appeared out of nowhere and by some stochastic event? Can you give an example of an agricultural crop having appeared out of nothing and as a result of some stochastic event? Do you have that examples, or not?

2 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

parados wrote:
How can a species, whether old or new, pass on it's genetic material if it doesn't survive?
The real question is: How can a species, notwithstanding whether brand new or derivative of an old one, create it's genetic material out of nothing and without having the information for encoding that - simply by some stochastic events?

So you have the exact same DNA as your parents who have identical DNA to their parents?

You keep using the word "stochastic" but you don't have a clue what it means.

Quote:

Can you give an example of a software, written by stochastic concurrence of the circumstances?

Simple and easy to do.
Software can consist of a single line of code. You give me 300 random numbers and I will find you code that can be processed.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Just for the heck of it, I took your question, using how it would be stored on the computer, and turned it into computer code.

Quote:

How can a species, notwithstanding whether brand new or derivative of an old one, create it's genetic material out of nothing and without having the information for encoding that - simply by some stochastic events

dec eax
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
ja 0x00000024
arpl WORD PTR [ecx+0x6e],sp
and BYTE PTR [ecx+0x20],ah
jae 0x0000007c
arpl WORD PTR gs:[ecx+0x65],bp
jae loc_0000003e
and BYTE PTR [esi+0x6f],ch
je loc_0000008e
imul esi,DWORD PTR [eax+ebp*2+0x73],0x646e6174
imul ebp,DWORD PTR [esi+0x67],0x65687720
je 0x00000090
gs
jb loc_0000004b
bound esi,QWORD PTR [edx+0x61]
outs dx,BYTE PTR ds:[esi]
and BYTE PTR fs:[esi+0x65],ch
ja loc_00000055
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
jb loc_00000058
fs
gs
jb loc_000000a5
jbe loc_0000009f
loc_0000003e:
je 0x000000a9
jbe loc_000000a7
and BYTE PTR [edi+0x66],ch
and BYTE PTR [ecx+0x6e],ah
and BYTE PTR [edi+0x6c],ch
loc_0000004b:
and BYTE PTR fs:[edi+0x6e],ch
gs
sub al,0x20
arpl WORD PTR [edx+0x65],si
loc_00000055:
popa
je 0x000000bd
loc_00000058:
and BYTE PTR [ecx+0x74],ch
daa
jae 0x0000007e
outs dx,BYTE PTR gs:[si]
gs
je 0x000000cd
arpl WORD PTR [eax],sp
ins DWORD PTR es:[edi],dx
popa
je 0x000000cf
jb 0x000000d5
popa
ins BYTE PTR es:[edi],dx
and BYTE PTR [edi+0x75],ch
je loc_00000093
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
data16
and BYTE PTR [esi+0x6f],ch
je 0x000000e2
imul ebp,DWORD PTR [esi+0x67],0x646e6120
and BYTE PTR [edi+0x69],dh
je 0x000000ee
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
jne 0x000000fd
and BYTE PTR [eax+0x61],ch
jbe 0x000000f7
loc_0000008e:
outs dx,BYTE PTR ds:[esi]
and BYTE PTR [si+0x68],dh
loc_00000093:
and BYTE PTR gs:[ecx+0x6e],ch
outs dx,WORD PTR ds:[esi]
jb 0x00000108
popa
je 0x00000107
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
loc_0000009f:
outs dx,BYTE PTR ds:[esi]
and BYTE PTR [esi+0x6f],ah
jb 0x000000c5
loc_000000a5:
outs dx,BYTE PTR gs:[esi]
loc_000000a7:
arpl WORD PTR [edi+0x64],bp
imul ebp,DWORD PTR [esi+0x67],0x61687420
je loc_000000d3
sub eax,0x6d697320
jo 0x00000126
jns 0x000000dc
bound edi,QWORD PTR [ecx+0x20]
jae 0x00000130
ins DWORD PTR es:[edi],dx
and BYTE PTR gs:[ebx+0x74],dh
outs dx,DWORD PTR ds:[esi]
arpl WORD PTR [eax+0x61],bp
jae 0x00000140
imul esp,DWORD PTR [ebx+0x20],0x6e657665
loc_000000d3:
je 0x00000148

By some strange coincidence when running the computer code derived from your question the result makes as much sense as you do.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

By some strange coincidence when running the computer code derived from your question the result makes as much sense as you do.

     ... and what is that supposed to prove - that you don't have an interpreter on your computer of human-like representation of knowledge or what?
     1. The question was not towards your computer, but perhaps towards you. If you are at the level of your computer in terms of natural language understanding this is a theme of another thread.
     2. From where you are so sure that it is not you and your encoding skills and your misunderstanding of the world that have sent the computer in the Dimension X.
     3. Your trial proves that something encoded in unreadable code to some system does not work which does not automatically prove that any code, encoded by chance by some stochastic concurrence of the circumstances can make biocode which on its side is able to make brand new species with brilliant design and functionality. ... Anyway.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

FBM wrote:
I have zero belief in the current cosmological model ...
Zero belief means that you belief 100% that it it not true, or that it is absolutely false or fake or whatever.

Wrong. It means absence of any belief about it. Another attempt at a strawmant. Weak.

Quote:

What does 'logically stronger' mean when you compare two absolute zeros? How can one of the zeros be 'logically stronger' that the other zero?

It's not two zeros. It's

4:0

Quote:

Yes, I really don't understand how can one believe in something without understanding it, but to believe in it just because it is supported by the status quo.

Tell us what you understand about this "personal 45% alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps." What is its skeletal structure? How much does it weigh? How many lobes in its brain? What language does it speak? How does this "teleportation" work? How is it giving instructions for the structure of the universe? Where did it come from? Was it created? Who/what created it?

Quote:

Yes, I really don't understand why you deny that you have belief in the Big Bang 'theory', which is different from 0.00% - what is so scary? Obviously in your understanding of the things it is quite dangerous to announce one's own beliefs, and it is much safer to adhere to the status que and the misrepresentation ... yes, the logic really is 'great' - WFM.

I deny having a belief because I don't have a belief. At least I'm logically consistent about it. I don't base my statements on g0d-of-the-gaps fallacies and appeals to ignorance and incredulity. The evidence and arguments for the Standard Model are preponderous. The evidence and arguments for your "personal 45% alien/ILF/god-of-the-gaps" are non-existent. It's a craptastic, tinfoil-hat fantasy that you pulled out of your ass, just like your "arguments" against modern medical science. If your arguments were a horse, it would've been shot by now. Evidence: put up or shut up:

4:0

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

So you have the exact same DNA as your parents who have identical DNA to their parents?

... and in the end all the possible parents have DNA identical to the PNA?! of the green algae that have inherited their PNA directly from the Big Bang 'theory', of what? How can some stochastics that is virtually unable to design PNA or DNA or whatever, acquire somehow these abilities with the time? How exactly the physical impossibility becomes possible with the time?

parados wrote:

You keep using the word "stochastic" but you don't have a clue what it means.

It means that a brand new bio-code with brand new brilliant functionality and sometimes even very different mechanics of heredity cannot appear just so, out of nothing, and out of random events, called casually positive mutations, because the mutation is a random event both in terms of the factors (mutagens), and in terms of the results, incl. frequency of mutations above the natural background level, harmonization of the mutations with enough in number male and female organisms in order to avoid degeneration of the new species and to be able to make viable offspring with brilliant enough functionality & heredity in order to survive (some of them for 250 mln years). Can you explain how exactly have you personally inherited your personal functionality from the Big Bang 'theory' ... and why the Turtles have not evolved for 250 MN years? If the rate of evolution is 250 MN years per positive mutation, how many positive mutations will you have in the BCS in regard to he Singularity for a period of 4.38 BN years? You have the Singularity with its Infinite Temperature (without material carrier) and Infinite Gravity (without the force carrier) and by 9.5 'positive mutations' out of that you will have to create the full functionality of the Human.

1 Reply

Yeah, because if Random Guy on the Internet can't explain every detail about every science known to mankind, the argument for intelligent aliens-gods teleporting secret instructions about the structure of the infinite universe suddenly makes perfect sense.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/ewacky.gif

0 Replies

@Herald,

Those are valid computer instructions I posted. It is assembly language. I simply disassembled the 1s and 0s to make it readable for a coder. It didn't send my computer into Dimension X. The computer was happy to work with the 1s and 0s. It just didn't give me any meaningful output when the computer ran that code.

Quote:

3. Your trial proves that something encoded in unreadable code to some system does not work which does not automatically prove that any code, encoded by chance by some stochastic concurrence of the circumstances can make biocode which on its side is able to make brand new species with brilliant design and functionality. ... Anyway.

My trial proves that your claim that a stochastic process can't create computer code is complete nonsense. Whether that code does something meaningful to you is not the question. It only needs to be code and to function as code to prove your statement was complete bullshit. It does both and proves your statement was bullshit.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Quote:

Can you explain how exactly have you personally inherited your personal functionality from the Big Bang 'theory' ... and why the Turtles have not evolved for 250 MN years? If the rate of evolution is 250 MN years per positive mutation, how many positive mutations will you have in the BCS in regard to he Singularity for a period of 4.38 BN years? You have the Singularity with its Infinite Temperature (without material carrier) and Infinite Gravity (without the force carrier) and by 9.5 'positive mutations' out of that you will have to create the full functionality of the Human.

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. This has been explained to you many times. Repeating the same tired crap doesn't make it true.

Evolution doesn't require that all species progress into new species. You continue to prove you don't know what you are arguing about. Simply because a species has existed for a long time doesn't mean it hasn't had branches that evolved from it.

Because turtles haven't evolved in 250MN years doesn't mean the rate of positive mutation is 250Mn years. How many logical fallacies can you fit into one post?

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution.

But you are not sure about that, are you? The Big Bang 'theory' claims that it can explain the evolution of the stars without any problems and that it is the 'natural inference' in compliance with the evolution of the species (whatever that might mean).

parados wrote:

Evolution doesn't require that all species progress into new species.

You will hardly need to explain 'all species', why don't you explain some of the species: how many simultaneous positive mutations with how many individuals will you need in order to create a brand new species that will not degenerate with the time?

parados wrote:

Because turtles haven't evolved in 250MN years doesn't mean the rate of positive mutation is 250Mn years.

Yet, you can't explain why the Turtles are not willing to evolve for a period of 250 MN years. Why some of the turtles have evolved according to your 'theory', and some of them don't have the slightest intention to evolve into whatever? How does that happen?

1 Reply

@Herald,

For ****'s sake. Evolution doesn't care HOW life started. It only describes how life changes. Since the Big Bang would have occurred before life started evolution doesn't concern itself with that. If you continue with the Big Bang you only prove you don't have an argument concerning evolution so have to deflect to something else to try to hide your lack of argument.

Quote:

You will hardly need to explain 'all species', why don't you explain some of the species: how many simultaneous positive mutations with how many individuals will you need in order to create a brand new species that will not degenerate with the time?

Fallacious argument on your part. You assume mutations have to be simultaneous. That is not true. There are mutations that occur all the time that are not detrimental. It is only when circumstances change to make them positive that they will proliferate through a population.

Quote:

Yet, you can't explain why the Turtles are not willing to evolve for a period of 250 MN years. Why some of the turtles have evolved according to your 'theory', and some of them don't have the slightest intention to evolve into whatever? How does that happen?

Animals don't will or not will themselves to evolve. Once again you prove you don't understand the theory.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

The Big Bang has NOTHING to do with evolution. This has been explained to you many times. Repeating the same tired crap doesn't make it true.

This has also been pointed out to him time and time again, but he simply refuses to learn. Critical case of willful ignorance. This is the guy who insists that evolution means that every animal that survives is a predator.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/lalala.gif

In the school of:

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/16810_393175547524462_8926762213579281522_n.jpg

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

For ****'s sake. Evolution doesn't care HOW life started. It only describes how life changes.

If the Evolution cannot explain that - it cannot explain anything. If it is based on quicksands, as it actually is, you cannot build anything on top of that.

parados wrote:

Since the Big Bang would have occurred before life started evolution doesn't concern itself with that.

The Big Bang claims that it has invented the chemical elements and the chemical reactions and the Evolution uses extensively bio-chemistry and genetics (based on material carriers designed by the Big Bang) - how exactly the Big Bang is not concerned with life?

parados wrote:

If you continue with the Big Bang you only prove you don't have an argument concerning evolution so have to deflect to something else to try to hide your lack of argument.

This thread is not about Evolution. It is about whether the Big Bang has had any brain when guessing to make and making the design of the chemical elements or not. It is also about how can a non-existing a priori information become self-encoded by some random processes into any material carrier - not only PNA & DNA?

parados wrote:

You assume mutations have to be simultaneous. That is not true.

Why don't you tell us what you assume. Can you give an example of the creation of a brand new species on the grounds of one mutation only (I am not going to comment whether positive or negative) with one of the individuals of the predecessors. Actually how many brand new genetic variations will you need for a positive mutation for the creation of a brand new species (4% change in the genetic code)?

parados wrote:

There are mutations that occur all the time that are not detrimental.

... and that are not doing anything in particular. Thus for example changing the color of the hair/fur from reddish-brown to red does not create brand new species, as you are trying to convince the public here.

parados wrote:

Animals don't will or not will themselves to evolve. Once again you prove you don't understand the theory.

But you are not sure about that - are you? What about that one: Gorilla → Australupithecus → Homo Erectus → Homo Neanderthalis → Heidelberg Human → Homo Sapients
Is the the Gorilla part of the animals you are talking about or not?

1 Reply

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb192/DinahFyre/10505358_1686751188218653_6021750431396966576_n.jpg

0 Replies

@Herald,

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter, as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.

ev·o·lu·tion
ˌevəˈlo͞oSH(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the history of the earth.
synonyms: Darwinism, natural selection
"his interest in evolution"
2.
the gradual development of something, especially from a simple to a more complex form.
"the forms of written languages undergo constant evolution"
synonyms: development, advancement, growth, rise, progress, expansion, unfolding

1 Reply

@argome321,

argome321 wrote:

Abiogenesis is the process by which a living organism arises naturally from non-living matter

... and how many brand new species have you created in the bio-lab in that way? (we are not talking here about the grain hybrids, copyrighted with terminator of the germs)

argome321 wrote:

... as opposed to biogenesis, which is the creation of living organisms by other living organisms.

This talk is too general and too away from the topic. Do you have an example of a bio-code, charged with fully functional and hereditary genetic information on the basis of random process, or not?

1 Reply

Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know