Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:
False.. The problem nature faces is survival.

The individual organism faces the problem of survival. The process of evolution does not.

Doesn't the individual organism undergo evolution?

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Doesn't the individual organism undergo evolution?

No. Evolution is about populations, not individuals.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:
Doesn't the individual organism undergo evolution?

No. Evolution is about populations, not individuals.

Everything undergoes evolution. Even our conceptions of things. Evolution is simply building upon through this thing we know as time. The cycles of life, expansion and contraction.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

. At least science has a bagful of lab experiments, ID, however, seems to be sitting on its ass, smugly comfortable in their religious premise that implies that they dont really need any steenking evidence to assert the "Facts" of their beliefs.

Science has a bagful of experiments trying to replicate abiogenisis. The problem is the scientist, created the enviroment in the lab, and made sure the exact chemicals were available for some intelligently imposed trigger to make abiogenisis happen. The intelligence of the scientist is an integral part of the experiment.

How do you know intelligence isn't a requirement for the experiment to work?

Intelligence is a requirement for the origin of any algorithm being developed today (even replicating abiogenisis).

Quote:

I had a bit of a chuckle when I posed the series of abiogenesis experiments that were being done in long term(including lbs like Lawrence Livermore). My statement to you was something like,"even if we come up with a number of possible means of abiogenesis, we can nver be certain of which one or ones actually applied"

As I recall you responded with a sort of "Jakuby" , and I paraphrse.

"SEE!? You dont really know which one applies now do you"? Using a similar argument based on your continued incredulity,
Why not inspect your own premises then?,. I dont see you going past a comfortable Bible based assertion.

I agree that was lame.

If I use my intelligence to replicate abiogenisis can I use it as evidence that it took intelligence to cause abiogenisis in the past?

What would you accept as proof?

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Sentanta and Farmerman

Quote:

You are mixing up frames of reference. You are breaking the logic of your own analogies.

I am mixing up frames of references because that is the point I am trying to make.

If an intelligence can manipulate space in such a way as to organize matter and create time, which then creates the chemicals and environment favorable for life, and then manipulates that matter and environment in such a way to create life, that intelligence must have a frame of reference outside of the universe.

Mankind is inside the universe. We are a small algorithm running inside a vast algorithm. Every man perceives space and time and gravity from their own frame of reference. That is what Einstein revealed mathematically with relativity.

To understand how an intelligence that can do all the things listed above to cause abiogenisis to take place, you must leave your frame of reference and imagine you are in his. That's what I was asking the robot to do in my example. So, he could understand where he came from and his purpose for existing.

Physically, our frame of reference (from inside a small part of the universe) we are using to understand the universe is natural and materialistic.

I am suggesting that we can be objective and put ourself in the designers objective point of view by imagining the robot scenario (which is subjective from the robot but objective to the man creating the robot) and then transpose it onto a universal model to see if it looks plausible as an explanation of why things appear as they do from an objective point of view of our universe.

This does not require a great scientific mind that understands how the details of robots and biological evolution works. It takes a mind that all men (and no other creature we know of) have. So quit thinking naturalistic like an animal, and start thinking Divine like a man. We are different from all other things in nature for a reason.

1 Reply

This pathetic thread has turned into a tent revival meeting.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

I suspect with your descriptive word “pathetic” my revival meeting didn’t revive you?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

If I use my intelligence to replicate abiogenisis can I use it as evidence that it took intelligence to cause abiogenisis in the past?

.

All youve done in that conclusion, is assumed that absolutely everything is under some Almighty control. SO it is neither truly abiogenesis nor EVOLUTION.Its biblical style creationism.Science isnt in the business to do that stuff, its merely trying to understand how it all happened and by what means.(Theres a whole bunch of different experiments competing for attention, all based upon what the individual team forensically understands the input conditions were on this planet.)
You seem to want to have it every which way but"Let there be" dumb luck and environmental responses to the laws of science..

As I said earlier, you oughta get crackin, because noone here seems to be buying your sales pitch. In a sense , you are in the same boat as science except even though we often use a conditional phrase like "if such nd such happens, we can watch qnd see..."What You really mean that "this is what I fully believe God made happen..." and youre gonna go forth and preach it.

Quote:

Science has a bagful of experiments trying to replicate abiogenisis. The problem is the scientist, created the environment in the lab

Actually, science,practicing from varying degrees of ignorance is trying to REPLICATE what the early envioronment was. Livermore may come up with on that woks and STanford may have another, National Djeng Gong may have a third. Whose got it right? maybe all we show is that its very easy for life to arise, ( maybe just keeping it going is where the trick lies.)

2 Replies

@jerlands,

We’re talking about Biological Evolution, not broad evolution (which is synonymous with “change”).

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:

Algorithms are typically defined as processes involved in solving problems, but in the case of evolution within natural systems there is no problem which is being solved, so it is not an algorithm almost by definition.

False.. The problem nature faces is survival.

The individual organism faces the problem of survival. The process of evolution does not.

Doesn't the individual organism undergo evolution?

We’re talking about Biological Evolution, not broad evolution (which is synonymous with “change”).

Biological Evolution is marked by the change of heritable characteristics.
Nature's #1 goal is survival.
The process of evolution is... problem = answer = incorporation = solution = growth

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

assumed that absolutely everything is under some Almighty control.

Ya know.. we want to argue this concept of "God" from one point of view.. that he's in control rather than he's the signal or something along those lines.

farmerman wrote:

Actually, science,practicing from varying degrees of ignorance is trying to REPLICATE what the early envioronment was.

here's an experiment which I believe you're negating that may offer insight into abiogenesis.

0 Replies

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Biological Evolution is marked by the change of heritable characteristics.
Nature's #1 goal is survival.
The process of evolution is... problem = answer = incorporation = solution = growth

Really understanding a concept is never as easy as just highlighting the words you are interested in. You need to actually understand it.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

... see if it looks plausible as an explanation of why things appear as they do from an objective point of view of our universe.

"Plausible" is the key thing here. We already know that anything is "Possible", that's a given withing the philosophical framework for humanity. The real question is always, what is probable or plausible, not what is possible.

How has your example changed the probability of the possible conclusions at all?

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:
Biological Evolution is marked by the change of heritable characteristics.
Nature's #1 goal is survival.
The process of evolution is... problem = answer = incorporation = solution = growth

Really understanding a concept is never as easy as just highlighting the words you are interested in. You need to actually understand it.

Explain it to me then

1 Reply

@jerlands,

jerlands wrote:

Explain it to me then

I pretty much did, you just didn't like the answer. Individual organism don't undergo Biological Evolution, only populations over time do that. And Biological Evolution was what we were talking about, not just the general usage of "Evolution", which is pretty much just "Change" or the Gradual Development of something.

4 Replies

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

jerlands wrote:

Explain it to me then

I pretty much did, you just didn't like the answer. Individual organism don't undergo Biological Evolution, only populations over time do that. And Biological Evolution was what we were talking about, not just the general usage of "Evolution", which is pretty much just "Change" or the Gradual Development of something.

Very well, however descent through genetic inheritance has its origin and I suspect it begins with a single organism. I don't have proof of that... I just suspect that.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

berkeley.edu wrote:

Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations). Evolution helps us to understand the history of life.

I read in this descent with modification. The population can be very small. It doesn't have to encompass the globe.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

I'm gonna change the definition of "Biological Evolution" for the world.
Genetic changes in a single organism that can and do get passed on to successive generations.

0 Replies

@rosborne979,

jerlands wrote:

I'm gonna change the definition of "Biological Evolution" for the world.
Genetic changes in a single organism that can and do get passed on to successive generations.

This is how I arrived at that conclusion... A group of fish get trapped in a dark cave and so to survive their senses have to change. Something like how a blind man's other senses sharpen. But.. the question is how did that change start? Did the entire group begin to develop uniformly or did each contribute in some way to the whole? An example is with high jump. In 1968 Fosbury proved the flop was a success but it was long ago conceived by another individual, Richard Douglas and today, well... what do you see?

1 Reply

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know