65
   

Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

 
 
BillW
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 11:11 pm
@Setanta,
https://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/science/enceladus/
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Sep, 2017 11:32 pm
@Setanta,
Quote:
Who said it was terrible? Got any evidence?
I guess you didn't say terrible, I should have said moronic.
Quote:
What a moron. You are the one talking about "doing it in order . . . right time . . . right place . . . right type of tissue." Apart from demonstrating, once again, your complete failure to take on board the implications of natural selection, to understand at all what it means and the very simple mechanism--show me that there is any such thing as a "right time," a "right place" or a "right type of tissue." Really, you've been a liar and an idiot in all of your posts--you're a typical christian denier of science. Why should anyone show you anything? You're the poster child of invincible ignorance, I certainly don't care if you wallow in your ignorance. You have chosen to hide from the world in the superstitious stupidity of a bronze age religious scam, and you're welcome to it. I do pity any children whose fate is so screwed that you would be responsible for their education.
I thought it was quite obviously demonstrated, by the evidence provided in the fossil record and every healthy biological organism living today, that "doing it in order . . . right time . . . right place . . . right type of tissue", was a hallmark of evolution by natural selection. Everything sure seems in order.

What do you see?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 04:06 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
You still haven't answered my question about seti and complex chemistry from my previous post
I was away for a week an , by practice, I rarely go back to "catch up" because so many of these "debates" repeat themselves every few qeeks.
Complex chemistry?? what wqs th question?
STI??
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 04:30 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
Do you think we can build a computer and program it to simulate macroevolution like I stated earlier with the video games?

Not sure what you said earlier about this but , of course we can SIMULATE nature by our technology. However, in almost all cases we cannot duplicate anything that life conceives (including life itself).
Simulations are not reality.
Computers do not operate against chemical gradients like life(although with them we can try to understand all sorts of series reactions, that only life can
reproduce,(energy cycles, mitochondrial energy transfer,meiosis,synapses, digestions, oxygen transfer in blood). What we used to do on blackboards we cn now do on the screen.(Models help us understand reality, they dont become it)

Our goal in science has been to understand many of these cycles and reactions and weve invented computers to help us model many physical, chemical and biological systems.


Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 04:50 am
@farmerman,
Models of DNA evolution

A number of different Markov models of DNA sequence evolution have been proposed. These substitution models differ in terms of the parameters used to describe the rates at which one nucleotide replaces another during evolution. These models are frequently used in molecular phylogenetic analyses. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 05:05 am
@Olivier5,
my use of stuff like covariance and markov grids is many years in my rear view mirror. Th symbology on the Timura model got me all "ferhootzed".
Im not sure I understand what the symbols even mean in his chemical sequence.(Other than the fact that I know where CTAG preferentially "join " in replication.
SO, Ill go back to an old meteorlogy text and take a refresher on "weather forecasting" to see if it helps revive any better understanding.
The Jukes expressions make ense in that they seem to present it as a Hardy Weinberg type frequency.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 05:34 am
@brianjakub,
I see that, like all of the IDiots, you've sidestepped the issue of proof for the alleged intelligence.

You're putting the cart before the horse, a hallmark of the theist. There is no "right" time, place or order of events. The woolly mammoth and the woolly rhinoceros were not waiting in the wings for conditions which would favor them. They arose in response to the conditions which existed at the time. Had there been no second ice age, there would have been no woollies to find in the fossil and archaeological records. It may well have put paid to homo neanderthalis, as well. There are a variety of factors which contribute to climate change, and unpredictable and (only from our point of view) catastrophic events can lead to mass extinctions, and the sudden--in geological terms--rise of particular life forms. The Deccan Traps, a massive area of active volcanism, the major eruption of which, when combined with the completely fortuitous Chicxulub impact (a planetesimal or comet striking the earth) created the conditions which wiped out most of the dinosaurs. If one alleges that such events were ordained by an intelligence, your precious intelligence is either an idiot, or pretty damned ham-handed. We have dramatic evidence of this in the historical record, too.

From the 13th to the early 19th century, there was a climactic event now known as "the little ice age." The earth was actually climbing out of the temperature "hole" by the end of the 18th century, when the atmosphere suffered a series of body blows from volcanism. Five major volcanic eruptions occurred from 1812 to 1815, culminating in the massive eruption of Tambora in what is now Indonesia. The eruption of that stratovolcano, as well as the four preceding major eruptions put massive amounts of particulate and albedic gases (gases which reflect sunlight before it reaches the surface of the planet) in the upper atmosphere, reflecting solar radiation (known as insolation). Hundreds of thousands of people died of starvation or the diseases or malnutrition. Livestock, probably in the millions, died from a lack of fodder, a lack of grazing. That resulted from a decrease in the planetary average temperature of no more than three-quarters of one degree centigrade. That goes a long way to explaining how the catastrophic combination the Deccan Traps eruption combined with the Chicxulub impact event was a major event, given that average global temperatures dropped by two to three degrees centigrade. The notion that such events are controlled by an intelligence (the "god did it" theme about which you are so dishonest) can only mean that your intelligence is one vicious son of a bitch, or completely lacks a sense of the likely consequences of its actions.

You are really too ignorant to sustain your thesis in such a discussion.

EDIT: You could attempt to educate yourself, although I suspect that's not a part of your agenda. For a minimal start, do web searches for "the great oxygenation event," the first major extinction of which we know; for the Deccan Traps; for the Chicxulub impact event; for "the year without a summer" (1816). That will barely begin your education in the dynamics of planetary conditions and their impact on life (or life's impacts on planetary conditions as was the case in the great oxygenation event, 2.4 to 1.8 billions years before the present).
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 05:43 am
If I had the means to evolve a human being, I'd have made so many better design choices
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 08:38 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
I was away for a week an , by practice, I rarely go back to "catch up" because so many of these "debates" repeat themselves every few qeeks.
Complex chemistry?? what wqs th question?
STI??
Quote:
@farmerman,
Quote:
should we consider these chemical processes as signs of intelligence in the physical world.
We are constantly looking for signs of intelligence from something other than human origin. (SETI). SETI is looking for signs of intelligence in electromagnetic radiation. I think they are looking for a signal that is to complex to have originated without intelligent intervention. If they started receiving a signal that could be interpreted as "Hello we are here. Where are you?" being sent over and aver again, they might consider it evidence. What would you consider acceptable evidence for SETI to provide as evidence?

These chemical processes in DNA are very complex, and self replicate large amounts of complex information extremely effectively. YES, I would consider this complexity a sign of intelligence (that is intelligence existing in the past when DNA was conceived at least). It is much more complex than "Hello we are here. Where are you?" The thing that makes both instances a sign of intelligence though is that there is underlying complexity supporting both the message in DNA and the microwave radiation signal. There has to be a living organism surrounding the DNA, and there has to be a living organism (presumably with DNA) building a transmitter and sending the signal. Do you think either one should be considered a sign of intelligence? I would consider them both as signs.
0 Replies
 
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 08:43 am
Quote:
By the way, the rise of life anywhere is going to be abiogenesis.

I think This is really the only point that can be definitively argued. Whether by random mutation and natural selection or intelligent design is probably impossible to determine for Evolution of species. No way to do reproducible experiments for us short lived creatures.

But abiogenesis should be demonstrable. We presumably know all the potential pathways for molecular linkages necessary for DNA based life forms to occur so why don't we see abiogenesis in the lab under ideal conditions? We have done it after a fashion in some experiments but only by borrowing pre-existing code and mechanisms but never from scratch.

Whether we want to acknowledge it or not, we instinctively know that the missing ingredient in the experiment would be information. The only possible alternative source other than an intelligence for that information is random chance. The possibility of that being the case is the only point we can really discuss scientifically but no one on the anti ID side seems willing to get down into the numbers and grapple with that.

Just saying "look at how much time there was available, anything can happen with that much time." is not an answer. Actually, given the early age of earth when life 'emerged', there wasn't all that much time, millions, not billions of years.

0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 08:49 am
@farmerman,
Quote:
Quote:
Do you think we can build a computer and program it to simulate macroevolution like I stated earlier with the video games?

Not sure what you said earlier about this but , of course we can SIMULATE nature by our technology. However, in almost all cases we cannot duplicate anything that life conceives (including life itself).
Simulations are not reality.
Quote:
A computer does not require intelligence to beat me at checkers either. I would suggest both require intelligence to create the system they are operating in. If I want a computer to beat me at a more complex game like chess somebody is going to have to program it to do that. If the chemicals in DNA are replicating an organism without eyes and ears, and they eventually replicate an organism with eyes and ears I doubt random mutations through natural selection can do that because, it takes imagination and planning to add that kind of complexity to the computer game or biology. The reason is both are evolving information systems. They both follow the same rules when it comes to adding complexity. Because, all information and complexity is purely a mathematical process, and all mathematical processes follow all the same rules of math. Only intelligence seems to operate outside those rules.

If that's not true, lets simulate adding random changes to the checkers program, and simulate natural selection after the information is added, and see if we end up with "chess" or "Dungeons and Dragons" or "Donkey Kong". Who knows maybe all we might have to do is monitor it and keep it running maybe even add a more advanced processor and memory, and we could just get rich letting the computer create more advanced video games. (Here is another test for natural selection vs ID)

Do you think we can get a computer to do that?
Quote:
Computers do not operate against chemical gradients like life(although with them we can try to understand all sorts of series reactions, that only life can
reproduce,(energy cycles, mitochondrial energy transfer,meiosis,synapses, digestions, oxygen transfer in blood). What we used to do on blackboards we cn now do on the screen.(Models help us understand reality, they dont become it)

Our goal in science has been to understand many of these cycles and reactions and weve invented computers to help us model many physical, chemical and biological systems.
Everything is an electromagnetic action whether its in chemistry or computers. Both chemistry and computers provide some structure or order to guide those reactions. Could it be possible both are caused by intelligence?
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 09:11 am
@brianjakub,
Quote:
If the chemicals in DNA are replicating an organism without eyes and ears, and they eventually replicate an organism with eyes and ears I doubt random mutations through natural selection can do that because, it takes imagination and planning to add that kind of complexity


So does every geographic isolation event, wherein species evolve via macro evolution require someone at the switch?
when do you feel comfy that "intelligence" (rather than simple chemistry) is not in play????

Quote:
Do you think we can get a computer to do that?
You seem to be most captivated by computers. Again, we are tqlking about living systems that display all the requisites and tropisms for life ( often all at once). WHile all these games youve hawked are human inventions, lets stay with the living state as a singular phenom.
A minor example is plant species

soil fertility, moisture, pH, and texture most often define the unique species that live there and hve evolved specifically to fit that niche. Like the Succulents that hqve evolved on the slopes of Mt Kilimanjaro, or the specific baobab trees that evolved as Madagascar defined a new environment as it split from the African coast. SO NOW you seem to be linking a "Gaia-like" relationship among the edaphic factors of the environment and genetic/phenotypic forms. SO do you say that the changing environment is also a demo of "intelligence"???

Labs set up on the Galapagos hve found that indigenous plant and bird life evolves in our own lifespans
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 09:22 am
@farmerman,
He tries to equate human invention with nature: It is a pursuit of a deep, dark, tunnel. The more he tries, the darker it gets. Everything man invents is based on what is already available in nature. He can manipulate what already exists. He can't create what's not already available.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 09:31 am
Attack of the giant 50 Foot Mutant Goat
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 09:53 am
@Setanta,
Quote:
There is no "right" time place or order of events. . . . They arose in response to the conditions.
. Response implies intelligence. I don't think you chose your words incorrectly. I think this describes what you were trying to say more accurately. "The mutatations arose "randomly" to provide the mutations and evolution, that "just happened" to fulfill the conditions necessary to produce "both", a "more complex organ system (like eyesight)" and an organism that could "survive" in the environment that "just happened" to exist at the time." What luck. How could evolution by natural selection of RANDOM Mutations be so lucky not once, but for an estimated 8.7 million different species of animals and 400,000 species of plants. Pretty good for a system that wasn't designed to do anything let alone live and evolve to complexity by random introduction of new information. Your post is very good at pointing out that it happened and why. I agree that it happened just like you said. The problem is when you use the word "responds" it sounds workable because it supports my ID position. If a person describes your position correctly like I did, don't you think it sounds improbable (or maybe even impossible)? Or, was I mistaken in my choice of words? If so could you explain where I chose the wrong words and why?
Olivier5
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 10:02 am
@farmerman,
It's just a way to model the varied likelihoods of different types of mutations. I gather these models are pretty rough but they exist, and they show that the evolution of species as theorized based on the fossil record seems to match the evolution of their DNA.

Surprise surprise.
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 10:07 am
@cicerone imposter,
Once agian well said, there is nothing new under the sun. Only our understanding of it.
0 Replies
 
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 11:04 am
@farmerman,
Do you think a computer can do that? You still haven't answered the question. Can we model higher complexity in gaming by adding random bits of information over a long period of time?

Quote:
soil fertility, moisture, PH, texture most often define the unique species that live there and have evolved specifically to fit that nitch.

Environments do define the boundaries, but random mutations define want information is available to develop complexity, and random has almost no boundaries. The environment has nothing to do with developing complexity. You are mixing up the environment with random mutations and natural selection. Chance defines what's available for the organisms DNA. Whether or not it will survive in the environment is also left to chance within certain boundaries defined by the environment. You cannot imply that random can do what only intelligence can do, by choosing to use the word "define" without explaining "HOW" chance mutations and survival in an isolated environment substitutes for what appears to be intelligence when creating complexity. Random has not shown to be capable of planning and defining the boundaries for the new information being introduced, so that it leads to complexity. Intelligence has.

Can you show me a real time example where random is capable of doing that?

Isolation and micro evolution are poor examples. We cannot prove that one mutation occurred, it could just be selective breeding. For example, can we prove that skin color is a mutation in humans, or did the first humans have all colors, and it just selective breeding?

Do you think we can write a computer program that will develope more complex video games from small random changes in information, thus giving us a testable that we can observe, that supports your thesis?
brianjakub
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 11:54 am
@Olivier5,
Quote:
I gather these models do exist, and th[ey show that evolution of species as theorized based on the fossil record seems to match the evolution of their DNA.
We know it matches. We need a model showing that the new complex information can be provided by random mutations, or some other random process. We need to prove it's likelihood. You seemed to start your post one way and end it in another. Could somebody provide a model?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 16 Sep, 2017 12:04 pm
@brianjakub,
No it doesn't. You are the poster child for invincible ignorance. I'm done talking to you, because it just goes around in a circle. You don't listen, and you do nothing to repair your ignorance.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 11/24/2024 at 04:59:39