THE END OF EVOLUTION?

Yes, it's pretty clear you don't understand what Coragyps is "on about." This is because you don't understand the implications of your own words. You claimed in Message 230: But DNA is just a molecule, a complex one to be sure, but still just a molecule. It and all its constituent parts follow the laws of the universe just like all other molecules. Theories are generalizations that apply to the whole universe. What you're doing is making up rules that apply only to DNA and calling it logic.That's why Coragyps responded with a rhetorical question about whether water forming by random chance would violate 2LOT. The answer is obvious, naturally, that's why it's rhetorical, but of course water forming by random chance wouldn't violate 2LOT, nor any other physical law. Water molecules form by random chance all the time.DNA is a molecule, too. A complex one with thousands and millions of atoms, but still a molecule. It's formation by random chance is far less likely than water, but not impossible, because 2LOT is a physical law that applies to all matter and energy everywhere throughout the universe, and that includes both water and DNA. The spontaneous and random formation of molecules of any kind does not violate 2LOT.But origins of life researchers do not believe that DNA came about as the result of a very unlikely chemical accident, but that it developed gradually over time from simpler predecessors through a process of imperfect replication and selection. Like the spontaneous formation of molecules, this process is in perfect accord with 2LOT and information theory. We understand that you think it violates the rules you're making up in your own head, but the real world doesn't have to concern itself with your fantasies.You claim you're applying logic. I see little logic in your arguments, but anyway, logic without knowledge is helpless. That's why you can claim you're using logic and that you're not being contradictory when, for example, you apply physical laws differently for water versus DNA, yet never see the irony. It's why you can't see the obvious implications of much of what you say.Games of Dungeons and Dragons are very logical (and complex), but they are fantasy. For something to be true of the real world takes more than just logic. You have to actually experiment and/or observe the real world to understand how it works. Of course, most of us don't do this work ourselves - we read books by others who have. But if you're not going to do the research yourself, and if you're not going to read or accept the research performed by others, that leaves you pretty much completely ignorant of how the real world actually works.And that's how it is that we find ourselves today in this thread listening to you tell tall tales. This thread is about 2LOT (or information theory if you like) and its implications for evolution, and whenever you're ready to begin discussing the real 2LOT or the real information theory, instead of the ones you're making up, we're ready.--PercyEdited by Percy, : "things" => "rules" in my 2nd para. Grammar.

Sigh.I'm a software engineer, and during my entire professional career I've had to live with the apparent reality that a fair number of engineers and programmers, my friends and fellow co-workers, are fertile ground for pseudoscientific claptrap. As near as I can make out, it's not uncommon for them to be savants of a sort who possess amazing intuitions that along with their training enable them to solve complex problems. But somehow missing from their makeup is any sense that even outside of their professional life ideas must still be anchored in reality to have any validity. This enables them to believe all sorts of nonsense while still able to be not just competent but even amazing engineers and programmers.Living daily with this contradiction,--Percy

Four of my siblings are engineers. One thing I have noticed about them is they are very arrogant about things in life. When it comes to their arrogance in their opinion, it's not just about science. I sometimes want to bang my head against the wall when I talk to them about politics.

WOW...Wow... I realise that I must have stumbled upon a site of worship for the faithful followers of a supernaturalism known as Evolutionism.You people just keep talking among yourselves.Excuse me, I have come to the wrong place. Bye-bye !

You spend a month wasting our time with things you make up off the top of your head while avoiding actual discussion of the topic or anything that science has actually established, then when people's frustration starts to show you take a hike. Good show.To us moderators: I think we dropped the ball on this one. Moderator pressure to focus on the topic would probably have caused Pcver to leave anyway, but it would have been worth a shot.--Percy

That sig is a quote from a bishop that lived a millenium ago, pcver.Bye!

---

"The wretched world lies now under the tyranny of foolishness; things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe." - Agobard of Lyons, ca. 830 AD

Since Pcver has announced he's leaving, I'd like to make an additional comment about this: There's no way to know precisely what "I'm fairly close to software engineering" means concerning Pcver's job description, but if he were an engineer or a programmer he would have said so. I think he means he works with software engineers but is not one himself. My experience is that those who work in support positions for software engineering tend to be even more vulnerable to pseudoscience than the programmers themselves.One of the things I found interesting about education level and belief in pseudoscience is that college graduates are just as vulnerable as those with a high school education. Hey, maybe a bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma! Anyway, only with graduate degrees does it decline.--Percy

Hi Percy,

quote:

---

There's no way to know precisely what "I'm fairly close to software engineering" means concerning Pcver's job description, but if he were an engineer or a programmer he would have said so. I think he means he works with software engineers but is not one himself.

---

Yeah, I agree. It's also highly reminiscent of a comment made a while ago by AlphaOmega Kid, who said "I work in a scientific field" (or words to that effect). That could mean almost anything. I believe he runs an engineering company.I guess the reason why so many engineers and programmers are open to design-based explanations is just a case of every problem looking like a nail when all you've got is a hammer.What makes them think that they can kid others into believing they're actual bona fide scientists though is beyond me. A scientist is not an easy person to imitate; sooner or later they'll get called out on their lack of expertise.Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

The inescapable question for me is the DNA difference between species. If such differences between the genomes of species is not allowed by the 2LoT then I would really like to know how this is.How can the observed mutations seen between each generation not accumulate over several generations so that you end up with two populations with a 2% difference like that seen between humans and chimps.

Give me a break! You came here claiming this is logical and that is logical without actually giving us anything of substance. All I did was used the exact same method of debate you used: give unsupported assertions and call them "logical" without any further explanation.The short time that you have been here, you've waved around the 2LOT more times than President Bush said "we're making progress" in his televised debate with Senator Kerry. Would you like to explain to us the 2LOT? I don't mean just stuff you could copy and paste off the internet. I want to see you explain in detail why DNA molecules can't form because of 2LOT. I have a background in physics and chemistry and am more than willing to read through all the technical stuff you have. If it gets too technical for my blood, I'm sure one of our resident scientists can sort through your very technical explanation.

Shame on you -this is blasphemous disrespect for Christian members on this site.

Could please explain the above remark.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

Of all the strange "crimes" that human beings have legislated of nothing, "blasphemy" is the most amazing - with "obscenity" and "indecent exposure" fighting it out for the second and third place.

​

Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love, 1973

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

-shrug-You're the one who believes in an invisible man that watches us masturbate, and takes special interest in which orifices penises are allowed to enter, and kills people for spilling "seed" on the ground.Calling Jesus a "cocksucker" is only negative in the context of your particular beliefs. I happen to have known many "cocksuckers," and I certainly don't consider it to be a negative thing.

No more than the respect you give people that do not believe in the mumbo-jumbo you believe in.Blasphemy is only blasphemy if the person doing it believes in the particular mumbo-jumbo. If they do not nbelieve it isn't blasphemy because it isn't real.

---

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts