Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 301 of 327 (506540)
04-27-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 11:08 AM


Re: The Central Point
The point here that I was making is that the direction of ordered complexity required for the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis to hold water is upward, ie. with regard to the alleged results of the hypothesis, the alleged evolution of species from microbes to humans over vast time.
Where did you ever get the strange idea that evolution has a direction? That's absolutely wrong!
Evolution is a series of tiny responses to local stimuli. There is no goal, no direction--just response to stimuli. Natural selection is the way those responses, in their aggregate, are judged.
The strange thing is that the overwhelming body of actually TESTABLE real physical evidence is that ordered complexity is heading downhill ie. ordered complexity is in fact shown to be decreasing through the action of DNA copying mistakes in the DNA information of living species.
No new information being written, just information being broken, jumbled with the consequence being that the meaning lost.
This "downhill" idea has its origins in the religious belief of "the fall." It has nothing to do with science or the real world. It also seems to be preventing you from grasping how evolution really works.
In the real world, the way evolution works is through adding one kludge on top of another and weeding out the failures. There is no planning, just mutations, drift, and selection. If things work, fine. If not organisms or even whole species die out.
But there is no direction, up or down, no goal, and no level of complexity which is ideal, and from which progress can be measured in any specific direction. Again, it seems like religious beliefs are getting in your way of understanding how evolution works.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 11:08 AM NanoGecko has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 302 of 327 (506561)
04-27-2009 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 11:08 AM


It's All a Code
"jedpTus rmathefoionhatwj aitustumheinreisgtone ecaeI ustblb", it doesn't actually mean anything does it.
Yes it does: We’ve got Jed, us, mat, math, at, the, he, ion, on, hat, another at; must be important, it; a descriptive you actually applied to it; (Is this code self-aware?), another us’ (Is it initiating first contact?), tu (In French?), he, in, is ( To be more evidence of awareness?), to, ton (Standardization interest in commerce?) and "tone". Your failure to recognize the information doesn’t mean it isn’t there. See if you can jumble it up where I can’t get information out of it.
"The information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up".
The presupposed information, the information you wanted it to have, is partially lost. (What do you want to bet the NSA could retrieve it?)
The same principle applies in respect to information on the DNA code.
Agreed.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 11:08 AM NanoGecko has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 303 of 327 (506583)
04-27-2009 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 300 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 11:08 AM


Re: The Central Point
The point here that I was making is that the direction of ordered complexity required for the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis to hold water is upward
Wrong
If the theoretical result of the actions of the Darwinian evolutionary hypothesis are not those that have brought about increasing ordered complexity
Of course they are, except that they are not theoretical
But surely you cannot be confusing a result of evolution with some supposed "goal" of evolution? I take it you can tell the difference?
"jedpTus rmathefoionhatwj aitustumheinreisgtone ecaeI ustblb", it doesn't actually mean anything does it.
"The information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
Sorry, but your example just reveals your ignorance of mutation. Let's look at some more realistic mutations on your string:
"The information that saw there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is because I just jumbled it up"
"The information is gone because that was there I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
which of these is less complex than the original?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 11:08 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM cavediver has replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 304 of 327 (506605)
04-27-2009 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 303 by cavediver
04-27-2009 5:55 PM


Re: The Central Point
Wrong
Explain please !
Of course they are, except that they are not theoretical
But surely you cannot be confusing a result of evolution with some supposed "goal" of evolution? I take it you can tell the difference?
I thought that was adequately explained. The term goal infers directed intent, which is I would have thought, incompatible with Darwinian Evolution,(D.E.) wouldn't you agree. Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
Sorry, but your example just reveals your ignorance of mutation. Let's look at some more realistic mutations on your string:
"The information that saw there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is because I just jumbled it up"
"The information is gone because that was there I just jumbled it up"
"The information that was there is information that was there is gone because I just jumbled it up"
which of these is less complex than the original?
I think you missed the point here too.
Sure, in the example analogy that I have used, (poor though it is in respect to this matter), there is no quantitative decrease in information content, there has however been a qualitative change in the ordered complexity of the information content.
In the examples that used, you did change the quantitative level of information and you intelligently co-ordinated the changes, so that they still make some grammatical sense and so still code for a degree of ordered complexity, (again it is a poor analogy, but hopefully you will grasp the basic principle.)
Cheers,
NanoGecko

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by cavediver, posted 04-27-2009 5:55 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by cavediver, posted 04-28-2009 3:22 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 307 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-28-2009 5:22 AM NanoGecko has replied
 Message 310 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 7:42 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 312 by Peepul, posted 04-28-2009 8:30 AM NanoGecko has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 305 of 327 (506618)
04-28-2009 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: The Central Point
the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
That there has been an increase in complexity is obvious. That such an increase is a "goal" or a "fundamental and logical principle" is complete nonsense, and your ignorance is revealed despite your squirming.
In the examples that used, you did change the quantitative level of information and you intelligently co-ordinated the changes
No, I did not. You are merely seeing the result of a filter. That filter in evolution is natural selection. That filter will act on every single organism, and if the mutations were sufficient to make an essential function inoperative, or to add a seriously deleterious function, that mutation will be removed from the gene pool probably before the creature is even born. Only those mutations that are not immediately life-threatening have any chance of continuing. The only way a gene will be reduced to nonsensical mush, such as in your example which requries a great many generations based on typical mutation rates, is where such a gene has absolutely no relevance to these creatures in their particular environment at that time. Mutations do not add information. Mutations plus natural selection add information. Where does the information come from? The environment. Is this really so hard?
Edited by cavediver, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by lyx2no, posted 04-28-2009 7:10 AM cavediver has not replied
 Message 311 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 8:22 AM cavediver has not replied

Bio-molecularTony
Member (Idle past 5378 days)
Posts: 90
Joined: 09-23-2008


Message 306 of 327 (506623)
04-28-2009 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 299 by DevilsAdvocate
04-27-2009 10:21 AM


Get off the fence and stand up like a real ...
DevilsAdvocate writes:
So are you suggesting Tony, that each and every single chemical process: photosynthesis, chemical synthesis, biodegradation, catalyst, etc. requires God's divine hand to "stir the pot", so to speak, to make them occur? In other words, nothing could occur on its own without a divine Prime mover/"unmoved mover"/First Cause/etc?
As far as I can tell it is not really needed. Religious thought might think so but for now we find none, and "none needed" may turn out to be true. I leave it hanging in the air, it could go either any but there is not "physical" evidence of this yet.
So the "automation" of this superior form of technology is all we see and seems to be the only Cause for all it's functions. That being the case what does that tell you about "life". You tell me, if there is no "black magic" hiding from our eyes making life work, as you also say, then what does that tell you about life.
Is it not just the highly complex design that is the only source for these functions? And then does that not lead you to conclude there is a raw and simple "mechanical" foundation for all "life’s" fundamental basic inner wokings. You said it - there is no supernatural, so now you have to "sleep in the bed you yourself made". By your own theory and words I call you a machine that thinks it is alive. You in effect are the ones saying it, not the religious groups.
So is man intelligently complex or not. Is man a mechanically automated machine or not. Are we super-natural or super-automated-design? Get off the fence and stand up like a real "man/machine".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-27-2009 10:21 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 308 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-28-2009 5:55 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 307 of 327 (506626)
04-28-2009 5:22 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: The Central Point
I thought that was adequately explained. The term goal infers directed intent, which is I would have thought, incompatible with Darwinian Evolution,(D.E.) wouldn't you agree. Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
Biological evolution is biological evolution not "Darwinian Evolution". We have move long passed and expounded on Darwin's original premise as stated in the "On the Origin of Species". And no, evolution has no end goal, complexity or otherwise. Do we not still have viruses and bacteria on this planet? Are they not less complex than eukaryotaic organisms such as humans? Are bacteria adn viruses not still evolving? Case in point: the strain of pig flu which has just mutated to transfer not only from pig to pig and pig to human but now human to human?
The only things that drive evolution is the accumulation of genetic mutations caused by various natural phenomena i.e. cosmic radiation and natural selection which weeds out mutations which are destructive and harm the species. And mutations that are neutral or beneficial stay in the gene pool, and harmful ones decrease the survivability of that strain of organism. It doesn't matter if out of 1000 mutations only 1 is benefical and the rest are harmful (actually most mutations in higher organisms are benign) that 1 beneficial mutation can potentially give that organism increased survival capability over the one's with harmful mutations and the ones with harmful mutations can potentially cease as a viable strain of that organism (yes, I know that is not exactly how it works but I am trying to simplify this for the creationists/IDers). Throw random genetic drift and gene flow/migration into the picture and that's biological evolution in a nutshell. To say otherwise is to reveal your ignorance in the subject.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 308 of 327 (506629)
04-28-2009 5:55 AM
Reply to: Message 306 by Bio-molecularTony
04-28-2009 5:04 AM


Re: Get off the fence and stand up like a real ...
Tony writes:
Me writes:
So are you suggesting Tony, that each and every single chemical process: photosynthesis, chemical synthesis, biodegradation, catalyst, etc. requires God's divine hand to "stir the pot", so to speak, to make them occur? In other words, nothing could occur on its own without a divine Prime mover/"unmoved mover"/First Cause/etc?
As far as I can tell it is not really needed. Religious thought might think so but for now we find none, and "none needed" may turn out to be true. I leave it hanging in the air, it could go either any but there is not "physical" evidence of this yet.
So you admit there is no evidence for the supernatural cause of all natural phenomena. That is a start.
Tony writes:
So the "automation" of this superior form of technology is all we see and seems to be the only Cause for all it's functions.
I am not even sure what this means???
That being the case what does that tell you about "life". You tell me, if there is no "black magic" hiding from our eyes making life work, as you also say, then what does that tell you about life.
It tells me that you are off your rocker and don't have a clue what you are talking about.
Is it not just the highly complex design that is the only source for these functions?
So are viruses highly complex designs? How about amino acids? Bacteria? How about simple organic molecules? How about atoms? Protons, are they highly complex? How about black holes? Singularity?
Photons are they highly complex? This idea of irreducible complexity which demands an intelligent designer is in your head. Complexity is a human derived term and thus subjective in nature. What you may think is complex, I may not. Complexity, like the term beauty, must have a comparison i.e. plant cells are more complex (have more components/parts/etc) than do bacteria cells.
And then does that not lead you to conclude there is a raw and simple "mechanical" foundation for all "life’s" fundamental basic inner wokings.
Yes, it is called inorganic and organic molecules i.e. amino acids, lipids, water, etc.
You said it - there is no supernatural, so now you have to "sleep in the bed you yourself made".
Actually, that is not what I said. I said the natural cannot explain the supernatural.
Tony writes:
By your own theory and words I call you a machine that thinks it is alive.
Sure Sparticus what ever you say
Tony writes:
You in effect are the ones saying it, not the religious groups.
Saying what? That I am a biological machine? Labels make not an intelligent scientific theory, evidence does. BTW, I have no clue how you derived this from what I stated, please show how? What am I talking to a 12 year old?
Tony writes:
So is man intelligently complex or not.
Complex in comparison to what? And WTF is "intelligently complex"? One thing creationist/ID is good at, besides obfuscation, is making up BS pseudoscientific terms.
Tony writes:
Is man a mechanically automated machine or not.
The loose interpretation you are applying to the term "machine" would mean everything in the universe is a machine. However, this is not how science defines the term machine so no man is not a mechanically automated machine.
Are we super-natural or super-automated-design? Get off the fence and stand up like a real "man/machine".
Neither. BTW, I have gotten off the fence a long time ago. I was challenging you to provide scientific evidence for your claims which you have yet to do.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Bio-molecularTony, posted 04-28-2009 5:04 AM Bio-molecularTony has not replied

lyx2no
Member (Idle past 4716 days)
Posts: 1277
From: A vast, undifferentiated plane.
Joined: 02-28-2008


Message 309 of 327 (506643)
04-28-2009 7:10 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by cavediver
04-28-2009 3:22 AM


I Could Have Had a V-8
Where does the information come from? The environment. Is this really so hard?
Man, That's so obvious. Why hadn't I see that before? Thanks.

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by cavediver, posted 04-28-2009 3:22 AM cavediver has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 310 of 327 (506647)
04-28-2009 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: The Central Point
NanoGecko writes:
I thought that was adequately explained. The term goal infers directed intent, which is I would have thought, incompatible with Darwinian Evolution,(D.E.) wouldn't you agree. Rather the fact that D.E. is used to account for the existence of "complex" organisms such as man demands that the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
I want to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. Is there any special reason why you're using the term "Darwinian Evolution, (D.E.)" instead of just "evolution?" Everyone else is talking about "evolution," by which they mean the modern synthesis of Darwin's original theory with the science of genetics. Are you using the term D.E. because you want to exclude genetics? Or perhaps there's some other reason? If not, then just call it "evolution" like everyone else.
While you're correct that evolution is undirected, the way you make this point by arguing that increases in complexity are required implies that you don't understand how evolution works. Increased complexity is a very likely outcome of evolution, but it is not a requirement. Increased complexity is likely because it isn't much of an exaggeration to say that a genome never forgets. A person who rarely throws anything away will have a house that keeps growing in complexity, and a rough analogy can be drawn with a genome.
Sure, in the example analogy that I have used, (poor though it is in respect to this matter), there is no quantitative decrease in information content...
It is important to understand that you and Cavediver are only talking analogously about information. Information theory is mathematical, and while it's possible to make meaningful points with analogies where transformations are performed on sentences, the likelihood that you're both interpreting the analogy the same way seems slight to me.
The process by which mutation produces increased information can be illustrated very simply. Say a population has a particular gene for eye color that has three alleles (varieties), green, blue and yellow. Each allele is represented by a specific series of bases (CAGT for cytosine, adenine, guanine and thymine):
  • GGAACG (green eyes)
  • GGAACA (blue eyes)
  • GGCACG (yellow eyes)
During reproduction there are three possible messages that this gene might pass on to offspring, so the amount of information this gene can communicate within the population is log23 = 1.585 bits.
Now lets say that during one particular reproductive event that there is a copying error in just one base in this gene for eye color, and what had been the allele CGCACG (yellow eyes) became CGCACA, and the resulting offspring has brown eyes. So now there are four alleles in the population for this gene:
  • GGAACG (green eyes)
  • GGAACA (blue eyes)
  • GGCACG (yellow eyes)
  • GGCACA (brown eyes)
This means that there are now four possible messages that this gene might pass on to offspring, so the amount of information this gene can now communicate within the population has become log24 = 2 bits. The amount of information in the genome of the population that is contributed by this gene has increased from 1.585 bits to 2 bits, an increase of .415 bits, and of course the amount of information in the entire genome has therefore increased by the same amount.
Notice that this increase in information violated no physical law, including 2LOT.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Typo.
Edited by Percy, : Spelling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM NanoGecko has not replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 311 of 327 (506655)
04-28-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by cavediver
04-28-2009 3:22 AM


Re: The Central Point
cavediver writes:
That there has been an increase in complexity is obvious. That such an increase is a "goal" or a "fundamental and logical principle" is complete nonsense, and your ignorance is revealed despite your squirming.
Why is it that you keep pushing this ridiculous bandwagon about a "goal".
When did I ever say that it is a "goal"? Have you considered that it may be that you do not grasp what I am saying.
Please accept my apologies if I'm not making myself clear enough for you, or perhaps it's a cultural thing, Australia to U.S. slight language differences.
What squirming ???
WHERE is the testable and repeatable evidence that information INCREASES through the action of natural selection ? And PLEASE don't just say, "we are here, so therefore it happened", because that isn't evidence, but it is circular reasoning.
For one with so many strong objections you are very weak on supplying REAL scientific evidence in support.
Look at this by just considering the facts, and I'll try to express this as clearly as I can for you.
1. The Fact is we DO EXIST,
2. We are complex cellular organisms,
3. We didn't get here by cellular information decreasing, did we, that's obvious, at least we agree on that.
4. If you believe that evolution is the method that we got here from the "alleged" primordial soup, then it should be obvious to you that there had to be an increase in cellular information. This is not a "goal" it is simply making an elementary observation of the REAL world through evolutionary coloured glasses.
5. Natural selection is the selective mechanism that all of the changes within species groups, extinctions etc. have brought about the living world as we see it today.
So please! provide some real irrefutable examples of naturally selected mutations that have brought about a net increase in the ordered genetic information of that organism.
cavediver writes:
...only way a gene will be reduced to nonsensical mush, such as in your example which requries a great many generations based on typical mutation rates, is where such a gene has absolutely no relevance to these creatures in their particular environment at that time. Mutations do not add information. Mutations plus natural selection add information....
So if that is true then provide some scientifically testable and repeatable examples of where this adding of information has occurred as you claim it has. You are very quick to regurgitate the predictable evolutionary doctrine as so many do, but where in the REAL world does the ACTUAL evidence fit this model?
AND PLEASE, no more circular reasoning.
Cheers,
NanoGecko

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by cavediver, posted 04-28-2009 3:22 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 9:10 AM NanoGecko has replied

Peepul
Member (Idle past 5018 days)
Posts: 206
Joined: 03-13-2009


Message 312 of 327 (506657)
04-28-2009 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 304 by NanoGecko
04-27-2009 9:09 PM


Re: The Central Point
the direction of complexity quantity be such that there is an increase not decrease, I would have thought that a fundamental and logical principle like this was obvious.
In addition to the points made by Percy and others - random walks from a simple start point will tend over time to generate more complexity. Obviously evolution is not random, so this doesn't apply literally, but I believe in general the same principle applies.
Edited by Peepul, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by NanoGecko, posted 04-27-2009 9:09 PM NanoGecko has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 313 of 327 (506665)
04-28-2009 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 311 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 8:22 AM


Re: The Central Point
NanoGecko writes:
WHERE is the testable and repeatable evidence that information INCREASES through the action of natural selection?
Natural selection is a non-random pruning process driven by the environment, and so it does not produce increases in information. In fact, I think it could only decrease the amount of information in the genome of a population.
Increases in information come about through mutation, and perhaps also through the allele remixing of sexual reproduction and at the cellular level through processes like conjugation.
Please see the latter half of Message 310 for an explanation of how mutations increase information in the genome. Since almost every reproductive event results in mutation, obviously increases in information happen all the time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 311 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 8:22 AM NanoGecko has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 322 by NanoGecko, posted 05-01-2009 6:48 AM Percy has replied

NanoGecko
Junior Member (Idle past 5445 days)
Posts: 20
From: NSW Australia
Joined: 04-24-2009


Message 314 of 327 (506669)
04-28-2009 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 307 by DevilsAdvocate
04-28-2009 5:22 AM


Re: The Central Point
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Do we not still have viruses and bacteria on this planet?
I was never suggesting that we don't have viruses and bacteria on this planet.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Are they not less complex than eukaryotaic organisms such as humans? Are bacteria adn viruses not still evolving?
Relatavistic comparisons between various species of organisms is not evidence for an increase in complexity; the increase is assumed in accordance with evolutionary beliefs.
It is important that you make the distinction between the real process of natural selection and the assumed process of evolution.
I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about over whatever length of time has been agreed upon as necessary for it to happen, presently measured in billions of years.
I do not say Darwinian Evolution to confound, trick or apply any devious agenda to the debate but rather to make it clear that I mean the mechanism by which the diversity of all species has come about.
DevilsAdvocate writes:
Case in point: the strain of pig flu which has just mutated to transfer not only from pig to pig and pig to human but now human to human?
Mutation is not in question, neither is it doubted that mutation can bring about benefits to an organism such as the swine influenza virus recently in the news, what is likely is that the mutation brought about no new information to the virus.
But it's likely that the virus lost information that previously expressed as a useful function for example for the virus.
The up side is that the mutation also provided the ability for it to cross species barriers, an advantage.
No new information though.
To illustrate further, hypothetically, if say down the track humans became extinct, then the recently acquired benefit of the virus would no longer be a benefit and the previously mentioned expression for the original useful function has also gone forever.
If humans don't become extinct, then this naturally selected for advantage remains, but whatever way you look at it,
I haven't seen one shred of evidence to indicate that natural selection from mutation of this kind is going to build the diverse range of species that we see around us.
It is always going to be a type of influenza virus, it may alter to some degree, it may gain genetic advantage from mutations, but it is never going to evolve into a bacteria like Eschericia coliform for example or a protozoan no matter how many Billions of years you wish to wait, and that's the point. The complexity is heading in the wrong direction.
Cheers,
NanoGecko

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Romans 1:20 NKJV

This message is a reply to:
 Message 307 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-28-2009 5:22 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 10:06 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 316 by Coyote, posted 04-28-2009 11:04 AM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 317 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 04-28-2009 12:41 PM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 318 by bluescat48, posted 04-28-2009 2:43 PM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 319 by onifre, posted 04-28-2009 4:07 PM NanoGecko has not replied
 Message 320 by Richard Townsend, posted 04-28-2009 4:21 PM NanoGecko has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 315 of 327 (506673)
04-28-2009 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 314 by NanoGecko
04-28-2009 9:36 AM


Re: The Central Point
NanoGecko writes:
I say Dawinian evolution so that it is understood that I am talking about the assumed process by which the diversity of all life on this planet came about...
I appreciate that your intention was improved clarity, but the result is confusion.
Mutation is not in question, neither is it doubted that mutation can bring about benefits to an organism such as the swine influenza virus recently in the news, what is likely is that the mutation brought about no new information to the virus.
You're saying this not on the basis of any actual information or evidence, but because you believe that mutations cannot create new information. You are mistaken in this belief. Please see the latter half of Message 310.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by NanoGecko, posted 04-28-2009 9:36 AM NanoGecko has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024