PROOF against evolution

Because your grammar and spelling is poor and you'd clicked on the button that indicated that it was a reply meant for me."you" refers to a singular rather than a group unless a qualification is added.In addition the correct spelling is "Evolutionist".This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 08-10-2004 09:48 AM

that's probably because I'm not English, ...i guess? But thank you for the most important thing (the purpose of this forum) - teaching me grammar!Ok, now I know your "arguments" to my clearly stated question and we can close discussion between both of us.

OK - let's take this to basics - your point with the house example and the circle is that both are that way because they are the product of a conscious and planned design process?Right or wrong?

There doesn't really have to be. Those are just codes.All codes are essentially arbitrary, Y. Even the code that interprets trpielet-nucleotide sequences (codons) and turns them into protiens in your cells.There's absolutely no particular reason why GCA should code for the amino acid alanine, but it does. Moreover, it does in every organism, which is a powerful evidence for common descent. Because you asked him to draw one. And presumably, he drew a figure approximating the set of all points of a given distance from another point. That's the definition of a circle.If you're wondering why words mean what they do, that's arbitrary, too. There's no particular connection between a word (the symbol) and the thing it describes (the referent.) The fact that we use one to mean the other is just something we all agree to do. Unless you don't agree, which means you're speaking a different language.

I need to point out though, that in that case, all that is changed is the descriptive name. The circle is still a circle regardless of what it is called.The Map is not the Territory.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

b) Lets do a small exercise/example. Take a paper. Draw a circle. ...and now... tell me why it is a circle? Why it is not a square?

---

It is a circle because all points along the line are equidistant from the center of the object. And your point is?

No, the exact question was "Why it is a circle and not square?" while not "What is a difference between circle and square?"I will explain my point in next answer to cashfrog.That's also answer to Charles Knight.

Cashfrog, sorry, but what are you talking about? You are saying code can be meaningless - well done. In that case that's not code, but just a bunch of numbers, nothing else. That means 00 and 01 will never get toghether to create 0001, simply because there is no meaning to do so! And so — the final result would be meaningless. Do you get me? I think you know what meaningless results are good for. What about GCU, GCC, GCG? But doesn't matter. There is no reason, or you think there is no reason resp. you don't know the reason yet? Which one is it? I'm not interested in "junk DNA"-discussion, cashfrog. "don't know yet", "I'm not sure" doesn't mean "powerful evidence it's not so".
Is there a particular reason why do you live? Would you like to say "No, it is not"?...well, no, you just don't know it, or you are not sure. Well, if I wouldn't ask and he would do it?... The answer is "Because he decided to draw a circle.". He knew what he is going to draw so he created it. There is no other meaningful explanation.Now - your "arbitrary code"-explanation -> practically:
(the answer has to change: Is he able to create a circle without knowing how it looks like?"If he starts to draw whatever creations (dashes, dots, joined dashes -> so maybe even accidentally square or circle, whatever) There is no way he could draw a circle and knew he did it, so he can save his work and start with another one. -> If theoretically he would draw a circle that way - he wouldn't recognize it, because he wouldn't know how the circle look like!!! He would just carry on drawing! So without existing meaning [of thing that will be created] there is no way you can accidentally create that thing.What does that mean: Information without a meaning IS NOT information. And that's all about it. Information is and always has came with meaning TOGETHER ! Hopefull Percy will read this. This is specially for him. ....Simply he drew a circle. Right. Well, cashfrog, this is very very nice example, thank you -> Did those words decide themselves by accident what will they mean?? Well? I guess they were created and organized [given meaning] by somebody at the same time (that means information and meaning are coming together always.... and also again information without a meaning is not information -> so code without a meaning is not code). And you?Why are you called "cashfrog" and not "Michael"?

The problem that I see with your assertion is that you have everything backwards.The circle exists. Crashfrog exists. Even if they remain unnamed and un-described, they exist.Information has content only in relation to the object.Words have meaning only when we assign them to the object. The Map is not the Territory. Words are assigned by man.The objects may well have come into existence by pure chance.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

No, the exact question was "Why it is a circle and not square?" while not "What is a difference between circle and square?"

---

A square has straight sides, a circle does not. In a square, the line creates angles of 90 degrees, while in a circle there are no corners. If the object were a square then the points along the line would not be equidistant from the center. Again, what is your point?

quote:

---

Well, if I wouldn't ask and he would do it?... The answer is "Because he decided to draw a circle.". He knew what he is going to draw so he created it. There is no other meaningful explanation.

---

So did the meteor below decide to draw a circle instead of a square? Or is the circle a result of natural forces and mechanisms? This is evidence that both the intended drawing of a circle can be reproduced by natural forces and mechanisms.

quote:

---

Information without a meaning IS NOT information. And that's all about it. Information is and always has came with meaning TOGETHER !

---

So the "meaning" of a gene is the protein activity. Therefore, any change in the gene sequence may change the meaning, the protein activity. Each different meaning is kept if it helps the organism survive. If the new meaning is detrimental then the new meaning is not passed on, the information is not replicated.Therefore, new information is a new gene sequence since it creates a new meaning (new protein activity). Whether or not that information is replicated depends on how it aids or hurts the organisms chance of reproducing. This process is repeated for each new gene sequence, or rather for each genetic mutation. In most cases, the mutations do not affect the organisms ability to reproduce, but in those cases where the new mutation does effect the organism it is either selected for or selected against by natural selection.

Well, exactly. Words are assigned by man (somebody else) who give them a meaning as well. Not themselves by accident! ...What does that mean -> If information without a meaning exists - that "information" can't "choose" its meaning by accident itself! or meaning can't "choose" "information" without a meaning itself!
Words without a meaning are not words - it's just bunch of letters - it's "information" without a meaning.....and what does that mean read above.
So -> circle, Cashfrog and words wouldn't exist without the information with meaning. Otherwise they wouldn't exist.Got it?In fact, you don't understand what I was talking about a circle... read it once again:"If he starts to draw whatever creations (dashes, dots, joined dashes -> so maybe even accidentally square or circle, whatever) There is no way he could draw a circle and knew he did it, so he can save his work and start with another one. -> If theoretically he would draw a circle that way - he wouldn't recognize it, because he wouldn't know how the circle look like!!! He would just carry on drawing! So without existing meaning [of thing that will be created] there is no way you can accidentally create that thing. "you can see in that example that circle doesn't exist actually at that time [when he was drawing those creations], so it wasn't a word "circle" as well (it's named because I had to name it, otherwise you wouldn't understand probably... well, you can change word 'circle' for 'thing that looks like circle' if you like) .... all you need is to imagine to his position -> his goal is to draw a thing, that doesn't exist and he don't know how it looks like -> stupid isn't it? But that's what your evolution is saying.Question is : Who is that "somebody" (mentioned above) who gave a meaning to the information? ? ?

As I said, I'm not interested in what's the difference between a square and a circle.My point is that without 'information with meaning' there is no way genetic code (program) could be "evolved" by accident. Discussion was - how the 'information without a meaning' "evolved" to 'information with meaning' by accident.

But - what if there was something else in the environment with the "drawer" and the "drawings". This mindless "something else" somehow recognizes drawings of non-circles and immediately destroys them. The result is that after millions of random drawings, only circles remain.It doesn't matter if none of the forces understands the abstract concept of a "circle" - only circles persist because of the mindless selective force.

quote:

---

Discussion was - how the 'information without a meaning' "evolved" to 'information with meaning' by accident.

---

Because additions can cause a new meaning within genetic code. Take this phrase:I am bare.Now, move the e (a transposition):I am bear.Now suddenly the phrase has a new meaning. This is just one possible outcome of many, but because it takes on a useful new meaning it is kept. In the same way, alterations of genetic code are constantly changing. Sometimes these changes result in a useful new meaning, or rather a useful new protein activity. Through natural selection, this new meaning is kept within the population.For a perfect example of how this works, go to this site. It describes how a previously untranscribed region of DNA was mutated (by accident) which resulted in a new functional protein that was able to cleave one of the products of nylon production. This is proof that new information can arise within genomes through random mutation.