PROOF against evolution

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?

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.

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.

quote:

---

So my clear question is and will be: Give me logical definition/explanation how was information evolved

---

Through self replicating chemical reactions. New information was inserted through new chemical reactions, the same as today.

quote:

---

you have exact explanation how was universe evolved (Big Bang without a meaning, btw),

---

The information for the Big Bang is stored in the atoms and the laws of thermodynamics. It is this same information that allows reproducible chemical and nuclear reactions, as well as replicating chemical systems. Also, why does the Big Bang need "meaning"?

quote:

---

OK - what are atoms and laws of thermodynamics saying? What is stored there? What information?

---

They are saying that H2 and O2, when combusted, will form H2O. They say that each chemical reaction is predictable because of the information held in the atomic structure of the atoms. They say that certain reactions are more probable than others because of thermodynamics. The information is found in nature at the very root of matter and physics.

quote:

---

where was the information at that moment and how was created? Or it just happened ?

---

In the quantum fluctuation that caused the formation of positive/negative energy, and matter/antimatter.

quote:

---

You can't use information to create [the first] information!

---

Well, if there was already information within the quantum fluctuation that created the information in atoms, then atoms do not contain the first information.The Casimir effect is an observable fact. In this effect, we see pairs of matter and anitmatter appear out of nothing, and then these pairs collide and create small amounts of energy. We see the creation of information ALL OF THE TIME, THROUGHOUT TIME. It is not an assumption, it is an observable fact. The Casimir effect is thought to be caused by quantum fluctuations, and the product of these fluctuations is atoms that contain information.

quote:

---

Definition of circle by man was created by copying the thing-that-looks-like-circle ....It was copying the existing information. Information is always created (or copied) by another information.

---

So was the meteor copying information when it created a circular depression in the ground?

quote:

---

Information didn't just appear. There is absolutely no way your mind could create a circle if it haven't seen it before !

---

Why not? If man had never seen a circle and he saw a meteor crater, he would now know of circles. Are you saying that the meteor carries circle making information?

quote:

---

Because of this if it created it by accident, it would never knew it is a circle and though would never give it a definition "circle"!!

---

Circles are naturally formed in nature. Man would be able to measure the characteristics of these circles. These list of characteristics would then be circle. Therefore, nature holds information that man is able to extract.

quote:

---

Since now, I want clear explantion of creation of the life - from the beginning THANKS.

---

A quantum fluctuation unbound by time or cause creates an ouflow of energy.This energy condenses into atoms that contain information given to them by the quantum fluctuation.These atoms then combine and give rise to other information.The beginning of life starts when chemical reactions guided by the information stored within the atoms cause self-replicating reactions.These self-replicating reactions are then accessible to natural selection of random mutations, and new information is created through this process.Is this good enough? Can we move on to discussing how information is created through the processes of natural selection and mutation?

quote:

---

It creates energy, it creates meaningful information.. why? You don't know yourself. This is not "theory" this is "fantasy".

---

It is not fantasy, it is observation. I notice that you still refuse to address the Casimir effect where antimatter and matter spontaneously appear and then anhialate one another. We observe "Little Bangs" all of the time. It is a property of the universe, creating information from energy.

quote:

---

With this example it can be done house full of nice furniture (mentioned before) instead of universe.

---

Other than human construction, there is no natural mechanism for creating a house. However, there is a natural mechanism for creating information. The two are not comparable.I believe you are the one hooked on fantasy. You are depending on a supernatural entity that is untestable and is not supported by one shred of evidence within nature. Perhaps you should check your source for information as well.

yxifix,I think we are all talking past each other because you are using different definitions for scientific terms. So, I will list some defintions (my own) and we will see if you can agree to these definitions.Theory of Evolution: Natural selection and random mutation resulted in the biodiversity we see today. Evolution starts with the first life.Spontaneous Generation: The production of complex organisms in a short period of time from non-living matter (eg maggots from meat).Abiogenesis: The production of chemical replicators from non-replicating chemicals. This is in contrast to spontaneous generation in that Abiogenesis theorizes very simple reactions while S.G. theorizes very complex organisms straight from non-living matter.I would agree that spontaneous generation has been thoroughly refuted. However, this does not rule out abiogenesis which theorizes very simple replicators instead of the complex, whole organisms found in spontaneous generation.Also, what prevents information from spontaneously appearing. Wouldn't random keystrokes create information at some point?

quote:

---

[From your precious post 226]As can be seen Pasteur (I guess you know who is he) made an experiment and found out that if there are no bacteria in a tube, they won't spontaneously appear and generate themselves. So there must be existing bacterias in there in order to generate themselves. Is it right? Is it a proof? Nowadays I would say if a water is boiled it is logical fact you won't get disease... In fact, it is a prooved fact according to Pasteurs experiments. Or you would say it is still just an assertion?

---

So, let's go over this experiment. Pasteur sterilized a nutrient rich medium and bacteria did not appear after a period of a few weeks. However, this in no way rules out abiogenesis and subsequent evolution to yield bacteria on the earth over a span of 500 million years. If Pasteur was setting up an experiment to disprove this, he would need the following conditions:1. A flask that would house the entire volume of the ocean and fresh water sources.2. Different environment within those flasks that can mimic both subaerial environments and deep see vents.3. He would have to let the experiment go for 500 million years.So, did Pasteur run the above experiment? If not, then how did he prove anything other than bacteria take more than two weeks to appear?

quote:

---

Premise: Computer can't do any operation without an existing intelligence (in this case a man).

---

But DNA can do operations without man, therefore the two are not comparable. Your premise fails, therefore your argument is moot.

quote:

---

a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.

---

And how does this stop them from producing more of themselves?

quote:

---

b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).

---

Guess what, the environment tells the population what is meaningful. We observe this in what is called reproductive success. Therefore, no intelligence is required, it has been PROVEN. Bacteria don't have to know anything because the environment kills off the bacteria that are less adapted and keep the bacteria that are more adapted. The same goes for any replicating system.

quote:

---

1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)

---

It is proven that random mutations can result in beneficial traits. It is proven that random configurations of matter can create nucleotides and amino acids. Nothing within nature stops non-living matter from becoming living matter.

quote:

---

2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.

---

I have shown this to be false. Once you have a replicating system natural selection through differential reproductive success can give accidents (random mutations) meaning. You only need one accident (a replicating system) for the whole thing to start moving along a path towards adaptability through evolutionary mechanisms. Evolution gives meaning in the absence of an intelligent designer.

quote:

---

1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)

---

It is proven that information can be created through the process of random mutation and selection. Also, a radio has been designed through evolutionary mechanisms:
News articles and features | New ScientistIn this experiment, a computer randomly connected different computer parts and through selective pressures (without humans interfering) it made a radio through randomly connected parts. Your premises and conclusions are PROVEN false.

quote:

---

You are saying if we give a computer time (eg 500 billions years), it could do some operations without a program?

---

No, don't put words in my mouth. I said that chemicals, not computers, would combine, given the right conditions, to create imperfect replicators if given enough time. You offered Pasteur's experiment as PROOF, I have shownt that it falls well short of that mark.

quote:

---

Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy.

---

I answered your questions. Why are you so afraid to answer my questions? Is it because I have proven you wrong? Me thinks so, young Skywalker.

quote:

---

Sorry man, transistors were conneted using software-controlled switches.
Software [containing instruction to catch that type of signals] created by intelligence. ..... Understand? Lets see -> please apply it to any kind of genetic processes.
In fact, you've just failed once again, Loudmouth.

---

Demagogy.But seriously, the pattern of connections between the different parts was random. If they weren't random, please show me how they were not random. Second, each connection was an ACCIDENT. That is right, an accident. Each accidental connection was judged through an unintelligent selection process. Through this unintelligent algorithm a radio was invented. Just as you say, experiments are PROOF, and the PROOF is in this experiment. No where along the way did humans interfere in the process, they simply let the unintelligent algorithm run. So the answer to the above is YES, a computer, through accident, can create new and obviously useful things on it's own even though the computer is unintelligent.

quote:

---

Once again the origin of the computer and the running of a evolutionary algorithm are being confused. At least I think so.
Please clarify that before you all continue.

---

Point 1: Computers are allowable as a model for natural phenomena. We model planetary orbits, nuclear reactions, and other physical phenomena on computers but yet they are still thought of as natural. Therefore, being able to model evolution and abiogenesis on a computer in no way indicates that a process is intelligently designed.Point 2: The experiment with the software controlled circuit gates was actually looking for the production of an oscillating signal. Theefore, the first random combination of transistors and other electronic parts that produce anything close to an oscillating signal was kept because of the selection process. This is analogous to the natural production of an accidental combination of chemicals that produced the first imperfect replicator.Point 3: Subsequent selection on the circuit improved function to the point that an oscillating signal was produced without the intervention of an intelligence. Instead, just as in evolution, random changes produced either a better or a worse condition and only the better conditions were kept. Therefore, evolutionary algorithms are able to increase functionality and information through accidental production of both functionality and information.Point 4: No human could have predicted the circuit arrangement at the end of the experiment. In fact, it was quite a surprise that the circuit was leeching an oscillating signal from a nearby computer. If the circuit were intelligently designed then nothing should have been a surprise, and each step would have been guided by the intelligence of man instead of an unintelligent algorithm.

quote:

---

Eyes = 2 small balls...how simple is that, isn't it? Really strange how somebody can believe in such nonsense.

---

Eyes do not equal 2 small balls. Take planarians for example: Those two small brown dots on the upper left are eyespots. They are not eyeballs, but patches of photosensitive cells arranged inside of a depression, much like a human retina without the rest of the eye. Planarians are able to sense light and the direction the light is coming from which allows them to respond to light stimulus. They do all of this WITHOUT A BRAIN. Therefore, your statement is absolutely false.