PROOF against evolution

True, and the theory of evolution agrees with you. Natural selection tends to prune those individuals with unfavorable allele combinations or mutations. The production of allele recombinations and mutations is a game of chance where life just keeps rolling the dice until it wins. Individuals with unfavorable genes lose, but over time the population wins.A favorable mutation gained by a population was not inserted by an intelligence, but rather was the success story of a lengthy process of blind experimentation. Many random mutations are produced and then tested in the real world by the individuals with the mutations. Some of the mutations are favorable and enhance the individuals probability of survival and reproduction, and over time the favorable mutation will become more and more common within the population. There are simple bacterial genetic experiments that demonstrate these processes in a relatively short period of time. I'm a little uncertain how to reply to this because I couldn't quite get a consistent read on it, but let me take a stab at it anyway.Evolution does not postulate anything resembling what you describe in the first part of your paragraph. It doesn't think that there were creatures whose arms ended at the wrist and then gradually a hand evolved on the end of the wrist. That there are no handless hominids, apes or monkeys in the fossil record confirms that evolutionary theory is correct on this point.Evolution believes in the accumulation of many small changes, and this is in line with what I think you're saying in the second part of your paragraph where you mention the fish. The evolutionary progression from fish to amphibians includes fins which gradually became more and more leg-like. Your question boils down to this: Once new information has been added to an organism's genome through mutation, how does the cell's machinery know what to do with this new information?The answer is that it doesn't "know" what to do with it.Assuming that the mutation takes place in an active gene, that gene codes for the production of a protein. The various alleles of the gene produce slightly different proteins. When a new allele is introduced into this gene through mutation, the new allele will still produce a protein.There are several possibilities concerning the nature of this protein. It might be identical to the protein produced by one of the other alleles for this gene. Or it might be yet another slightly different type, a new type, of this gene's protein.If it is a new type of the gene's protein, then what happens is anyone's guess. Maybe the new protein causes the same outcome as one of the other proteins. Maybe it causes something different to happen, perhaps a different eye color. Whatever happens, to the extent the mutation is expressed upon the individual possessing it, that mutation influences that individual's chances of survival and reproduction. If the influence is favorable, then the individual survives, reproduces, and the mutation goes on to become part of the population's gene pool. If the influence is sufficiently unfavorable, the individual does not survive and reproduce, and the mutation dies with the individual. I think there may be a typo in this. Did you mean "and a cell can't be created..."? Anyway, if I correctly understand what you're getting at here, this seems more an issue of the origin of life than of the origin of species. I don't know where the first DNA or first cell came from, and they weren't issues I was trying to address. As already described above, allele recombination, mutation and natural selection comprise a random trial and error process, and biology students demonstrate this for themselves all the time with simple bacterial mutation experiments. The process happens all by itself without any intelligent intervention at all.--Percy

Exactly.Finally you are getting there.As I pointed out to you what seems like years ago, all of the changes are simply random. There is no plan. There is no wanted change to genetic code, no direction, no purpose. The changes happen.The reason evolution works is the Natural Selection filter. When all the mutations are run through the Natural Selection filter, those that help the critter live long enough to reproduce succeed and the critters have evolved.It is as simple as that. No plan, no designer, just chance and a filter.Any problems with that so far?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

Yxifix, you are not arguing in good faith. YOU made the assertions when you stated the definitions, therefore it is up to YOU to defend them with evidence of some sort. You have not done so, since the Pasteur experiment and the hypothetical computer experiment have no bearing on the origins of biochemical information, since neither examines such origins.Also, I could give you a way for your fantasy computer experiment to fail: An electromagnetic disturbance scrambles the hard drive, accidentally producing binary code that codes for a small computer virus. It replicates, filling the hard drive. Voila! Information! First of all, in science there is no such thing as "proving" something, so from a scientific standpoint the answer will always be no. Pasteur simply provided evidence that strongly confirmed his hypothesis, and falsified the hypothesis of spontaneous generation.If you are speaking in layman's terms, where proof means strong evidence for or against a hypothesis, perhaps Pasteur did provide some "layman's proof". How does the evidence from Pasteur's experiments relate to your theory of origins of information? Please specifically explain the link if you think there is one...As I stated in my previous message: If you refuse to defend your assertions (namely the definitions) with evidence, you are simply revealing that you have no foundation for them and that they are merely your opinion.
_______________________________________________[As a side note: It was quite amusing to read your definition of "demagogy" and other logical fallacies, since you have committed most of them in this thread multiple times. I appreciate that the "appealing to the emotion" fallacies includes the example of simply calling someone a demagogue rather than responding to their points - you've done that at least a dozen times.Be careful who you call a demagogue, since you practice more demagogy than anyone else in this thread.]

Huh? Because I've opened your eyes and showed what you really think about evolution (message 257, message 259, message 265). I have no need to prove to you that it is a proof. Do you understand, my friend? Lets make it clear. ....in your terminology EXPERIMENT = A PROOF ?
Or is it A [successful] RESULT OF EXPERIMENT = A PROOF? Which one is it, mate? Demagogy.You forget about 'That is what you've just said.' -> not me, YOU! ups.Btw, now you are saying that evolution is nonsense -> as you must agree also with proved definitions mentioned under computer experiment.If it is still just a hypothesis (?) then, again, you are saying this:A result of experiment with a computer is not a proof but it offers very strong support for a specific hypothesis -> 'intelligence' needed when life was created.(20+20)=40, don't forget.Well done mate.bye bye

Sorry Percy, this is how macroevolution works? It is just your assertion based only on fantasy. Nothing else. (explained later) OK, let me quote you:

quote:

---

I'd say I probably disagree with Pink Sasquatch about evolution not involving creation of information. The first life was billions of years ago, and that first life did not have DNA for eyes, teeth and eyes, so that DNA must have developed over time from some process, and that process is called evolution.

---

quote:

---

To me, the key fallacy in Vxifix's argument is his belief that meaning implies an intelligence creating that meaning.
So Vxifix can argue all he likes that evolution is impossible because meaning has to come from somewhere, but allele frequencies and nucleotide sequences care not and continue changing over time.

---

And now tell me, clearly please, do you understand how each software (program) works? So do you really understand how DNA code works? Are you sure?
If yes, you'll have to explain how the meaning "evolved" in RNA itself. Thank you !
Or everything you are saying is just your demagogy? Lets see your explanation. Doesn't matter Percy.... lets explain how mutations could accumulate to change fish fin to a leg.... go on... try it. ....please do not say just "mutation accumulated". Please describe how it works inside - how DNA code works with RNA and so on (including why fish decided to chose only mutated [please specify how mutation probably looked like at that stage and what was its advantage) fish to reproduce - so again -> specify what do you think the first mutation looked like and what was its advantage for each fish so you can apply your 'the fittest wins'] -> the final result will be leg, thank you. Go on...If you fail to answer clearly... you are talking about microevolution, not macroevolution. And the message "ERROR!" pops up -> Organism stops working properly! ...the same as for EACH program computer uses, Percy! RNA is absolutely the same. Lets apply it to an example (eg gene that makes color of your eyes blue):You are saying that by some random mutations was created a gene that makes different protein (eg blue color) as it should (eg gray color -> doesn't matter how this gene was created as you would have a big problem to explain this, ok?). Your problem is... that there is no 'code' in RNA that gives it an instruction to translate it as blue color, Percy!.... that means ->in RNA must be something like this
0001 = black
0010 = yellow
0100 = blue
1000 = redDo you understand Percy? It is absolutely the same as with any other translation program -> There is needed intelligence which will give instruction to RNA how to translate such result of 'mutated' gene, otherwise an 'ERROR' pops up. Is it clear for you now?So as you've already said (mentioned above) that there was no gene for [blue] eyes in DNA at the beginning when a life started to 'evolute'....you'll have a big problem to explain how a code for [blue] eyes appeared in RNA. Thank you for your clear explanation. If an intelligence doesn't insert to RNA what a result of your mutation means, the mutation you are talking about (individual) naturally dies, sorry that's the truth... It doesn't matter, you can apply it to whatever part of macroevolution. The important part is RNA while today's RNA couldn't be at the beginning of evolution as it would be against theory of evolution. RNA had to evolute as well, the same as DNA code for [blue] eyes -> as you are saying "DNA for eyes, teeth and eyes, so that DNA must have developed over time from some process" but it is the same as "the evolution of initial information" ...so we are again at the beginning... you remember Information=life ? If you have to explain evolution of human, you have to explain evolution of the initial information. => So you don't have to explain where the initial information came from; I'll be happy when you explain where the code for blue eyes in RNA came from. Thank you. Not without inserted code in RNA (by intelligence of course) needed to translate info from DNA -> needed to correctly translate specific result of your mutations...Bye.This message has been edited by yxifix, 08-18-2004 10:21 AM

You are saying if we give a computer time (eg 500 billions years), it could do some operations without a program?Anyway... (message 257, message 259, message 265). Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Demagogy. Sorry, I don't care what Claude Shannon defined.... he can define whatever he likes.

quote:

---

Information (R) is the same as uncertainty (H)? Because of noise, after a communication there is always some uncertainty remaining, H(after) and this must be subtracted from the uncertainty before the communication is sent, H(before). In combination with the R/H pitfall, this pitfall has lead many authors to conclude that information is randomness.

---

http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/...ation.is.not.uncertainty.html 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.PS: What's the reason you don't what to prove a creation of the initial information anymore (you tried hard before)? Let me guess what....

Pink sasquatch:Before replying (it will be easy) you have to answer to other points as you started that discussion -> process how were created hands, lungs, veins,...please don't skip it once again, I won't forget.So lets go.By the way So this means... that an experiment with a computer is not a proof but it offers very strong support for a hypothesis -> 'intelligence' needed when life was created, while falsify the hypothesis of evolution. That is what you've just said.Well done.

Oh boy. You are so funny. I have just fun from a discussion with you since I've opened your eyes and showed what you really think about evolution (message 257, message 259, message 265).The funniest thing is how seriously you take this discussion in spite of that, so lets continue, mark: Mum: "Mark, why did you do that?"
Mark: "I didn't!!!"
Mum: "I saw you!!!"
Mark: "I didn't!!! uaaaaaaaaaaaaa" Demagogy of course.Your quotations:

quote:

---

By claiming otherwise you are essentially searching the desert for a nanosecond for a football, don't find it, then claim it is PROVEN that it doesn't exist.

​

As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.

---

You see? This is how demagogy works. That's why you asked something like that.Now everybody can see it... ...mark has a problem (maybe a problem of childhood?). Demagogy... as already proven above. Because it is demagogic question, it is unrelated.... of course. Mark... you should learn more ...what does "fact" mean... so please: CLICK HEREYes, it was demagogic question, as proven above. And what you are saying now is demagogy as well. Demagogy. Now it can be clearly seen in mentioned example: "Our beverages do not contain sodium deoxycholate". This is probably true, but the mentioned chemical is a detergent, and should not be contained in any beverage whatsoever.Answer to your statement: "It is probably true, but the answer would give you chance to say 'As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.' (as you've already said before) altough you would have no right to say that, as during experiments was proven 'TRUE' as well as 'FALSE'"You see Mark? EXACTLY THE SAME THING. You've just stuck in your own words once again..... because you are trying to fool the truth, of course. Sure, that's how demagogic question works. E h m. Sure. Impossible because a subject (non-living thing without an intelligence -> all non-living things are without an intelligence) used in the experiment proved it. So just to make it clear -> I used non-living things to generate an information. And the result of experiment was not just that an occurrance of something was impossible -> that's just one part... I've also proved how to create such "something" - what is needed.I am sure you can find your answer there.

quote:

---

equivocation - a statement that is not literally false but that cleverly avoids an unpleasant truth

---

So...mark, do you really know what does equivocation means? If yes, you have to show me what is that 'unpleasant truth' (maybe for you?). ...but I don't think you really understand what does that mean. You should learn more.In fact, you used equivocation in your argument about a word "FACT". ...so you've just stuck in your own words once again.bye bye

This message has been edited by mark24, 08-18-2004 11:00 AM

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

, yxifix is annoying of course. However, I don't think his "opponents" are doing a good job of pinning him down.I'd suggest that both yxifix and any others decided if they are arguing for and against the origin of life ideas or evolutionary theory. Even that step hasn't been accomplished and held to yet.yxifix's lack of understanding of logical thinking and arrogance makes him difficult but I think a better job could be done in holding him to a line of thought. I'm staying out of it but will step in as an admin if it is clear he isn't following guidelines. You've allowed him to wiggle enough that it isn't clear enough yet.

AdminNosy, You have GOT to be shitting me?All he has done is avoid questions! How can you do a job at all of pinning him down when he equivocates, evades, refuses to accept logic even when cited. I have repeatedly given up on strategies because of this & attempted new lines of reasoning, only to be stonewalled by the same idiotic "logic".If he hears a line of reasoning that alludes to something he doesn't like, you get called a demagogue. You get called a demagogue for asking a question, for pities sake!This is unacceptable.DO SOMETHING.Take the following as an example: What a prick.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

I agree with your assessment but I think it will have to be very, very simple for yxifix to "get it".I suggest you attempt, again, and more clearly, to separate what is being discussed the origin of life or evolution. It wouldn't hurt to ask that question directly.In fact, yxifix, you could take this opportunity to answer that. You should find that everyone agrees that life had to have some origin. However, evolution is a process which applies to living things (or things that are so close to living it gets difficult to distinguish clearly). Are you attempting to deal with the question of origins or of evolution?Mark, it is clear from the thread that a good deal of the time (but with a lot of jumping around) that yxifix is talking about the initiation of life and people are arguing back with him regarding evolution. That is part of the lack of clarity that makes it, in my mind premature to act. Draw the line before and then hold that line.This thread is, after all, in the Origin of Life forum but is named in an odd way for that.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-18-2004 11:22 AM

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.

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.