|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 0/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: PROOF against evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: It is a circle because all points along the line are equidistant from the center of the object. And your point is?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Through self replicating chemical reactions. New information was inserted through new chemical reactions, the same as today.
quote: 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"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: In the quantum fluctuation that caused the formation of positive/negative energy, and matter/antimatter.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: So was the meteor copying information when it created a circular depression in the ground?
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: But DNA can do operations without man, therefore the two are not comparable. Your premise fails, therefore your argument is moot.
quote: And how does this stop them from producing more of themselves?
quote: 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: 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: 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: It is proven that information can be created through the process of random mutation and selection.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2000 Jul 15;28(14):2794-9. Evolution of biological information. Schneider TD. National Cancer Institute, Frederick Cancer Research and Development Center, Laboratory of Experimental and Computational Biology, PO Box B, Frederick, MD 21702-1201, USA. toms@ncifcrf.gov How do genetic systems gain information by evolutionary processes? Answering this question precisely requires a robust, quantitative measure of information. Fortunately, 50 years ago Claude Shannon defined information as a decrease in the uncertainty of a receiver. For molecular systems, uncertainty is closely related to entropy and hence has clear connections to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. These aspects of information theory have allowed the development of a straightforward and practical method of measuring information in genetic control systems. Here this method is used to observe information gain in the binding sites for an artificial 'protein' in a computer simulation of evolution. The simulation begins with zero information and, as in naturally occurring genetic systems, the information measured in the fully evolved binding sites is close to that needed to locate the sites in the genome. The transition is rapid, demonstrating that information gain can occur by punctuated equilibrium. Also, a radio has been designed through evolutionary mechanisms:News articles and features | New Scientist In 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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: 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: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024