|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code | |||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
So if you shook the genetic code about you wouldn't get anything out unless someone had applied meaning to that code so that it knows what to do when you put it in certain sequences. The genetic code isn't a sematic code. It doesn't mean anything. It's a sequence of molecules that catalyzes certain chemical reactions in the cell. That's it. It all works by chemistry, like a machine. It doesn't "mean" anything; nobody inside the cell is "reading" the genetic code and using it like blueprints. It's like the scroll on a player piano. You don't have to speak piano to read it, and the piano doesn't have to think to make the music. Now, a player piano is certainly something that was intelligently designed, but random mutation and natural selection are able to evolve things like genetic codes; we've proven that in experiments.
Secondly and most importantly. ALL the reactions in our bodie are REVERSIBLE. If you put certain substances on your tongue you can die instantly. Why? because it is all reversible. So, the keyboard of life would type in. But then type out so you could type forever and not get anything on the paper so to speak. This doesn't make a lick of sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Evolution is supported, not contradicted, by the genetic code. The processes of random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to account for the observed complexity of life. And we have the experiments, in legion, that prove it.
And namely the books i say that talk about typing randomly for along time are Richard Dawkins The Blind Watch Maker is one of them. You should read it sometime instead of letting people just tell you what they think is in it. Typing randomly on a keyboard doesn't prove evolution. Selecting the right letters from a stream of random ones does prove that randomness and selection are creative and capable of great complexity. And if evolution isn't basically true, where are all the new species coming from? Are you saying God hasn't stopped creating, even though the Bible says he rested?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
There are no new species. New ones being discovered maybe. Wrong again. New species from old ones are being discovered all the time. Here's some:
Observed Instances of Speciation and here's some more:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html Those are by no means exhuastive. New species are forming literally under our noses, all the time. Why do you think there aren't any new species? Even Answers in Genesis, the creationist group, admits that evolution is producing new species under our observation.
Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. I know quantum theory, and I know that it's no obstacle to evolution. You don't know it as well as you think you do if you think it's an obstacle to evolution.
If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker? Because "better" doesn't always mean "stronger." Besides, apes work out. People like you and me sit in chairs all day.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Stronger IS better in every aspect of life If that's true, then why does your body get weaker if you don't exercise? If stronger is always better why aren't we born strong without even trying? Why are our bodies only as strong as we've conditioned them to be? If stronger was always better, I wouldn't lose muscle tone through inactivity.
If evolution seperates good from bad, you say this is an exception where some good goes away for no apparent reason? Selection is a stochiastic process, not a deterministic one. Sometimes the less fit get lucky. Sometimes the most fit are hit by lightning. Overall, though, the trend is obvious - those born well-adapted survive and pass on their adaptations; those born maladapted die before reproducing. Natural selection.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
You can't have that both ways to think when necessary. There are ways for a system to respond to stimuli that don't have anything to do with thinking. Bacteria know to move towards food without ever thinking. When you push down on one end of a lever, the other end doesn't think "oh, time to go up;" it just does it. Because of the laws of physics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
If not why is investigating to detect evidence of death by design is science but investigating to detect evidence of life by design not a science? Forensic scientists are not required to invent "intelligent murderers" from whole cloth in order to explain a suspicious death. It's sufficient to observe that the Earth is populated by humans with intelligence, and therefore that one of them is almost certainly responsible. Forensic scientists can usually provide physical evidence that someone was at the scene. Intelligent design advocates have never provided physical evidence for God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Should SETI also give up because no intelligent signals have yet been detected from outer space? Just so you know:
Wow! signal - Wikipedia Intelligent? Well, it's the only signal so far that can't be ruled out as intelligent. I'm just sayin'. SETI has more results than so-called "intelligent design" advocates can point to.
I was told that on a "low level" they do not yet know why it happens. So, you asked students who hadn't gotten to that part in class?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions? There are no ID researchers.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
None of these questions are on-topic in this thread, but suffice to say - if you can't answer these questions for yourself (what is my purpose, why do people do things, where did I come from and what am I supposed to do) neither evolution nor any religion is going to answer them for you.
Your purpose is whatever you decide it is. The biological origins of humanity are described by evolution. You've asked questions, though, that can't be covered in a single thread, particularly one not on those topics.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1467 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
just as i expected complete run around on words you must dazzle people with your lingo. What "lingo", exactly? I'm sensitive to the fact that describing science often requires using (and therefore defining) terms that are not familiar to most people; but I don't see where I used any unfamiliar terms in my post to you. It's plain English as far as I can tell. Exactly what part of my response did you have trouble understanding?
But as for me your going to have to do a better job of dazzling. It was not my intent to "dazzle", but rather, to communicate my thoughts clearly. In your view, how did I fail at that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024