Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 8 of 107 (403696)
06-04-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 4:28 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 11 of 107 (403715)
06-04-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 13 of 107 (403735)
06-04-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 11:27 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 18 of 107 (403747)
06-04-2007 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:27 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 11:27 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 19 of 107 (403748)
06-04-2007 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:41 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 11:41 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 70 of 107 (406324)
06-19-2007 9:26 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:30 AM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:30 AM jaywill has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 76 of 107 (406426)
06-19-2007 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by jaywill
06-19-2007 7:59 PM


Re: Processes
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by jaywill, posted 06-19-2007 7:59 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:18 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 82 of 107 (406768)
06-22-2007 9:19 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by jaywill
06-22-2007 7:18 AM


Re: Processes
Are you willing to allow ID researches the same freedom to speculate and possibly alter their opinions?
There are no ID researchers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by jaywill, posted 06-22-2007 7:18 AM jaywill has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 85 of 107 (407152)
06-24-2007 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by whaler777
06-24-2007 2:07 PM


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by whaler777, posted 06-24-2007 2:07 PM whaler777 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 89 of 107 (407799)
06-28-2007 2:13 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by whaler777
06-28-2007 9:15 AM


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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by whaler777, posted 06-28-2007 9:15 AM whaler777 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024