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: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 16 of 107 (403741)
06-04-2007 11:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:27 PM


Stronger IS better in every aspect of life
False. How about a situation where to maintain your big strong body you require more calories than are available? Your strong body brings about your starvation.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

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

  
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 6111 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 17 of 107 (403746)
06-04-2007 11:41 PM


You mean to say that matter thinks and works out that this might be better? As it is worried about food? It doesn't have a clue about food or anything. It doesn't think. natural selection seperates good from bad. You can't have that both ways to think when necessary.

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 11:46 PM WS-JW has not replied
 Message 24 by Vacate, posted 06-05-2007 3:00 AM WS-JW has not 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

  
Taz
Member (Idle past 3291 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 20 of 107 (403758)
06-05-2007 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


WS-JW writes:
people who learn this evolution fairy tale in school hanve to unlearn it when they come to do quantum theory.
Just so you know, some of us have the education and experience background to adequately call ourselves physicists. Making vague claims slightly hinting you know something about it isn't going to fool anyone.
But to be fair, perhaps you'd like to tell us why quantum mechanics would contradict the theory of biological evolution?


We are BOG. Resistance is voltage over current.
Disclaimer:
Occasionally, owing to the deficiency of the English language, I have used he/him/his meaning he or she/him or her/his or her in order to avoid awkwardness of style.
He, him, and his are not intended as exclusively masculine pronouns. They may refer to either sex or to both sexes!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 21 of 107 (403766)
06-05-2007 12:57 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


Your point about quantum theory disproving evolution is plain lunatic (Hint: some people in this forum actually know quantum mechanics. you are not one of them.)
But your point about apes being stronger then us deserves an answer.
first off: being stronger means heavier muscles which require more time and food investment to grow and may be disfavored if there are other pressing needs to be met like the energy requirements of a large brain (it is all a matter of priorities)
second: are you sure that all apes are stronger then us? think of bonobos...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 22 of 107 (403767)
06-05-2007 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


WS-JW writes:
There are no new species. New ones being discovered maybe. Evolution hasn't been proven at all.
One disproof of evolution you may not have heard of involves past lives. It's been discovered that people who are able to get in touch with their past lives can never reach further back than 6000 years. This proves there were no people before 6000 years ago when God created the heavens and the earth.
Another disproof of evolution comes from astrology. Astrologers have discovered that all horoscopes cast for any time and place more than 6000 years ago say that no such person could ever have been born. That's because there were no people before 6000 years ago.
Yet another disproof of evolution comes from ghost hunters. No ghost hunter has ever discovered the ghost of a person from before 6000 years ago.
If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker?
Anthropologists have discovered that people were much stronger than apes up until the fall. So Adam and Eve were much stronger than apes, but Cain and Abel were not.
Another little known fact is that while God was lecturing Adam and Eve about the consequences of eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the dinosaurs snuck up to the tree and ate all the remaining fruit. For this God punished them with instant extinction, scattering their bones throughout the world. Noah never had to worry about saving the dinosaurs because they were already gone by the flood, and their bones became deeply buried.
But you're wrong about quantum theory disproving evolution:
Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. Things go in leaps...
Quantum theory doesn't prove that everything goes in leaps. I wish it were true, but there's tons of evidence that say no. Examples: High jump: I definitely don't go in leaps. Years: a little less than one out of four. Tree sloths: never. Evil Kneivel: never made it across the Snake River Canyon. Kangaroos: okay, some things do go in leaps.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Michael, posted 06-05-2007 12:26 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 06-05-2007 2:08 PM Percy has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 23 of 107 (403769)
06-05-2007 2:13 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


quote:
It has everything to do with evolution as evolution is a theory and how life began and developed. evolution claims the first primitive cell... if there are such things as "primitive" cells. Anything that can extract energy from it's environment and then have the blueprint to replicate itself is not primitive. And won't arise by chance. you try it.
Thre are two major errors here. First, Evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Secondly, evolutionary theory does not claim that the first life was anything as complex as a cell (let alone a modern cell). These evolved from far simpler predecessors.
quote:
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. Never does he mention where the computer came from.
I very much doubt that that is true (looking up "typist" in the index comes up with an analogy dealing with the preservation of genes - and assumes intnetional copying, not random typing). The old "typing monkys" illustration comes up - but in the context of a discussion of how much we can attribute to chance (and that deals with short phrases, not whole books !). In the course of that argument he states that he considers a random origin of DNA (and the associated "machinery" of replication) to be sufficiently unlikely that we should look for other explanations.
As for the last sentence I hope that I don't need to point out that metaphors, analogies and illustrations are NOT literally true.

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

  
Vacate
Member (Idle past 4600 days)
Posts: 565
Joined: 10-01-2006


Message 24 of 107 (403770)
06-05-2007 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:41 PM


WS-JW writes:
It doesn't think. natural selection seperates good from bad
Good start. Sometimes when talking about evolution it sounds as if there is some kind of thought process at work. Natural selection is not based on a decision to adapt - this is a mistake on behalf of the writer. Its much easier to word things in such a way, but it can lead to confusion. I have made the mistake myself and generally do my best to leave the evolution explainations on this board to the better informed (and better worded)
If you throw away your logic and what your brain tells you makes sense for what you believe to be evidence to the contrary i'm afraid I can't help you
Did logic tell you about quantum physics or do you happen to rely on evidence for that? I find quantum physics to be very contrary to what I see as basic logic - its the evidence that convinced me that my senses are not always accurate.
Stronger IS better in every aspect of life
When an ape needs to lift an engine block he uses muscles, when a human needs to do the same work he uses his brain. The job got done, so who is stronger? A grasshopper and a elephant both manage to eat the same plant - who is stronger? In nature its not always about 'strength', but more the ability to get the job done.
If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker?
I would argue we got stronger. Depends on the point of view.

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

  
mick
Member (Idle past 4986 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 25 of 107 (403772)
06-05-2007 3:59 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


Where the hell did the topic go? I thought you wanted to discuss the "meaning" of the genetic code. Do you accept that DNA translation involves no semantic understanding on the part of the cell, now?
WS-JW writes:
Your missing the point. It has everything to do with evolution as evolution is a theory and how life began and developed. evolution claims the first primitive cell... if there are such things as "primitive" cells.
Using the rules of syntax and grammar it may be possible to arrange these words into meaningful sentences. But maybe not.
WS-JW writes:
Anything that can extract energy from it's environment and then have the blueprint to replicate itself is not primitive. And won't arise by chance. you try it.
That might be why nobody thinks such entities arose by chance. My working hypothesis is that they arose through an evolutionary process, not by chance. What is your hypothesis - that they arose through supernatural intervention? Why is that more likely or better in explaining the origin of the cell than chance, exactly?
WS-JW writes:
And why ever they say that natural selection seperates the good from the bad I don't know... in science you find the good stuff breaks down ever so quickly and the bad bits you can't get rid of.
What science? What good stuff? Can't things that break down rapidly be separated? Why not?
WS-JW writes:
We claim we are educated
I don't think I'd exactly claim that we are educated...
WS-JW writes:
The idea that different sexes arose by chance
What a silly idea. Whose is it?
WS-JW writes:
and that by eating a few potatoes a woman can churn out a baby with all the info on how to do so on the size of a pin head. The sperm. And a self healing body with a brain that does a supreme diagnosis of whats wrong if you get a cut or something like that. If you think long enough on these things and stop telling yourself that the design we see is an illusion. We can come to only one logical explanation.
Please, please don't speak for me. I have never claimed to see design in nature. I don't see it. Why don't you give me an example of something that looks designed, and tell me which of its features are diagnostic of design? I don't agree with Dawkins' claim that we see "illusory" design. Personally, I don't see any kind of design.
WS-JW writes:
The failed evolution experiments and getting life out by chance support this also. Oh but it only happened once they say over billions of years. Well anything that can't be repeated, is not science.
Who are you to say that the origin of life occurred only once? There is no reason to think that we may not find independent origins of life on other planets, nor that we may not one day create some kind of life in the lab. And none of that is relevant to the sciences of chemistry and physics that focus on questions of the origin of life - and which conduct repeatable experiments on the subject despite your insistence that they cannot do so. The Urey-Miller experiment, even if you were correct in finding that it did not support a natural origin of life, is one example of such a repeatable experiment.

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

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 26 of 107 (403788)
06-05-2007 6:46 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible. Things go in leaps, theres no gradual move into another species. people who learn this evolution fairy tale in school hanve to unlearn it when they come to do quantum theory.
Wow, dude.
Someone has really been pulling your leg.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 27 of 107 (403790)
06-05-2007 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


Evolutionists forget that matter is not purposeful.
No, we never forget that.
The genetic code could not have been built without a creator to apply meaning to that code. Lets say you put all the letters in the english language and jumble them about in a hat and eventually you get out the sequence CAT. We can say that has arisen by chance and it means pussy cat. The thing is, it doesn't. It means nothing. You tell that to a Chinese person and they won't understand. because they don't have the meaning. The reason we do is because we have applied that meaning to it. You don't think in a language, you think in a concept. And then put that concept, into a code that you have agreed on. Like cat means pussy etc. The code can't arise on it's own. 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" has no meaning.
Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book. Well I doubt it
And yet it's mathematically certain.
To be precise: as the length of a randomly generated string of "letters" chosen from some finite "alphabet" tends to infinity, then the probability of any given finite substring appearing within this string tends to 1.
You don't explain what you think this has to do with evolution. Hint: nothing.
but IF that did happen, two things pose a problem. first of all, where are you gonna get the keyboard from and the meaningful letters from?
From the nearest metaphorical typewriter shop.
ALL the reactions in our bodie are REVERSIBLE.
Have you ever heard of something called the second law of thermodynamics?
If you put certain substances on your tongue you can die instantly. Why? because it is all reversible.
Well that was weird.
Energy + Matter + TIME = Nothing.
Creationists have abolished the first law of thermodynamics now?
---
Seriously, man, try and learn something about what you're talking about.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

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

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 107 (403804)
06-05-2007 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 11:27 PM


I'm sorry, If you throw away your logic and what your brain tells you makes sense for what you believe to be evidence to the contrary i'm afraid I can't help you.
And I'm sorry, but if you are the type who opens his fridge and sees there is milk and then proves logically that there really can't be any milk in the fridge, then I can't help you.

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

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

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 29 of 107 (403823)
06-05-2007 10:05 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


WS-JW,
And why ever they say that natural selection seperates the good from the bad I don't know... in science you find the good stuff breaks down ever so quickly and the bad bits you can't get rid of.
Demonstrable bollocks.
In 1982 Barry Hall (Hall 1982) excised the genes that cleaves lactose, the expression control system, & the lactose permease from E.Coli. All three re-evolved elsewhere in the genome when the bacteria was allowed access to lactose.
Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations. [DJ Futumya, Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]
Not bad for no-monkeys-whatsoever-tapping-at-a-typwriter, eh? All this was achieved by mutation & natural selection.
The failed evolution experiments and getting life out by chance support this also.
What failed experiments? Hall, among many others, showed us that new function can arise naturalistically. If the genome contains information, then we have experimental verification that new information can arise. If we have new function, then we must have new information coding for it.
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.
Edited by mark24, : typo

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

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

  
Michael
Member (Idle past 4638 days)
Posts: 199
From: USA
Joined: 05-14-2005


Message 30 of 107 (403840)
06-05-2007 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Percy
06-05-2007 1:39 AM


Kangaroos: okay, some things do go in leaps.
Fantastic leaps of logic can be performed by one who has mastered the ability--oftentimes much better than kangaroos (and lizards).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 06-05-2007 1:39 AM Percy 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