PROOF against evolution

Humans are FAR from as well thought as a Computer. we are basicly Just Random odds and ends of JUNK no thought had to go into Junk at all.
we are not as advanced as you might think we are. if you think about it. it can Happen rember we have had a long time to do so.... their is no set plan with evolution it just Happens. We are far from being "the most perfect things" . I still can't see the Piece of Junk we are being Created by an all powerful Magical being.[This message has been edited by DC85, 07-05-2003]

quote:

---

Humans are FAR from as well thought as a Computer. we are basicly Just Random odds and ends of JUNK no thought had to go into Junk at all.

---

All I can offer for a response to that statement is, speak for yourself.

I didn't mean really Junk. but its NOT exactly a great Design(I think we aren't) is more what I am trying to say.... we are not all that great... we aren't anywhere near it. just odds and ends. that what i am trying to say.... Unfotunitly we think of ourselves as great things when the truth is we are just Animals and Nothing more then that.......[This message has been edited by DC85, 07-05-2003]

This is a position I found Simon Levin to expound but it is clearly inferior to some such from Gould for instance WHEN it is combined with the "Chicago" school of ecology. My simple response to this "professional" was to see the complex as simple but when he didnt get the flat out statment and I attempted to "embed" the same in a particular morphology with defernece ot Hilbert's programmatic use of incidence geometry he begged off without insight that what I THEN said was tooooo philosophical. He only wanted the ""obsfucation that equations and not words provide as one UPDATES already existing models and thus the odds and ends get ipso facto supported without ANY necessarily sufficent reality in nature or little to say the least.

You're quite wrong about this, I believe. Let me dredge up some data:

quote:

---

INSECTA: Acrida, 23 / Aphid, 5, 6, 8, 12 / Musca, 12 / Lethocerus, 8, 30 / Cimex, 24-29 / Lysandra, 380 / Bombyx, 50-71 / Cicindela, 20-24 / Calliphora, 12 / Drosophila, 8-12 / Metapodius, 22-26.

​

REPTILA: Elaphe, 36 / Hemidactylus, 46 / Alligator, 32 / Chamaeleon, 24 / Lacerta, 36, 38 / Emys, 50 / Anguis, 36, 44.

​

MAMMALIA: Ornithorhynchus, 70 / Didelphys, 17-22 / Erinaceus, 48 / Sorex, 23 / Lepus, 36-46 / Peromyscus, 48, 52 / Microtus, 42, 46, 50 / Apodemus, 46, 48, 50 / Mus, 40, 44 / Ratus, 46, 62 / Cania, 50, 64, 73 / Felis, 35, 38 / Bos, 16, 20, 60 / Capra, 60 / Ovis, 33, 48, 54, 60 / Sus, 18, 38, 40 / Equus, 60, 66 / Rhesus, 42, 48 / Homo 46.

---

From a creationist site, no less. This is a list of some of the major taxa of animals and their respective number of chromosomes. I can only assume that's what you meant by "complex". If you had another measure of complexity in mind you'll have to tell me what it is.Anyway, that's us at the end (Homo) with 46 chromosomes. As you can see from the rest of them there's almost no corellation between the "advancement" of form and the number of chromosomes.And, why should there be? As I said, all DNA does is generate proteins. That's it. That's all it does. The human body is comprised of proteins just like the body of any other living thing - to a large degree, it's composed of the very same proteins as other mammals, especially apes.The human body is not any more complex than that of a gorilla, nor that of any other mammal. And very simple organisms sometimes have an enourmous number of chromosomes, like the Lysandra (butterflies, I believe?). So clearly chromosome complexity has nothing to do with complexity of form. What prevents a natural process from creating "information"? I don't believe information exists in any form outside our own heads. It's like saying a bunny-shaped cloud has the "information" to be bunny-shaped. Any "information" you perceive in DNA, in the sense that there's information in an encyclopedia, is purely in your own head.So far you have yet to address my point that DNA is far more random and repetitive than the definition of information you quoted would allow.

I don't understand the point of your analogy. What's the same about a personal computer and a meta-catalyzing molecule?The arrangement of DNA isn't a code, in the sense that a code is an arbitrary arrangement of symbols and meanings. The arrangement of DNA catalyzes the formation of specific polypeptide chains. It's not information in the semiotic sense of signs, symbols, and referents.

Yeah, I agree. We're far from perfect. Would a perfectly designed genome have a gene for the production of Vitamin C that would work perfectly if it wasn't terminally crippled by a genetic error? (And if so, why do the higher primates share the same error?)

good Example Crash. buz so if we have many imperfections. the almighty God Made mistakes? BIG ones? thats not what I seem to hear about it.......... anyway as I was saying before we are nothing but A jumbled mess. that with Mutations upon Mutations formed what you see today... If the Mutaton was Better built to live it did...its as simple as that....

Buz, What? It observably DOES. It really isn't that hard, Buz. Something is simply more "successful" than something else, & ends up in all members of a population by dint of it's success. I would reasonably expect something a bit more than pot luck if an intelligence was involved, but that's is exactly what it is, pot luck, as to whether a mutation occurs at a particular loci that positively affects the fitness of the progeny, or not.You're just moving the goalposts/changing the subject. The point is that your quote in post 20 is either, 1/ misunderstood by you, or 2/ is wrong, & observably so. Information content can, & has, been observed to increase in DNA (Hall 1982). It depends on your definition of information, of course, but any increase in function can reasonably be equated to increased information, wouldn't you say? Hall showed that this did indeed occur, & that RM&NS was responsible. Furthermore, he did it over 20 years ago. You mean to tell me AiG didn't inform you of this groundbreaking work?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 07-06-2003][This message has been edited by mark24, 07-06-2003]

quote:

---

Well, of course, it is assumed the DNA is more than a code of information. As with our PCs there's this box we purchase with these physical boards, wires and chips in them.

---

I think you are missing a critical difference between DNA and computers. With a computer, the hardware and the software are different things. You can run different software on the same hardware-- Linux and Windows both run on the same physical machines. With DNA, the hardware and the software are the same thing. You can't seperate them. Change one and you automatically change the other.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

I'm trying to chase you down with this. Message 35, please, at your lesuire. Any response?I guess my point in all this was to disabuse you of any notion that the complexity of DNA has anything at all to do with the complexity of form, as well as any notion that human DNA is somehow special just because humans might be.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-07-2003]

quote:

---

If you had another measure of complexity in mind you'll have to tell me what it is.

---

.I meant to convey the amount of information in the cell.

quote:

---

hat prevents a natural process from creating "information"?

---

I'll let Nancy Pearcey comment on that for us:
"In spite of this extensive new evidence, the materialist continues to hold out for the discovery of some new physical laws to explain the origin of biological information. As chemist Manfred Eigen writes in Steps Towards Life, "Our task is to find an algorithm, a natural law that leads to the origin of information." Yet no known natural forces produce structures with high information content, and so the elusive law that Eigen hopes to find must be different in kind from any we currently know. Surely that qualifies as an argument from ignorance-the materialist's God of the gaps."

Buz, I have not seen the general drift of your posts so I would like you to tell me if that quote was only meant to provoke discussion, contain some difference of positions, or otherwise wise? I have listened to Eigen speak in Baker Hall, Ithaca, NY so I do have something to say but please spare me the trouble of reading all of your posts, will you mate?

quote:

---

Any "information" you perceive in DNA, in the sense that there's information in an encyclopedia, is purely in your own head.

---

The analogy is in reference to quality and quantity of information rather than type of information. These factors are above the ability of random process which simply does not produce structures of the quantity and quality of information observed in DNA.