|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Junior Member (Idle past 5061 days) Posts: 1 From: Austin, TX, US Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Problems with evolution? Submit your questions. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
If comets have been proven by all scientists alike to only be able to "survive" for roughly 100,000 years ... They haven't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I take information to be a message with a sender that is responsible for the information and a receiver. The information is any message the sender chooses to compose. OK, so I suppose in the biological case the sender is evolution, the message is the genomes ... and the receivers, I guess, are the ribosomes.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Kitsune, that's a fair enough post. I never said that an Oort Cloud wouldn't be discovered someday, or something resembling one, but until now, one has not been observed, only hypothesized. Also, remember that the reason that the Oort cloud and Kuiper belt were hypothesized is that we know that new inner-solar-system comets are coming from somewhere. An astronomer explains:
Because of their high mortality rates, periodic comets cannot have been periodic for long but must originally have been comets of very long periods having nearly parabolic orbits. Within the recent past (perhaps the last few thousand years) their orbits have been drastically altered to their present relatively small size by perturbations produced by the planets, especially Jupiter. Those occasional comets that are highly spectacular, and hence cannot have suffered appreciable disintegration, almost invariably have nearly parabolic orbits, and also they have not been seen before in recorded history. --- George Abell, Exploring the Universe New comets turn up. The hypotheses of Oort and Kuiper try to explain where they come from, but the creationist argument is shot down by the fact that they do. --- This was one of the first YEC arguments I came across. Short orbit comets, I was told, can only go fifty times round the Sun before evaporating completely. So I googled to find out the comet with the shortest known orbit. It's Enke's Comet, and it has a period of 3.3 years. If comets only get fifty trips round the Sun, and if you can use them to date the solar system ... then the solar system was created in 1845, tops. The alternative explanation is that it only recently became a short-orbit comet, and used to be further out. Unless you believe that the solar system was created eighteen-and-a-half centuries after Christ, you have to believe that explanation. So whether it came from the Oort cloud, from the Kuiper belt, from the depths of galactic space, or from giant space aliens having a snowball fight, is immaterial to the question of whether you can use such comets to date the solar system. Clearly, you can't.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The second law of thermodynamics clearly states that bananas are the atheist's worst nightmare. But monkeys don't believe in God, because they have no souls. So why are there still monkeys?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Huntard, message #13 writes: What does this have to do with evolution? articulett, message #28 writes: And what does this have to do with evolution? Given the rate at which evolution occurs, the notion that all present species were produced by evolutionary mechanisms from a common ancestor predicts that the Earth is old (and therefore that the solar system is old, and therefore that the universe is old). This prediction has been independently confirmed by geologists, physicists, and cosmologists, which is a score for Darwin. Proof that the universe is only a few thousand years old would falsify this prediction. I think this is why the vast majority of creationists are YECs. If they can manage to be wrong about the age of the Earth, they don't need to be wrong about anything else. (Of course, they are, but that would suffice.) Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
How can evolution be the producer of the information? Uh ... by evolution being the producer of the information?
If evolution is the result of the processing of the information that is sent to the receiver by the sender. But as I understood your post, evolution is the sender. Try to be more specific.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
How does the mutation or natural selection produce new information? By producing new information.
This is the reason why people wanted you to be more precise in your definition.
Do you have an empirical example of a code or language that occurs naturally? Yeah, the human genome. I can beg the question just as much as you can. Bite me.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
By selection and drift acting on random mutations, recombination, lateral gene transfer, and so forth. You may disagree with the answer that scientists give to your question, but don't go around pretending that you don't know what their answer is. You know perfectly well. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Is there anyway that information can begin to exist without being created? Well, that depends what you mean by "created". If you mean "caused to begin to exist", then the answer is NO. If you mean "poofed into existence out of nothing by an invisible magical fairy in the sky who doesn't actually exist", then the answer is YES.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
My parents produced my DNA I don't know where you got yours from. You are to my knowledge the first creationist honest enough to admit that information comes from natural causes rather than an invisible fairy who lives in the sky. I salute you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Does DNA disprove evolution? [...] If it can't be mapped all the way back to the time when life first began? But why should it be? The way to test a theory is to see whether our observations match its predictions. Now, the concept of evolution does not in any way predict that we should be able to map the genomes of long-extinct species. This is something that we wouldn't be able to do no matter how true or false neo-Darwinism is. As such it can have no bearing on the correctness of the theory. One might as well argue that the theory of gravity is wrong because we can't describe the orbits of the bodies in the gravitational field of Aldebaran. To be sure, this is a gravity-related question, and one that we can't answer, but the theory does not in any way imply that we should be able to answer it --- so it is not a test of the theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
In the interests of falsification so some creationists can't use this against science? It's already plenty falsifiable; and creationists will come up with bad arguments under any conceivable set of circumstances.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I'll start a thread, hold on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I can make a theory that says all of human emotions are created by the remnants of the fragrance of apples in the air. And to prove my theory through predictions, I predict some people will get upset tomorrow, and some will be happy, and some will laugh. See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true. I love science! What does your theory predict if you: (a) Isolate people from the fragrance of apples by putting them in an environment where they only breathe "scrubbed" air, as in a clean room? (b) Expose them to extra-large quantities of the esters in question? (c) Put them in scuba suits breathing an artificial oxygen-helium mix and send them diving? (d) Observe an anosmic person to see if they have emotions? Bear in mind that for an idea to count as a theory at all it must be falsifiable. Bear in mind also that a theory is judged by the sum total of its predictions --- obviously one is not allowed to cherry-pick. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, your "theory" is not a theory, because it makes no testable predictions whatsoever.
Thank you for playing.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024