|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: THE END OF EVOLUTION? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Hmmm... this thread is titled THE END OF EVOLUTION? Are you folks off topic?
Or perhaps a connection with information theory has been drawn? That'd certainly be interesting. If so, I may even be bothered to read on...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Is LucyTheApe not a female?
...but I can't seem to get past the first step, which is convincing him that... LucyTheApe writes:
My reading is that: my claim is that the cell has knowledge, it knows what it is and what it has to do. The information content (or lack of the effect of the 2nd law) of a DNA strand tells us that life is not chance.(a) the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT, (until a cell is dead, I suppose) (b) the information within DNA is also holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT -- the information that provides guidance to a living cell on replication is always the same. I don't have a problem with (a) and (b).But Percy, I do have problem with your statement:Simple analysis of DNA before and after cell division conclusively reveals that random mutations occur in nearly every reproductive event. Does mutations have a different meaning? My understanding is that a benefitual mutation is very rare. If one mutation does not lead to abnormality then a few consecutive mutations will most likely lead to death. All lifeforms must have a way of reducing the negative impacts of mutations or they'd all be dead eventually. Besides, evolution has never created a structured information system, the like of a DNA strand. Doing so would likely be in violation of the 2nd LOT. I still do not know how evolutionists can claim evolution is observed to be taking place. Where/How exactly?Mutations would not achieve evolution even in conjunction with natural selection. Then there are fuzzy terms, (such as 'genetic drift') that are invented none other than to explain the unexplanable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Errr.... that was not what I said. You think that DNA in a living cell isn't subject to 2LOT?What I said was: "...the structure of a DNA strand is holding up against the effect of the 2nd LOT". And that's because there is this mysterious phenomenon called -- Life. Percy writes:
Sounds like the bar is lowered yet again to allow evolution theory to get over the line. First understand that evolution is just change over time, and the original source of change is mutation. Whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental makes no difference, a change is a change.I am quite stringent with definition. Evolution is definitely not just change over time. Mutations must lead to changes that lead to new species to qualify as evolutionary. This is a tough life, I know. Percy writes:
Err.... a subtle twist there, but again that was not what I said. Describe for us how the creation of new information violates 2LOT.What I said was: quote:Let's say someone who is ignorant about computer micro-chip is coming to a belief that it may just be possible for a micro-chip to be accidentally formed in beach sand by random chance, through unknown processes of the sea, waves and salt chemicals. If a micro-chip expert is to advise that such a possibility does not exist as that would be in violation of the 2nd LOT, would anyone disagree with the expert? We know this is true because we have apriori knowledge that micro-chips (i) are man-made, (ii) extremely complex, and so cannot possibly be formed by random chances. How about a living cell with all its DNA strands? Does anyone in his/her right mind believe a living cell is less complex than a micro-chip?If I were to have personally witnessed God's creation, I would be empowered with the knowledge that for random chance to create a living cell would violate 2nd LOT, therefore impossible. Unfortunately no one had personally witnessed God's creation. We can only examine the end-product to decide between creation or random chance. It is a belief either way -- A belief in evolution versus a belief in creation. The complexity of a cell suggests to me I can quietly but very confidently claim that for evolution to create a structured information system such as a cell would be a gross violation of 2nd LOT.
Wounded King writes:
The bad news is, the burden of proof is such that the onus is on you to provide an evidence that evolution has already created a structured information system.
That is essentially exactly the argument Lucy hs been making without any support or evidence, do you have some actual coherent reasoning and evidence or just the same faith based argument? Percy writes:
Am I right to say if mutation is completely absent, I'd still be different from both my parents and all my offspring would be somewhat different from me?
Every reproductive event produces mutations. This means that almost all offspring are different from their parents, and since they as parents will in turn produce offspring who are different genetically... Percy writes:
Supposing I say that represents 30 random mutations over 50 years. Different organisms have different mutation rates....on average each person has about 30 random mutations (3x109 x 10-8).....(there are other changes...where mistakes can also cause larger scale mutations, and there are other possibilities for mutations...)Over 4 billion years, we'd expect 2.4 billions random mutations. I think it'd be extremely generous to assume 1 out of 30 random mutations positively contributed to evolution of new species. So, according to... theory of mutations... ... merely 80 million uninterrupted positive mutations would account for evolution from the first cells to modern human today. How believable is that? BTW, since human DNA has about 3x109 base pairs, is it unreasonable to expect at least 3x109 positive mutations, assuming one mutation accounts for creation of one base pair? Wounded King writes:
I am sure one example would be natural selection of black moths versus white moths. But I'd to make it clear when I refer to beneficial mutation, I really mean beneficial in evolution sense, not 'beneficial in a context sensitive sense' Mutations have different 'meanings' in as much as they are highly context sensitive. A mutation which is beneficial in on environment can be neutral or detrimental in another environment.For example, I think one unconditionally beneficial mutation would be formation of a structured information system. Hi Anglagard,I have briefly read those stuff. They are not as convincing as you may think. But I would really prefer you to point out something that would bowl me over. BTW, here's a response to "Macro-evolution observed in the laboratory": Bacteria 'evolving in the lab'? (Lenski, citrate-digesting E. coli) - creation.com It seems the mutations in E.Coli amounts to a "data change", but not a "function change". I have suggested elsewhere mutations will not lead to evolutionary change if only "data change" is involved.EvC Forum: ERV's: Evidence of Common Ancestory I gladly accept variants of E.coli exist due to mutations but still they'd all be just variants of one E.coli species. I'm still curious whether Lucy is female...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Granny Magda, Greetings to you too.
Granny Magda writes:
No, you put that incorrectly. But to be clear, you do believe that DNA cannot be formed naturally due to the 2nd Law. Isn't that the case?Formation of DNA in nature does not violate 2nd LOT. But formation of DNA by random chance does violate 2nd LOT. It is impossible. The 2nd LOT is not an active force or agent that prevents something from happening. It merely provides a reason why something is impossible.
Granny Magda writes:
I notice the qualification "...at its most basic..." You are nit-picking. Evolution, at its most basic, is simply change over time. You can describe it in any number of more descriptive and more sophisticated ways, but it remains, in essence, change over time.Am I to assume there are multiple levels of definition for evolution? I regard that as cheating. If evolution is merely "change over time", then the word evolution is quite redundant. Or shall we say, "evolution" more correctly means "random change over time" ??
Granny Magda writes:
Please.... "Creation of new information" and "Creation of structured information system" are completely two different things.
Which is pretty much the same as what Percy was suggested you had said. You are nit-picking again when you suggest that Percy has misrepresented you. Granny Magda writes:
Yes, it's all HER fault. Actually, Lucy brought up the topic of the 2nd Law. This is Lucy's thread. That leaves the onus on Lucy and anyone else who wants to make the same argument. Seriously now... actually the onus is on anyone that makes a positive claim to provide an evidence. If you believe evolution positively leads to DNA structure formation then my friend, may you have the pleasure of presenting your evidence, and spare Lucy the agony.
Granny Magda writes:
The 2nd LOT is not a problem for the ToE per se. The actual problem is that evolution requires a viable mechanism that drives it, but such a mechanism does not exist. There is only randomness. Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction, as that would be contrary to 2nd LOT, as well as a contradiction in terms.
The overwhelming majority of biologists and physicists see no reason why thermodynamics should present a problem for the ToE. If you disagree so strongly with the experts in these fields, the onus is on you to explain why. Otherwise, you will likely be dismissed as just another crank (sorry). Granny Magda writes:
I thought that was quite enlightening and I don't know why you got so excited. WTF? Why on Earth would you assume that? News flash; not every life form in the human evolutionary tree would have lived for 50 years. Most would have lived far, far shorter lives....you are creating bogus calculations. No-one is impressed.How about you provide a guess-estimate how many mutations will be needed for evolution to form a human from scratch? Granny Magda writes:
Think about your statement "the ability to metabolise citrate". I'm sorry, but this is utter crap. You are being lied to, hardly a surprise when you get your information about science from a website with "creation" in the title. Lenski's bacteria evolved a new ability, the ability to metabolise citrate. It was not an ability which they possessed before. It was a new ability. It emerged right there in the lab. If that is not an emergence of new function, perhaps you would be kind enough to tell us precisely what would qualify as such...Now think harder... then tell me what constitute data and function in that statement? Nevermind... here's my answers: The 'function' is "to metabolise". The 'data' bit is "citrate".So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new that they probably would rather not eat -- yucky citrate. Guess what, if E.Coli can learn a new skill (a new function) that enables them to choose what to eat and to spit out what taste yucky, then I would be really impressed. May they also evolve taste bud and a smart brain to support that new skill/function.
Granny Magda writes:
May be I ought to tell you to mind your own business.
It's not relevant. Concentrate on what is being said, not who is saying it. Peepul writes:
You've said the smartest thing all day. This would not be a violation of 2LOT if it did happen.Guess what, I do agree if a micro-chip were found to have formed by random chance, then that would evidently be a non-violation of 2nd LOT. Wounded King writes:
Like I implied above, the 2nd LOT is not a force or agent that takes action to prevent something from happening. The 2nd LOT only provides a reason why something is not possible.
In what way does the 2nd law of thermodynamics prohibit an evolutionary origin for the cell? Wounded King writes:
I very much wish I can mathematically illustrate why 2nd LOT explains evolution by random chance is impossible. As others have pointed out, you and Lucy are both making a very specific claim that the 2LOT makes evolution by random mutation and natural selection producing cells or DNA or some other complex organismal system impossible. Yet neither of you can give any reason actually connected to thermodynamics why this should be the case.But as you might have figured out by now that I'm actually quite ignorant. 2nd LOT can also provides a reason why I'm entirely incapable of providing such a mathematical illustration. Percy writes:
I assume the word 'creation' implies a non-random process. In which case creation of a system may not violate 2LOT. So describe for us how creation of a new "structured information system" would violate 2LOT. I recall learning about a mathematical series deduction when in school, something that I can only vaguely describe this way:In a mathematical series, Element{N) is true. Element(N+1) is also true. Now if it is proven that Element(N+1) is true DUE TO THE FACT THAT Element(N) is true, then the series is infinitely true, meaning Element(N+2)...Element(N+x) are all true. Does anyone know about this? For quite some times I have day-dreamed that a proof or a disproof of evolution will require mathematical deduction of this nature... But it's been just a dream so far. (p/s. I talked too much and I've promised myself to take a break )
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Percy writes:
Creation is just that, making of something when all knowledge about the creation is already known and available in a 'blue-print'. Creation is not design, not analysis and it is not about making improvement either. So creation may not require any more new information. As I see it, this is how cells replicate themselves -- they already possess all the 'information' required to create another structured information system, (replica's of themselves). If there are new information required, perhaps that is more to do with availability of essential resources and the timing, (like when to start the process of creation).
quote:No, they really aren't. Each requires the creation of new information, it's just that one requires more new information than the other. Your "structured information system" requires that information defining that system first be created before the information contained within that system is created. There is nothing in 2LOT that constrains the creation of new information. 'Information' is analogous to 'data' whereas 'structured information system' is analogous to function/process in a computer model. It is theoretically possible for a computer to accurately models a biological life-form, (excluding human) because every life-form is a static structured information system. Ignoring mutations for a moment, the 'functions' within such a biological system never change. Every life-form is 'pre-programmed' to behave exactly the same way, from one generation to the next. They cannot do more than what the "embedded codes" allow them to do.
Percy writes:
The probability of a micro-chip being formed on the beach by random chance may not be zero either. Thinking in terms of probability will only give us silly answers. But while the probability of spontaneous DNA formation is not zero, it must be extremely tiny, and scientists do not believe that this is how DNA first formed. They believe that it developed gradually over time from simpler predecessors via a process of imperfect replication and selection. In other words, you're not only wrong about what 2LOT says and doesn't say, you're arguing against a scenario that is a common layperson's misunderstanding of the origin of life and that is not something that scientists propose ever happened. I believe it is impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because doing so would be in conflict with the very word 'creation'. A cell only knows how to 'create' another cell. It does not know how to re-design its DNA structure; it does not perform analysis and it does not contain intelligence to improve its DNA. DNA already contain all the information needed for cells to simply create another copy of itself. It does not required new information on how to replicate. To say DNA develops gradually is to suggest that a cell can somehow performs analysis, designs then improves itself. Well, this is certainly not happening in the real world. It is also impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because 'functions' within an information system cannot change. Computers tell me 'functions' are complex entities that do not undergo gradual changes over time and a function change must be a spontaneous change, caused by an external entity. (Note. Although a function may contain data within itself, I choose to ignore this for simplicity and clarity. In any case results of the argument would be the same). I think this aspect is universal -- Not only it is true for computers, it must be true for lifeforms and any information system. As I have mentioned elsewhere, my contention is DNA's contain "embedded codes", information that guide the cells. A living organism is 'pre-programmed' and cannot do more than what it's pre-programmed to do. The "embedded codes" within DNA's are none other than 'data' and 'functions'. We know computers are non-analog. In fact the structure of DNA's suggests to me DNA may also be 'non-analog' -- Bits and pieces are located in fixed positions. An analog environment is what most people can relate to. For example, if getting from point A to B is difficult, then all we have to do is wriggle slowly and eventually we'll get there, right? It may be more tricky to think in non-analog terms, such as breaking up my route from point A to B into many 'steps', if it is found that any intermediate step is impossible to complete, then the entire trip is automatically a complete failure. In digital term, it may be pointless to claim the journey from A to B is 80% successful. What matters in a logical sense in a digital world is -- I never made it to point B. If someone chooses to regard anything greater that 50% as being TRUE then that's another thing. That is not what I'm about here. What I'm alluding to is that thinking in terms of probability in an analog sense is misleading when a scenario cannot possibly be an analog one. If the structure of DNA's does not permit gradual change, then thinking in terms of percentage probability of its formation becomes misleading and is invalid. The equation is a logical True/False, not a function of change over time. Asserting that a micro-chip or DNA can be formed by random chance, (no matter how long it takes) just because a non-zero probability is mathematically derived 'from an analog viewpoint', is simply ridiculus and false. It leads to a false thinking that if something is extremely unlikely to happen, then all that is needed is another ten millions years. I think it is far more correct to think in terms of a 'quantum gap'. I borrow the word from 'Quantum Theory' that tells us electrons orbit around atomic nuclei in shells and sub-shells. To move to the next outer shell, an electron must absorb a certain amount of energy. If it does not absorb suffcient energy, it simply does not move to the next shell. There is no such thing as moving incrementally and gradually -- It either jumps the gap or stay where it is. This is in fact a non-analog behaviour. In theory, whether a function/process change can occur in nature can be assessed by existence of a 'quantum gap' also. If such a 'quantum gap' exist, then it is totally impossible for a spontaneous change to occur in nature. It is not a question of whether the population size is large enough, or whether we allow another 10 million years.
Percy writes:
Then I shall simply say existence of a 'quantum gap' would prove that random mutations cannot possibly drive evolutionary process that leads to creation of new DNA's.
But you definitely cannot claim that 2LOT says that, "Randomness cannot possibly drive a process in any specific direction." I don't know what that even means in any scientific sense, and I'm very sure that you don't. Percy writes:
Not correct. I referred to eating citrate as a 'data' change, not a 'function' change. Concerning Lenski's E. coli, you seem to concede that a new function evolved ("So it seems E.Coli have finally learned to eat something new..."), but then you say you're not impressed, and so your stance on this is unclear. Do you understand that Lenski's E. coli evolved a new function, and that this runs counter to your 2LOT claims of impossibility?I actually believe many E.coli had experienced mutations that had caused them to try eating things that they were not supposed to eat, or eating 'food' that did not exist, and as a result those E.coli had died. All changes of these nature can be eventually traced to be data-related change, not function-related, I'm sure. Peepul writes:
I'm fairly close to software engineering. Are you a software engineer by any chance? It would be natural to take this view if you were...I'm sure those E.coli mutations are of data-related change, not function-related. Granny Magda writes:
I'm sure natural selection is only a filtering process that is useless for evolution of new species.
Also, I must point out once again that evolution is not random. The mechanism you refer is well known and has been so for 150 years! It is called natural selection. Granny Magda writes:
It needs not be speculation at all. You can start with E.coli, a highly mutational bacteria that took approximately 20 years to achieve a two-gene mutations, (that allow some to eat citrate). Why? What value would it have? Pointless and uninformed speculation isn't going to get anyone anywhere.I'm sure the verdict will be that an astronomical number of mutations will be needed to explain life on earth today. It is impossible. Granny Magda writes:
You're just saying that. That'd never happen in any case. Er... You do realise don't you, that if we were to observe that in a lab, it would completely blow the Theory of Evolution out of the water?I don't believe you at all -- If the unthinkable happens, then evolutionists will be more than eager to adjust the theory to latch onto the new finding and claim a win for evolution. Coragyps writes:
Formation of water from its elements releases energy, but formation of DNA structure requires energy.
Does formation of water from its elements "by random chance" violate the 2LoT? You're talking nonsense, pcver.You don't seem to know what you're talking about, Coragyps.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
quote:You're still missing the point. Let's forget about the amount of energy involved for a moment... Random formation of DNA structure is more analogous to water molecules splitting into hydrogen and oxygen by random chance, (not the other way around like you said).And of course that would violate the 2LoT. Edited by pcver, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Coragyps writes:
I've never contradicted that, have I? Water molecules do exactly that every time if you put them in the photosphere of a hottish star, and don't violate the 2LoT even a little bit. My point was that you used the wrong analogy (water formation) to compare with DNA formation in the first place.You seem to have a habit of twisting and expanding the context of an argument, a bit at a time. So now you introduce yet another foreign entity -- A hottish star. This is not very helpful. What are you on about? Formation of water molecules or splitting of water molecules? They are complete opposites. I don't know what's the point of drifting away from the crux of an argument the way you do. Taz writes:
No credential really, other than being a logical thinker. You don't have to take my words for it either. I'm one that would look to the contents of a person's argument for his credentials. That said, I'm going to break my rule of thumb there and must ask for your credential in regard to physics and chemistry. What do you have to show to us for us to take your very unsubstantiated word for it?I'm not interested to win a debate. I'm interested in the truth. (So by inference you know I regard evolution theory as untruth) If you proposition an idea that I agree with logically, then I'd simply do the logical thing -- Accept your idea.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
pcver Junior Member (Idle past 5131 days) Posts: 22 From: Sydney, Australia Joined: |
Taz writes:
And the truth is you're full of shit, jesus was a cock sucker (he was fishing for men for goodness sakes), and christianity is an evil that must be wiped of the face of the earth.anglagard writes:
...you have cursed all human effort to understand the universe and through such knowledge feed the poor, heal the sick, and bring peace.One signature of Coragyps writes:
"...things are believed by Christians of such absurdity as no one ever could aforetime induce the heathen to believe...Taz writes:
WOW...Wow... I realise that I must have stumbled upon a site of worship for the faithful followers of a supernaturalism known as Evolutionism. Four of my siblings are engineers. One thing I have noticed about them is they are very arrogant about things in life. You people just keep talking among yourselves. Excuse me, I have come to the wrong place. Bye-bye !
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024