Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 3 of 107 (403668)
06-04-2007 6:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


quote:
Evolutionists forget that matter is not purposeful. Matter does not think or have concepts. It can take a concept and you can build something out of it. but it cannot do it without outside information
Wrong. Nobody who beleives in the scientific theory of evolution believes any such thing. DNA is not a full language. There is no "meaning" beyond the chemical processes involved in reproduction and development. Highly complex - but without any intelligence involved. No concepts, just chemistry.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 4:28 PM WS-JW 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024