Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
30 online now:
Diomedes, PaulK, PurpleYouko, vimesey (4 members, 26 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,957 Year: 18,993/19,786 Month: 1,413/1,705 Week: 219/446 Day: 17/98 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evolution impossible as cannot apply meaning to code
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 4401 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 1 of 107 (403645)
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


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. Heres just one of the reasons why:

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.

Heres another example on why life is impossible without God:

Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book. Well I doubt it 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? Secondly and most importantly. ALL the reactions in our bodie are REVERSIBLE. If you put certain substances on your tongue you can die instantly. Why? because it is all reversible. So, the keyboard of life would type in. But then type out so you could type forever and not get anything on the paper so to speak. So we can see the correct formula is:

Energy + Matter + KNOW-HOW = Life.

Whereas

Energy + Matter + TIME = Nothing.


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 06-04-2007 6:36 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 4 by mark24, posted 06-04-2007 6:48 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 5 by Taz, posted 06-04-2007 6:51 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Chiroptera, posted 06-04-2007 6:52 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 7 by mick, posted 06-04-2007 7:12 PM WS-JW has responded
 Message 8 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 9:06 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2007 6:53 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Archer Opteryx, posted 06-06-2007 3:57 AM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
AdminNem
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 107 (403665)
06-04-2007 6:12 PM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15461
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


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 yet responded

    
mark24
Member (Idle past 3486 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 4 of 107 (403671)
06-04-2007 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


WS-JW,

The genetic code could not have been built without a creator to apply meaning to that code.

Demonstrate that the genetic code has meaning. If you can't do that then your entire argument falls flat.

I've seen similar arguments that invoke a sender for genetic information. DNA has information, therefore God was the sender. Of course, if there is no god then DNA contains no information: so what?

Your argument is the same, if god doesn't exist then the genetic code has no meaning, & I ask again;so what?

Mark


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

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

    
Taz
Member (Idle past 1582 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 5 of 107 (403672)
06-04-2007 6:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


Are you going to participate in the other thread about food you started or are you just throwing things out there hoping to create controversy?



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 1 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 4:28 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 6 of 107 (403673)
06-04-2007 6:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book.

Huh. Would you happen to know a few? I know some probability books might mention such a thing, but I'm having a hard time figuring how this is relevant to evolution or abiogenesis.


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

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

  
mick
Member (Idle past 3277 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 7 of 107 (403677)
06-04-2007 7:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


WS-JW writes:

Evolutionists forget that matter is not purposeful. Matter does not think or have concepts.

WS-JW writes:

The genetic code could not have been built without a creator to apply meaning to that code...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

Hi WS-JW,

You seem to be a little bit confused. First you (correctly) point out that matter does not think or have concepts, then you (incorrectly) claim that in order to "get anything out" of the genetic code, "meaning" has to be applied to it, and "it" must know what to do.

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

Of course this is all a bit of a red herring, since a cursory reading of an introductory genetics textbook will inform you that the genetic code does not rely on any form of interpretation but simply on the physical affinity between codons on the messenger RNA molecule and anticodons on the transfer RNA molecule. This physical affinity is based on nothing more than the physical tendency of complementary nucleotides to form hydrogen bonds. Since each tRNA is also attached to a specific amino acid, adjacent amino acids corresponding to adjacent codons on the mRNA come into close proximity in the ribosome where they are catalysed to form a growing polypeptide.

If you look up the details of this process (goole "gene translation") you will find no mention of concepts such as thinking, knowing or meaning. It's simply a series of chemical reactions (albeit a complicated one). Indeed it is only you who seems to be mentioning such concepts in the context of gene translation.

WS-JW writes:

Alot of evolution books state you could type on a keyboard randomly for eternity and eventually write a book.

How strange. I don't see what that has to do with evolution.

Well I doubt it 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? Secondly and most importantly. ALL the reactions in our bodie are REVERSIBLE. If you put certain substances on your tongue you can die instantly. Why? because it is all reversible. So, the keyboard of life would type in. But then type out so you could type forever and not get anything on the paper so to speak.

Hmmm.... I don't think the analogy is helping you to make your point. Could you explain it without the analogy? What is it about reversible reactions that makes life impossible?


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 9:20 PM mick has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 107 (403696)
06-04-2007 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 4:28 PM


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 isn't a sematic code. It doesn't mean anything.

It's a sequence of molecules that catalyzes certain chemical reactions in the cell. That's it. It all works by chemistry, like a machine. It doesn't "mean" anything; nobody inside the cell is "reading" the genetic code and using it like blueprints.

It's like the scroll on a player piano. You don't have to speak piano to read it, and the piano doesn't have to think to make the music. Now, a player piano is certainly something that was intelligently designed, but random mutation and natural selection are able to evolve things like genetic codes; we've proven that in experiments.

Secondly and most importantly. ALL the reactions in our bodie are REVERSIBLE. If you put certain substances on your tongue you can die instantly. Why? because it is all reversible. So, the keyboard of life would type in. But then type out so you could type forever and not get anything on the paper so to speak.

This doesn't make a lick of sense.


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

  
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 4401 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 9 of 107 (403704)
06-04-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by mick
06-04-2007 7:12 PM


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. 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. 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. 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. We claim we are educated but to put down the most super machine you can think of - the human body. Down to chance is absurd. The idea that different sexes arose by chance 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. 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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by mick, posted 06-04-2007 7:12 PM mick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Chiroptera, posted 06-04-2007 9:40 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 11 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 10:07 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 23 by PaulK, posted 06-05-2007 2:13 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 25 by mick, posted 06-05-2007 3:59 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 29 by mark24, posted 06-05-2007 10:05 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 33 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2007 2:57 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 34 by kalimero, posted 06-05-2007 3:00 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 37 by Zhimbo, posted 06-05-2007 10:22 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Doddy, posted 06-06-2007 9:06 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
Chiroptera
Member
Posts: 6805
From: Oklahoma
Joined: 09-28-2003
Member Rating: 6.2


Message 10 of 107 (403709)
06-04-2007 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


Your missing the point.

Actually, I think that you are missing the point. Evolution has been confirmed by a great amount of evidence in a variety of independent fields of science. All this talk about "logic problems" is not going to make the evidence go away. In the end, the evidence is what is going to drive science; all these "logic problems" do is determine where we don't quite understand the processes involved (or, in this case, where you don't quite understand the subject).


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

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

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 107 (403715)
06-04-2007 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 9:20 PM


Evolution is supported, not contradicted, by the genetic code. The processes of random mutation and natural selection are sufficient to account for the observed complexity of life. And we have the experiments, in legion, that prove it.

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.

You should read it sometime instead of letting people just tell you what they think is in it. Typing randomly on a keyboard doesn't prove evolution. Selecting the right letters from a stream of random ones does prove that randomness and selection are creative and capable of great complexity.

And if evolution isn't basically true, where are all the new species coming from? Are you saying God hasn't stopped creating, even though the Bible says he rested?


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

  
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 4401 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 12 of 107 (403729)
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


There are no new species. New ones being discovered maybe. Evolution hasn't been proven at all. 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. Then they realise that 2 + 2 does not equal 5.

A side question:

If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker?


Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 11:12 PM WS-JW has responded
 Message 14 by sidelined, posted 06-04-2007 11:25 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 20 by Taz, posted 06-05-2007 12:13 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 21 by fallacycop, posted 06-05-2007 12:57 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 22 by Percy, posted 06-05-2007 1:39 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 26 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-05-2007 6:46 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 31 by iceage, posted 06-05-2007 12:50 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 35 by dwise1, posted 06-05-2007 4:07 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 107 (403735)
06-04-2007 11:12 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


There are no new species. New ones being discovered maybe.

Wrong again. New species from old ones are being discovered all the time. Here's some:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

and here's some more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

Those are by no means exhuastive. New species are forming literally under our noses, all the time.

Why do you think there aren't any new species? Even Answers in Genesis, the creationist group, admits that evolution is producing new species under our observation.

Anyone who knows quantum theory knows it's impossible.

I know quantum theory, and I know that it's no obstacle to evolution. You don't know it as well as you think you do if you think it's an obstacle to evolution.

If we evolve for the better. and we came from apes, why are they much stronger than we? we got weaker?

Because "better" doesn't always mean "stronger." Besides, apes work out. People like you and me sit in chairs all day.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 10:52 PM WS-JW has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by WS-JW, posted 06-04-2007 11:27 PM crashfrog has responded

  
sidelined
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 107 (403738)
06-04-2007 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by WS-JW
06-04-2007 10:52 PM


WS_JW

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.

I call bullshit. Please explain what quantum mechanics is and how it disproves evolution.


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

  
WS-JW
Junior Member (Idle past 4401 days)
Posts: 30
Joined: 06-04-2007


Message 15 of 107 (403740)
06-04-2007 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by crashfrog
06-04-2007 11:12 PM


"All this talk about "logic problems" is not going to make the evidence go away."

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.

crashfrog,

Stronger IS better in every aspect of life, even for us making the things we need to make to do things for which we lack the strength to do alone. Matter does not know what we might invent so that it reduces strength. If evolution seperates good from bad, you say this is an exception where some good goes away for no apparent reason?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 11:12 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by DrJones*, posted 06-04-2007 11:34 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 18 by crashfrog, posted 06-04-2007 11:43 PM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 28 by Chiroptera, posted 06-05-2007 8:31 AM WS-JW has not yet responded
 Message 60 by macaroniandcheese, posted 06-09-2007 6:37 PM WS-JW has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019