PROOF against evolution

Buz,The real point is that evolution, ie RM&NS isn't random, the mutations might be, but the functional product is honed by NS.Consider Hall 1982. He effectively destroyed the lac operon in a bacteria (a functional complex of several genes that facilitate the metabolisation of lactose), only to see a new lactase enzyme, a new protease (aiding movement of lactose into the cell), & an expression control system evolve under lab conditions. This directly contradicts above claim, or at the very least shows that you have misunderstood it. Adaptive evolution contains a component that isn't random, meaning high infomation content can occur naturally in DNA, & indeed, Hall showed it. Unless you think that complex function of the genes involved isn't a "high level of information", of course.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

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]

Buz,How is this information repetitive?Mutations culled by NS increase information. If you are claiming that the genome wasn't "created" this way, then please provide evidence.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

k.kslick, How about that the above is a logically invalid argument!Untestable.Mark

TheNewGuy03 Yes it does, but if everything is going from order to disorder, why can plants photosynthesise? Answer that & you'll see the creationist anti-evolution 2LOT argument for what it is.Mark

TNG3, Nonsense. This assumes that all that are born survive & breed. A mere 200 years ago saw appalling infant mortality in all cultures. The population growth we are experiencing now is a VERY recent phenomenon.Making the same assumptions for any given species of bacteria would mean we would be a kilometer deep in them if the earth was only 4,500 years old & they all survived to breed without any recource limitations. Extrapolating backwards the earth began a few years ago using the same logic. In fact, if you will arrive at a different date for every species you look at.The truth is, that for long periods of time there was no net population growth, even population reduction, just like any other species you care to mention.Mark

---

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

TNG, People died before they reached adulthood much more than they do now, in any culture.If a couple only have two children survive to breed out of ten, then the population remains the same. If all ten die at 70 after having children, then the population explodes.Mark

---

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

yxifix, A logical error in your argument is that you don't know that the genetic code wasn't naturally formed. Ergo, your premise is insufficient to conclude intelligence was required to form the genetic code.MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-11-2004 04:55 PM

---

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

yxifix,At Nosy's request I've responded in an approprate thread, here.Mark

---

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

yxifix,At Nosy's request I've responded in an approprate thread, here.Mark

---

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

yfifix, Send it to ANY website that deals with logic. It could be a case study.Mark

---

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

lol

yxifix, Why, you don't? Pasteurs demolition of Spontaneous generation isn't relevant evidence that the genetic code/information could not appear naturally.I point this out here. You failed to address any of the relevant points, I go to the trouble of listing the unaddressed points along with exactly what you need to do to directly address them, & you fucked that up, too (messages 245-247).In short, your Pasteur "evidence" has been rebutted, & you have failed to address any of the points. Your "premise" that Pasteur's work is a proof against information appearing naturally is in tatters.Mark

---

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

You've just repeated the same old bollocks again.

yxifix,Read all of this response, please, before replying. Leave it a couple of hours & think about what I've written, please do not immediately respond without thoroughly digesting the implications of what I have written.Pasteur showed that something that was supposed to act all the time, didn't. You have failed to provide a valid test that something that happened once in 4,500,000,000 years didn't. Why? Because the time & physical scales of Pasteurs "proof" is relevant to his experiment. Nothing you have shown meets this criteria.I might have placed a football in the Sahara Desert. What would you need to do in order to PROOVE that I didn't?1/ search a small area for 5 minutes? Or;2/ Search the entire desert.If you don't conduct a test of relevant proportions you show nothing.In order to PROVE something you must have 100% knowledge of all instances of what ever it is you are talking about. Clearly you don't posess this information, which makes your argument analogous to the football/scenario.This is why your following "proofs", aren't proofs at all. You do NOT possess 100% knowledge of what occurs today, let alone what occurred in a primeval sea 3.5bn years ago.

quote:

---

a) it is prooved that non-living things can't understand what they did by accident because an itelligence is missing.
b) it is prooved that if we want a non-living material to create something meaningful (for us) it is always needed an intelligence to create a program for this non-living thing so it can create something meaningful (for us).

​

Accident:
1. It is prooved by accident can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)]. (see 2)
2. It is prooved if there is created something meaningful by accident, only an existing intelligence or a program created by intelligence [which is able to understand such thing created by accident] (or something that uses such program) can use it or understand what it is.

​

Information:
1. It is prooved by information can be created something meaningless or meaningful [for existing intelligence (entity)] information, program. (see 2)
2. It is prooved the information can be created only by existing intelligence or by a program created by intelligece (or something that uses such program).

---

You have not scoured the earths entire history, & studied every molecular interaction that occurred in order to have PROVEN anything.GET IT!!!!!?????By claiming otherwise you are essentially searching the desert for a nanosecond for a football, don't find it, then claim it is PROVEN that it doesn't exist.As I've said countless times before, this is an argument of the form; because it isn't proven to be true, it is false. An argument from ignorance. Your argument is of this form, therefore it is an argument from ignorance, & therefore it is logically invalid.Sorry, you're only against the rest of the world on this one, not me.Mark

---

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