PROOF against evolution

I understand. You are right that you don't need to prove it to me but you do need to show in what way it is a proof if you expect anyone to actually agree with you. None of this shows that the facts I was trying to convince you of were false and my statements therefore demagoguery. In terms of proof being evidence in support of a hypothesis? A result of a suitably well designed and executed experiment would be proof (as in evidence) in favour of or against a specific hypothesis. You might as well stop saying this, I promise that we will all take it as read that any post of yours is bound to accuse whoever you are debating with of demagogy. Except that the bit that I said stopped at the point where you got to '->' the hypothesis you then suggested the experiment supported was entirely your own, and not one which the experiment would actually offer support, let alone proof, for. No, I am not saying that evolution is nonsense. None of your 'definitions' are proved, all they are is asserted. Still not true all I said was that 'A result of experiment with a computer is not a proof but it offers very strong support for a specific hypothesis.' The hypothesis that it supports is one I clearly stated, that the computer will not perform a specific operation without human intervention, it is ''intelligence' needed when life was created'. That is a ludicrously illogical leap in reasoning.TTFN,WK

yxifix -I haven't forgotten these processes that YOU (not I) brought up. I haven't answered these questions: 1) because they do not apply to a discussion of the origin of life and information, and 2) because any argument, out of scientific evidence or logic will be met with the following reply: So I see little point in debating "the origin of tissues" point.You should really start arguing in good faith, and try to be less adversarial - this would be a potentially interesting debate if you weren't so reactionary and rude. First of all, I didn't say that. I was simply giving you a framework of scientific evidence.Also, given the nature of scientific inquiry, you do NOT test the hypothesis "intelligence was needed to provide the information at the beginning of life" by doing an experiment that gives the negative result, "lack of intelligence on a small scale in a non-biochemical environment created no information". The experiment/result does not test/support your hypothesis on multiple points.More importantly, your computer experiment is imaginary, even if it was done it would not be on the scale necessary (billions of computers for a billion years), and has absolutely no bearing on self-replicating biochemical molecules.Also why don't you address the possibility of information originating in your computer experiment:I could give you a way for your fantasy computer experiment to fail: An electromagnetic disturbance scrambles the hard drive, accidentally producing binary code that codes for a small computer virus. It replicates, filling the hard drive. Voila! Information!Even if you computer experiment was scientifically correct (it is not), one experiment does not "prove" a hypothesis.I am now stating at least for the third time: If you refuse to defend your assertions and arguments with evidence, you are simply revealing that you have no foundation for them and that they are merely your opinion.If you do not provide answers actually addressing the above points, (rather than rehashing old faulty messages), we can only assume you are practicing demagogy.

quote:

---

Once again the origin of the computer and the running of a evolutionary algorithm are being confused. At least I think so.
Please clarify that before you all continue.

---

Point 1: Computers are allowable as a model for natural phenomena. We model planetary orbits, nuclear reactions, and other physical phenomena on computers but yet they are still thought of as natural. Therefore, being able to model evolution and abiogenesis on a computer in no way indicates that a process is intelligently designed.Point 2: The experiment with the software controlled circuit gates was actually looking for the production of an oscillating signal. Theefore, the first random combination of transistors and other electronic parts that produce anything close to an oscillating signal was kept because of the selection process. This is analogous to the natural production of an accidental combination of chemicals that produced the first imperfect replicator.Point 3: Subsequent selection on the circuit improved function to the point that an oscillating signal was produced without the intervention of an intelligence. Instead, just as in evolution, random changes produced either a better or a worse condition and only the better conditions were kept. Therefore, evolutionary algorithms are able to increase functionality and information through accidental production of both functionality and information.Point 4: No human could have predicted the circuit arrangement at the end of the experiment. In fact, it was quite a surprise that the circuit was leeching an oscillating signal from a nearby computer. If the circuit were intelligently designed then nothing should have been a surprise, and each step would have been guided by the intelligence of man instead of an unintelligent algorithm.

Yxifix quotes in a previous message: Emphasis mine... Implication should be obvious...

yxifix, NEWSFLASH: Words can have more than one meaning.Equivocation - Use language to avoid committing oneself. NEWSFLASH: Words can have more than one meaning.Fact - A thing that is indisputably the case.I understand English isn't your first language, but given words have more than one meaning you may not want to flaunt your ignorance by trying to be a smart arse. How is that comment relevant to my quote, above? Evolution isn't mentioned. What a pointless effort. If you have nothing to say, then say nothing. Grow up, for Christ' sake.There is no such thing as a demagogic question. BY YOUR OWN DEFINITION IT IS IMPOSSIBLE. In order to be guilty of demagoguery any given statement has to seek to convince of a false fact. A question cannot do this, so it isn't "demagogic".Please answer rationally.Your quotations: But it doesn't meet your definition of "demagog". So why is it demagoguic? It is not the same thing at all!For fucks sake, what is WRONG with you?!A question & a statement are entirely different grammatical entities, you're not even close to an analogy.In order to commit demagoguery I have to try to convince you of a false fact, you called my question demagogic. Given that it cannot by definition furnish you with a fact, false or otherwise, then there is no way that the question can be demagogic. It is impossible. There is not a TRUE or FALSE outcome. It CANNOT be demagogic because it didn't provide any false fact. At long last, the wait is over!Did you, or did you not, claim abiogenesis (with it's creation of information) was impossible because an experiment was conducted in several sterile flasks & bacteria failed to appear in a few weeks?&Do you accept that if two lines of reasoning, when applied to different scenarios come up with different outcomes, then that reasoning is suspect?This is demagoguery, as per your example, right?MarkThis message has been edited by mark24, 08-18-2004 12:49 PM

---

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

My own opinion is that yxifix is being evasive, abusive and inflammatory. I think these Forum Guidelines are being violated: But I think moderator action might run the risk of making yxifix's volatile behavior just more so. Moderator intervention for his boorish behavior might cause him to abandon the thread, or it could blow up into moderator abuse with ensuing suspension. Resigning ourselves to the long haul while deciding to just endure and ignore the abuse is my own guess as to what will produce the best outcome.Added by edit: I'm only commenting on yxifix's behavior so far. If his behavior worsens, if, for example, he blows up a la WillowTree, moderator action would make more sense.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 08-18-2004 02:34 PM

Hi Percy, I understand that as admin you have a difficult job to juggle. But as you've said yourself, a metric you use is the, "more heat than light", measure.If someone is being deliberately evasive, abusive, & inflammatory, then what's the loss?Mark This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-19-2004 12:54 AM

---

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

Hi, Vxifix!RNA actually plays a different role within the cell than what you've described. The code of life is contained in DNA. RNA is not an alternate copy of DNA, but only a means by which the DNA code is translated into proteins. The cell is a factory for churning out proteins, and the factory works like this.First, a copy of the DNA code for a gene is constructed of RNA. This is called messenger RNA.Next, the messenger RNA goes to a construction shop called the ribosome where small building blocks provided by transfer RNA are combined to form proteins.The process is actually more complex than this, and perhaps some of the biologists here can elaborate if they think it would be helpful or useful, or if my explanation needs some correction since I'm not a biologist. But the important point is that the code for proteins is in the DNA, and it is not mirrored in the RNA. A DNA mutation does not need an equivalent RNA mutation in order to have an effect. Just as a phonograph needle will faithfully trace all the wiggles in the track of a record to produce sound, RNA will faithfully follow the instructions in the DNA code to construct a protein. You don't need a new needle for each new record, and you don't need new RNA for each DNA mutation.You don't have to read textbooks to understand that this is so, because even genetic engineering articles in the popular press make it clear that it is only necessary to insert the DNA segment in the cell's genome to change cell behavior. Once the new DNA segment is installed, the RNA machinery takes over to produce proteins from the altered DNA.Once the protein gets out into the organism's body, what happens is anyone's guess. The individual with the mutation plays out its life as best it can. If the mutation is helpful then the individual will probably survive and reproduce, and the new allele caused by the mutation will become part of the population's gene pool. If the mutation is sufficiently harmful, the individual will not survive and reproduce, and the mutation will die with the organism.Evolution proceeds one small step at a time, each step causing at most an imperceptible change. But over time the changes can accumulate to bring about profound differences.--Percy

quote:

---

But I think moderator action might run the risk of making yxifix's volatile behavior just more so. Moderator intervention for his boorish behavior might cause him to abandon the thread, or it could blow up into moderator abuse with ensuing suspension. Resigning ourselves to the long haul while deciding to just endure and ignore the abuse is my own guess as to what will produce the best outcome.

---

Why bother discussing moderator behaviour at all, as the alleged moderators are quite willing to turn a blind eye to rampant racism? It would be grossly hypocritical to censor yxifix's behaviour when overt racists who show absolutely no respect for others are openly welcomed.

Sure... Explained in the message in different forum (at the bottom).

Ok, mark, enough.Sometimes I have a feeling you are saying "Kick me, kick me... and kick me once again!".I have decided to stop discussions like this. You can think whatever you like, I don't care anymore. From now on I'm going to discuss only things which I'm interested in.
Discussion with you is just waste of my time. I'll simply ignore anybody who likes to uses demagogy or equivocations...

Of course, you are right, Percy. I have to make correction to my example:DNA for blue color of eyes looks like this (each line for just one amino acid):G C G ...0001 0100 0001 -> A
C C A ...0100 0100 1000 -> C
G A T ...0001 1000 0010 -> B
T C A ...0010 0100 1000 -> F
G C G ...0001 0100 0001 -> A
T G A ...0010 0001 1000 -> D
G T G ...0001 0010 0001 -> E
G C G ...0001 0100 0001 -> A
T C A ...0010 0100 1000 -> F
G A C ...0001 1000 0100 -> B
A A T ...1000 1000 0010 -> HThis is very simple example (letters are not correct), in real there should be at least 100 lines or even much more to create such 'program' for some proteins!But now we are talking about eye color - the problem is that at the same time it has to be an existing eye there otherwise (hypothetic) 'mutations' won't take effect... Another problem is, the code for all stuff can't develop 'naturally' at the same time, a code must be complete (and now please imagine how an eye is very complex), DNA code can't develop itself by accidents. And another problem is that if there is no vision the 'organism' doesn't have a need to develop something like that.This is how each program works. You must agree with all of this points, or you must have an explanation for this.
I'm affraid but common answer "mutations somehow accumulated themselves" surely is not enough.Of course you could say that today's eye was not that complex before but it really doesn't matter.... the same applies to 'fish fin->small leg' example or just imagine lungs... there is absolutely no way a fish could create 'something' that is needed to breath 'outside'. And these are just examples... as you can see all parts needed to stay alive on the air must be generated at the same time.Other thing - a fish is and always will be just a fish. If all of you (evolutionists) are saying about what is natural, than surely it is very natural for a fish to live in the sea. It's all in genes (you must know it!), fish wants to be just a fish.
Have you ever wonder how it would be great and useful to know how to fly? If there is any human with wings, would you want to 'reproduce' with her? Would you consider it as "the fittest wins"? No. Everything is in genes. Human always will be human. And human with wings finishes in a lab or naturally dies. ....and that is natural.

yxifix, Hey, it's OK, the results of my experiment are in. I took 100 sterilised flasks, & kept them locked away for two weeks. Guess what, in not a single flask did any god create life! I've disproved that God created life!Would you like to co-author the paper with me? You should get some credit. Since all along you have used illogic to support a false conclusion, the only demagogue is you.Toodles,Mark

---

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

And now good night.

why do people say that when they clearly don't mean it?