Darwin's theory

Capt'n Midnight

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

J C wrote:

genetic information is observed to be perfect

Can you explain what the bit I've bolded means exactly please?

I'm guessing he's trying to say that genetic diseases are incredibly rare and that it would be impossible to produce phylogenetic trees or somesuch.

SaveOurLyric

ScumLord wrote: »

You're ........... It's just a natural process.

Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

One can ... and they're called Old Earth Creationists.

Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?

Almost. We are apes. We evolved from an almost-but-not-quite ape that was almost indistinguishable from Homo sapiens. We're still doing it. We are the direct antecedents of some home futurus, that is yet to, but will inevitable appear. They'll be apes too. For a long while. Until our graveyards have become fossil beds and some strange creature of the future will inevitably be having a conversation similar to this one. 'What? We evolved from those weird two legged whatchamacallits? Seriously?!?'.

endacl

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.

Only if your understanding requires a creator. Which is actually immaterial in the context of whether or not species evoke by natural selection and give rise to subsequent iterations of almost-the-same-yet-subtly-different.

Personal belief in a prime mover really doesn't matter. Complications arise when people try to find a god-shaped hole in the narrative. There isn't one.

Knasher

J C wrote: »

It isn't ... genetic information is observed to be perfect or almost perfect ... and it is degraded rapidly if any changes are made to it.
Its like all other CFSI ... for example the CFSI in a computer programme. If random changes are made to the source code improvements don't occur ... but instead it rapidly degrades functionality ... to the point of catastrophic failure.

Actually genetic algorithms (which include mutation) in computer programs are a very well established part of artificial intelligence. Used for things as diverse as designed antenna for space craft to scheduling in college timetables. The success of this field is an irrefutable support of the fundamental ideas behind evolution.

SaveOurLyric

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. It is. But to understand this you would need to understand what is "compelling" in science. .............chop such rhetoric off at the knees.

Great explanation.

So if I have it correct :

• The universe is 14bn years old. The earth 4.5bn.
• No one has any tested provable theory yet why the universe is, or came to be at that time.
• We are just an complex chemical organism that evolved over millions of years. And that doesnt require any belief, but simply observation and conclusions which can be validated and tested without contradiction.
• We have no evidence for any god as described by any of the world's religions.
• The best explanation for religions is as the folktales of ignorant people from about the last 10000 years where fiction filled a knowledge vacuum albeit satisfying the same thirst for knowledge and understanding as modern science.
• Evolutionary development has given us a psychological predisposition to believing such stories despite all evidence to the contrary, and an otherwise educated, sane, and reasoned ability to handle other matters in life
• A sound explanation of homosexuality is unknown today.
• With no good theories explaining it as a beneficial evolutionary characteristic, or a learned societal behaviour, the leading candidate explanation for it is as genetic disorder.

J C

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Aren't they the ones who are on the money then. All the evidence is that the universe is 14bn years old. So before that it wasnt created. So it was created at the point. So old Earth creationism is the right answer.

It has positives and negatives, philosophically speaking.
They're in line with the evolutionists on the age of the Universe ... but they have no real explanation for why it took God billions of years to Create ... or why He said that it only took six days in Genesis.:)

... and all the evidence isn't that the Universe is 14 bn years old.

Capt'n Midnight

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Thanks. I think I follow that bit now. So we are just one strand of a line that evolved from some ape like animal that now longer exists ?

Creationists believe that the world's population was descended from a single family.

And that such a bottleneck happened again later on.

And there weren't any problems with recessive genes or marrying your cousin.

Doctor Jimbob

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Creationists believe that the world's population was descended from a single family.

And that such a bottleneck happened again later on.

And there weren't any problems with recessive genes or marrying your cousin.

All this while claiming that genetic material can only degrade as it is CFSI (whatever the feck that means) without seeing the obvious contradiction.

Knasher

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

(whatever the feck that means)

I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india. However as that doesn't make any sense, I took a guess from the context and I think it means coding for specific information. Which seems to fit.

It would be nice if he refrained form making up random acrynoms though, or IWBNIHRFMURA as it will be known from now on.

J C

Pherekydes wrote: »

The fittest arrived by surviving. Obvious, no?

No ... the question is how 'the fittest' arrived i.e. came to be, in the first place.
NS is quite good at selecting out 'un-fit' organisms that result from mutations and other injuries ... but it doesn't explain how the perfect or almost perfect organisms we observe came to be.

Pherekydes wrote: »

The job of a lawyer is not to establish the truth, but to win the argument. He is not a geologist or a biologist. He attempts to win the argument (about ID) by the twisting of words and their meanings. He says so himself. He is nothing more than a sophist.

It is Human Nature to want to win arguments. This tendency occurs across all disciplines.
Lawyers have a 'nose' for the truth ... and they are trained to follow lines of questioning that establish the truth.

kingchess

J C wrote: »

It is Human Nature to want to win arguments. This tendency occurs across all disciplines.
Lawyers have a 'nose' for the truth ... and they are trained to follow lines of questioning that establish the truth.

Maybe he should use his intellect to come up with one interpretation of the bible that every one could agree to-and they would be no need for all the many different sects that make up christianity:D:D:D:D

J C

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Creationists believe that the world's population was descended from a single family.

And that such a bottleneck happened again later on.

And there weren't any problems with recessive genes or marrying your cousin.

Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

J C

Knasher wrote: »

I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india. However as that doesn't make any sense, I took a guess from the context and I think it means coding for specific information. Which seems to fit.

It would be nice if he refrained form making up random acrynoms though, or IWBNIHRFMURA as it will be known from now on.

Do you also have a problem with DNA, USA, RNA or IMO, AKA?

Acronyms are useful ... but I apologize if you didn't understand what the acronym CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) means.

Knasher wrote: »

I had to google it and wikipedia lists it as the childrens film society, india.

Goes to prove that Google isn't omniscient.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

An ancestor which would not have been far enough removed from the rest of it's species as to be unable to breed with them.

PopePalpatine

They have a nose to find the evidence to support their case. I doubt lawyers representing war criminals before a war crimes tribunal care much about the truth.

Knasher

J C wrote: »

Do you also have a problem with DNA, USA, RNA or IMO, AKA?

Acronyms are useful ... but I apologize if you didn't understand what the acronym CFSI (Complex Functional Specified Information) means.

Acronyms are only useful if there is a good expectation that everyone present will understand it. I googled that term, and apparently it is one used by people trying to promote Intelligent Design. Hardly surprising it isn't in the common parlance.

J C

Knasher wrote: »

Actually genetic algorithms (which include mutation) in computer programs are a very well established part of artificial intelligence. Used for things as diverse as designed antenna for space craft to scheduling in college timetables. The success of this field is an irrefutable support of the fundamental ideas behind evolution.

Such algorithms are intelligently designed themselves ... they operate on intelligently designed computers ... so whatever else they do ... they certainly don't disprove intelligent design.
... indeed they are a critical part of artificially created intelligence.

Knasher

J C wrote: »

Its not just Creationists who say this ... Evolutionists also believe "that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor."
http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm

Those are two very different things, creationists believe that the entire population of the earth was reduced to a single family. The existence of a mitochondrial Eve means no such thing.

Knasher

J C wrote: »

Such algorithms are intelligently designed themselves ... they operate on intelligently designed computers ... so whatever else they do ... they certainly don't disprove intelligent design.
... indeed they are a critical part of artificially created intelligence.

The idea that things can be designed intelligently is very different from the creationist movement that was re-branded as the intelligent design movement in order to try and circumvent the court cases they lost in America.

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Such algorithms are intelligently designed themselves ... they operate on intelligently designed computers ... so whatever else they do ... they certainly don't disprove intelligent design.
... indeed they are a critical part of artificially created intelligence.

You have absolutely no basis for equating computer code and genetic information, you're only doing so because it suits your argument.

It would be like comparing wood and metal because you can make chairs out of both of them.

J C

PopePalpatine wrote: »

They have a nose to find the evidence to support their case. I doubt lawyers representing war criminals before a war crimes tribunal care much about the truth.

They're duty bound to not mislead the court and therefore the truth matters to them.

They may argue mitigating circumstances or against aggravating circumstances on behalf of their client ... but they don't tell lies.

J C

Knasher wrote: »

Those are two very different things, creationists believe that the entire population of the earth was reduced to a single family. The existence of a mitochondrial Eve means no such thing.

She isn't called Mitochondrial Eve for nothing!!!
... everybody is descended from her.
... and all men are descended from Y-Chromosome Adam as well.:eek::pac:

Quote :-
"Theoretically, it is not necessary to believe that Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve should have lived at the same time. However, more recent findings (2013) suggest the possibility that the two individuals may well have been contemporaneous."

It just gets better and better for Creationism ... as science gets ever-closer to the truth!!

endacl

J C wrote: »

They're duty bound to not mislead the court and therefore the truth matters to them.

They may argue mitigating circumstances or against aggravating circumstances on behalf of their client ... but they don't tell lies.

So we've to break through a profound naivety as well?!?

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

You have absolutely no basis for equating computer code and genetic information, you're only doing so because it suits your argument.

It would be like comparing wood and metal because you can make chairs out of both of them.

Computer code and genetic information are both examples of Complex Functional Specified Information ... and where the author of such information is established it is found to be intelligent.:)

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Computer code and genetic information are both examples of Complex Functional Specified Information ... and where the author of such information is established it is found to be intelligent.:)

And wood and metal are both materials chairs can be made from (MCMF). That doesn't mean they have similar properties or come from a similar source.

Edit: So your equating of genetic material and computer code is akin to someone saying - chairs can be made out of wood or metal. Wood is biological. Therefore, metal must be biological.

J C

endacl wrote: »

So we've to break through a profound naivety as well?!?

Guys ... your worldview is imploding ... and ye want to argue over the probity of officers of the courts????:pac:

cognitive dissonance ... or what? :eek:

J C

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

And wood and metal are both materials chairs can be made from (MCMF). That doesn't mean they have similar properties or come from a similar source.

Edit: So your equating of genetic material and computer code is akin to someone saying - chairs can be made out of wood or metal. Wood is biological. Therefore, metal must be biological.

Wood and metal have nothing to do with information ... so your point is mute.:pac:

Doctor Jimbob

J C wrote: »

Guys ... your worldview is imploding ... and ye want to argue over the probity of officers of the courts????:pac:

cognitive dissonance ... or what? :eek:

The only thing that would change about my 'worldview' if current evolutionary theory was proven wrong would be the fact that there's suddenly a whole lot of new research to be done in my field. Definitely not a bad thing from my point of view.

The thing is, there's all that pesky evidence getting in the way of such a thing happening