What is Life?

My position which you even quoted was:

quote:

---

That what we see can be explained without the necessity of some critter meddling and no evidence of even a model for how the meddler might intervene.

---

Granted that only says that there is no need for the meddler. That therefore there is no need to consider the meddler is not an opinion I think, but rather a conclusion from the evidence that does exist.And to address the issue of "What is life", as I pointed out back in Message 7, I can't say for sure.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Suppose I go on a random walk, making a random choice at each step. You happen to be watching, though you are unaware that I am making random choices. If you describe my walk, you will very likely describe it as directional.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Sure but it would only be a best guess as I have no concrete evidence as to whether it is random or carefully planned.Yes, I believe in guided evolution, or at least designed evolution, but I'm not arguing for that. I agree that is just my opinion but so is the view that there is no design or guidance in the evolutionary process.

IF the probability that a mutation adds to the genome is exactly the same as the probability that a mutation removes part of the genome, then there will be no directionality.However, evolutionists believe that it is more likely that a mutation will add to the genome which gradually results in more information in the genome. Creationists believe that it is more likely that a mutation will remove part of the genome which gradually results in less information in the genome.

No. Evolutionists believe that mutations that add information to the genome are no more or less likely than mutations that remove information from the genome. Evolutionists also believe in natural selection, which tends to preserve those additions or subtractions that are advantageous to the organism.This has resulted in some organisms gaining information in their genomes over time, and some organisms losing information in their genomes.

You keep making that assertion yet have never provided any support for that silly assertion. Even if they do think that, it is something that is demonstrably refuted.The idea that there was some super genome that has been degraded over time, in addition to just being really really silly, has been refuted time after time.As a beginning look at the thread Looking for the Super-Genome. -And it ain't found.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The Mutation Problem: The Mutation Problem

Hi, GDR. You've subtly changed "directional" to "directed." As Jar explained upthread, "directional" refers to a sustained direction of change in evolutionary lineages. This we can clearly rule out.Consider stick insects (a.k.a. phasmids; order Phasmatodea). Primitive insects evolved wings, and basal phasmids retained wings. Some lineages of phasmids, however, lost them. Then, some members of these wingless lineages re-evolved wings.Such back-and-forth dynamics in the "direction" of evolution is exactly what we mean by "lack of directionality."

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi BluejayYou're right in that the subject changed. The original post that I was referring to was this in jar's post 191.

quote:

---

First, evolution is simply change over time.

​

Second, it is NOT directed.

​

Third there is no directionality.

​

Fourth, what we see is simply what has succeeded.

---

My argument was with his second point. As far as directionality is concerned then if that is what jar meant then I am fine with that.Edited by GDR, : No reason given.

I see mostly assertions, with a lack of supporting argument. It seems to depend on dubious assumptions.If you think you can support those claims, then start a new thread.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie

Please see Message 226 where I point out that that is NOT an opinion but rather a conclusion.

quote:

---

My only point is that you made a statement that was intended to be read as fact for which you have no evidence and is strictly your opinion.

​

My position which you even quoted was:

​

quote:

---

That what we see can be explained without the necessity of some critter meddling and no evidence of even a model for how the meddler might intervene.

---

​

Granted that only says that there is no need for the meddler. That therefore there is no need to consider the meddler is not an opinion I think, but rather a conclusion from the evidence that does exist.

​

And to address the issue of "What is life", as I pointed out back in Message 7, I can't say for sure.

---

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Unless the environment is conducive to one direction or another...When life first emerged, there were all kinds of niches for it to evolve into that allowed for the complexity to increase. If the environment becomes hostile and a whole lot of species go extinct, then there will be a decrease in the amount of complexity.Its all about the environment in determining which direction will happen. It doesn't have anything to do with the probaility of a mutation adding to the genome. No, they don't.Natural Selection drives the amount of information.

If you can refute any of the information from this paper, please by all means do so. In fact the author invites you to correct any wrong information and send it to him at the beginning of his paper. No need to start a new thread. Go over to the "Problems with evolution" thread and refute it over there if you want to.The Mutation Problem: The Mutation Problem

http://www.wedonotdebatewithlinks.com

It isn't a paper; it's a web page.I'm having trouble finding information in that web page. There's a lot of fluff, but little meat.As New Cat's Eye indicated, we can't debate links.

---

Jesus was a liberal hippie