THE END OF EVOLUTION?

So in who's hand's do we put the children.
In Percy's, in Coyote's in Grannies. I'll take themEdited by LucyTheApe, : No reason given.

---

There no doubt exist natural laws, but once this fine reason of ours was corrupted, it corrupted everything. blz paskal

I think you should make your own choices about which messages to respond to. My only point is that when you respond to zero messages it makes it impossible to have a discussion.What we see is that every few days you pop back in, and with fair frequency it's with a post that doesn't respond to anything anybody said, often just asking the exact same question you posed in your opening post. People then take you back through the same evidence and arguments you just blew off, but eventually ending up with you just blowing everything off again by again asking your original question.It would be really, really nice if you stopped this pattern. When the discussion gets to the point where you're feeling the need to reset to the beginning, instead stick with it, ask questions, do research, whatever it takes.--Percy

Creation is just that, making of something when all knowledge about the creation is already known and available in a 'blue-print'. Creation is not design, not analysis and it is not about making improvement either. So creation may not require any more new information. As I see it, this is how cells replicate themselves -- they already possess all the 'information' required to create another structured information system, (replica's of themselves). If there are new information required, perhaps that is more to do with availability of essential resources and the timing, (like when to start the process of creation).'Information' is analogous to 'data' whereas 'structured information system' is analogous to function/process in a computer model. It is theoretically possible for a computer to accurately models a biological life-form, (excluding human) because every life-form is a static structured information system. Ignoring mutations for a moment, the 'functions' within such a biological system never change. Every life-form is 'pre-programmed' to behave exactly the same way, from one generation to the next. They cannot do more than what the "embedded codes" allow them to do. The probability of a micro-chip being formed on the beach by random chance may not be zero either. Thinking in terms of probability will only give us silly answers.I believe it is impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because doing so would be in conflict with the very word 'creation'. A cell only knows how to 'create' another cell. It does not know how to re-design its DNA structure; it does not perform analysis and it does not contain intelligence to improve its DNA. DNA already contain all the information needed for cells to simply create another copy of itself. It does not required new information on how to replicate. To say DNA develops gradually is to suggest that a cell can somehow performs analysis, designs then improves itself. Well, this is certainly not happening in the real world.It is also impossible for the first DNA to have developed gradually because 'functions' within an information system cannot change. Computers tell me 'functions' are complex entities that do not undergo gradual changes over time and a function change must be a spontaneous change, caused by an external entity. (Note. Although a function may contain data within itself, I choose to ignore this for simplicity and clarity. In any case results of the argument would be the same). I think this aspect is universal -- Not only it is true for computers, it must be true for lifeforms and any information system.As I have mentioned elsewhere, my contention is DNA's contain "embedded codes", information that guide the cells. A living organism is 'pre-programmed' and cannot do more than what it's pre-programmed to do. The "embedded codes" within DNA's are none other than 'data' and 'functions'. We know computers are non-analog. In fact the structure of DNA's suggests to me DNA may also be 'non-analog' -- Bits and pieces are located in fixed positions.An analog environment is what most people can relate to. For example, if getting from point A to B is difficult, then all we have to do is wriggle slowly and eventually we'll get there, right? It may be more tricky to think in non-analog terms, such as breaking up my route from point A to B into many 'steps', if it is found that any intermediate step is impossible to complete, then the entire trip is automatically a complete failure. In digital term, it may be pointless to claim the journey from A to B is 80% successful. What matters in a logical sense in a digital world is -- I never made it to point B.If someone chooses to regard anything greater that 50% as being TRUE then that's another thing. That is not what I'm about here.What I'm alluding to is that thinking in terms of probability in an analog sense is misleading when a scenario cannot possibly be an analog one. If the structure of DNA's does not permit gradual change, then thinking in terms of percentage probability of its formation becomes misleading and is invalid. The equation is a logical True/False, not a function of change over time.Asserting that a micro-chip or DNA can be formed by random chance, (no matter how long it takes) just because a non-zero probability is mathematically derived 'from an analog viewpoint', is simply ridiculus and false. It leads to a false thinking that if something is extremely unlikely to happen, then all that is needed is another ten millions years.I think it is far more correct to think in terms of a 'quantum gap'. I borrow the word from 'Quantum Theory' that tells us electrons orbit around atomic nuclei in shells and sub-shells. To move to the next outer shell, an electron must absorb a certain amount of energy. If it does not absorb suffcient energy, it simply does not move to the next shell. There is no such thing as moving incrementally and gradually -- It either jumps the gap or stay where it is. This is in fact a non-analog behaviour.In theory, whether a function/process change can occur in nature can be assessed by existence of a 'quantum gap' also. If such a 'quantum gap' exist, then it is totally impossible for a spontaneous change to occur in nature. It is not a question of whether the population size is large enough, or whether we allow another 10 million years. Then I shall simply say existence of a 'quantum gap' would prove that random mutations cannot possibly drive evolutionary process that leads to creation of new DNA's. Not correct. I referred to eating citrate as a 'data' change, not a 'function' change.
I actually believe many E.coli had experienced mutations that had caused them to try eating things that they were not supposed to eat, or eating 'food' that did not exist, and as a result those E.coli had died.
All changes of these nature can be eventually traced to be data-related change, not function-related, I'm sure. I'm fairly close to software engineering.
I'm sure those E.coli mutations are of data-related change, not function-related. I'm sure natural selection is only a filtering process that is useless for evolution of new species. It needs not be speculation at all. You can start with E.coli, a highly mutational bacteria that took approximately 20 years to achieve a two-gene mutations, (that allow some to eat citrate).
I'm sure the verdict will be that an astronomical number of mutations will be needed to explain life on earth today. It is impossible. You're just saying that. That'd never happen in any case.
I don't believe you at all -- If the unthinkable happens, then evolutionists will be more than eager to adjust the theory to latch onto the new finding and claim a win for evolution. Formation of water from its elements releases energy, but formation of DNA structure requires energy.
You don't seem to know what you're talking about, Coragyps.

Enthalpy is not entropy, pcver.

quote:

---

Enthalpy is not entropy, pcver.

---

You're still missing the point.
Let's forget about the amount of energy involved for a moment...Random formation of DNA structure is more analogous to water molecules splitting into hydrogen and oxygen by random chance, (not the other way around like you said).
And of course that would violate the 2LoT.Edited by pcver, : No reason given.

Water molecules do exactly that every time if you put them in the photosphere of a hottish star, and don't violate the 2LoT even a little bit. Enthalpy /= entropy, and it's Gibbs' free energy that you're looking for to determine if a reaction is spontaneous, anyway. It involves both.

Hi Pcver,Picking out just a couple representative sentences Your post is just fantasy and semantic word games. There's nothing of substance I can reply to. You could have addressed the topic by building an argument in terms of 2LOT or information theory, but what you're describing isn't either one. 2LOT and information theory already have definitions that have been scientifically validated against reality over many years. You're just making up your own definitions and exercising your imagination.--Percy

I'm one that would look to the contents of a person's argument for his credentials. That said, I'm going to break my rule of thumb there and must ask for your credential in regard to physics and chemistry. What do you have to show to us for us to take your very unsubstantiated word for it?

I've never contradicted that, have I?My point was that you used the wrong analogy (water formation) to compare with DNA formation in the first place.
You seem to have a habit of twisting and expanding the context of an argument, a bit at a time. So now you introduce yet another foreign entity -- A hottish star.
This is not very helpful. What are you on about? Formation of water molecules or splitting of water molecules? They are complete opposites.
I don't know what's the point of drifting away from the crux of an argument the way you do. No credential really, other than being a logical thinker. You don't have to take my words for it either.
I'm not interested to win a debate. I'm interested in the truth. (So by inference you know I regard evolution theory as untruth)
If you proposition an idea that I agree with logically, then I'd simply do the logical thing -- Accept your idea.

Evolutionary theory, indeed any scientific theory, does not claim to be truth, Truth, TRUTH, or even TRVTH.Theories are simply the current best explanations for a given set of facts.But by your comment here, you have shown that you are following religious belief, TRVTH, based on such things as scripture and "divine" revelation, instead of scientific theory, based on facts and well-tested theories.One is based on empirical evidence and replication, the other is ultimately based on someone, somewhere, saying "Trust me!"And you fell for it.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Ok, if that's how you want to play it.I also don't want to show you any of my credential. I'm simply a logical thinker. I'm simply interested in the truth. And the truth is you're full of shit, jesus was a cock sucker (he was fishing for men for goodness sakes), and christianity is an evil that must be wiped of the face of the earth.See? I can bullshit just as much as you can. You still want to go down this route or do you actually want to put some substance forward?

From what I best remember, you have cursed all human effort to understand the universe and through such knowledge feed the poor, heal the sick, and bring peace. It is the habit of knowing how mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology, and biology are all mutually supportive, how if one falls to neo-medievalism (or should that be more properly referred to as barbarism, given the desire to destroy both classical and now modern knowledge based upon observation) all fall and billions die unnecessarily. I find it rather fascinating that one would claim to know more about chemistry due to supposedly being a 'logical thinker' than someone with a PhD who has made their living off their expertise in the subject for several decades. Did it ever occur to you that you may actually be in 'over your head?' Such a condition is curable, it is called education. Be it a junior college or a university, or perhaps even that AP high school class, that first semester of chemistry will educate you as to the difference between entropy and enthalpy.As to being an impartial observer of evidence, perhaps you need to review the meaning of what the terms impartial, evidence, and logical actually mean. Edited by anglagard, : last sentence next to last paragraph, also add what in last sentence.Edited by anglagard, : add in to precede over your headEdited by anglagard, : edit what is in parentheses for clarityEdited by anglagard, : entropy/enthalpy sentence

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Hi pcver,Percy is correct, you provide little of substance to respond to, but I'll give it a go.

quote:

---

I'm fairly close to software engineering.
I'm sure those E.coli mutations are of data-related change, not function-related.

---

Jeez, what is it with engineers and programmers?If you think that you can just take your computing expertise and apply it straight to biology, you are very wrong. Evolution is not computing. The two have little in common.If you really want to understand what is being said here, you need to take off your computer scientist's hat and try and approach the biology on its own terms.The point about Lenski's E.coli is that they demonstrated the ability to evolve a new trait, despite creationist protestations about the supposed impossibility of such a feat. They did exactly what you have been claiming was impossible. If you are honestly approaching the evidence, as you claim you are, then you ought to admit that this is the case.

quote:

---

I'm sure natural selection is only a filtering process that is useless for evolution of new species.

---

Wow. You contradicted yourself within a single sentence. Nice.Suffice to say that whilst "filtering process" is not the best description of natural selection, it does make it very far from being "useless". NS sorts the mutational wheat from the chaff, leaving the overall process of evolution very far from random.

quote:

---

It needs not be speculation at all. You can start with E.coli, a highly mutational bacteria that took approximately 20 years to achieve a two-gene mutations, (that allow some to eat citrate).
I'm sure the verdict will be that an astronomical number of mutations will be needed to explain life on earth today. It is impossible.

---

And I think it's just fine.See how useless uniformed opinion is? The only way that this line of reasoning is going to be fruitful is if you get up off your ass and put in the necessary effort to actually research the subject and write your program. Speculating about it is merely mental masturbation.You don't get to declare something impossible by mulling a few half-baked ideas around in your head. You have to actually put in some effort. Evolution is supported by countless lines of evidence in multiple fields of scientific study. It has passed rigorous tests and has never been contradicted by observation. You don't get to declare it impossible just because you made a couple of uninformed guesstimates on the back of an envelope. Sorry.

quote:

---

You're just saying that. That'd never happen in any case.

---

I'm not just saying it. If a simple organism like E.coli were to develop a complex brain capable of higher function within the scope of a short-term lab experiment, it would turn the ToE upside-down.It's never happened. Know why? Because the ToE is correct. That also explains why other evolution-busting observations, such as Haldane's Cambrian rabbits, have never been observed; they're not there. They're not there because the ToE is correct. Don't you think that, if this were not the case, then over the past 150 years some contradictory evidence would have surfaced?

quote:

---

I don't believe you at all -- If the unthinkable happens, then evolutionists will be more than eager to adjust the theory to latch onto the new finding and claim a win for evolution.

---

Conspiracy theory time is it? Yay! Tinfoil hats all round!Mutate and Survive

---

"The Bible is like a person, and if you torture it long enough, you can get it to say almost anything you'd like it to say." -- Rev. Dr. Francis H. Wade

Hey wait a minute! My first degree is in geological engineering.Then again, perhaps my support of the physical and life sciences is in the name.Maybe it is the 'geo' or maybe it is the 'logical' that prevents such foolishness in that discipline.

---

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis BaconThe more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza

Wow, never heard of geological engineering. Sounds interesting.I have a computer & information science degree yet fully embrace evolution and natural selection as the underpinnings of modern biological science. Not all of us computer scientists are IDers and creationists . Of course I also branched out and took some biology, chemistry, and other related science courses so I have a wee bit of knowledge in those areas as well (enough to get me in trouble).

---

For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
Dr. Carl Sagan