Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Variation
The evidence is that variation has always been there in the gene pools of all living things. Anything that has function is not there by chance, not the produce of randomness.

The mutations we see are a break down in the information process, that would be from order toward randomness. Nature cannot move from randomness toward order without purpose.

The production of mutations is an increase of information which the laws of physics says is not possible in a closed system, a cell is a closed system. Sun rays only provides heat and that can only increase entropy, it can not reverse it.

--Dave

Yes Dave genetic variation is in the gene pool because it is constantly changing, not because it is static.

We have already demonstrated how previously random events can serve a purpose for other things/events. You do not study nature much do you, Dave?

 

[DFT_Dave]

You are a moron. That is not ad hominem, because it is true. And it effects the quality of your contributions. When we point out the lack of quality in your contributions, you simply ignore the criticism. So that only leaves one to surmise that you are a moron.

Intelligence has a new measuring stick, belief in evolution.

Anyone who is not a follower is a moron, or is it that anyone who disagrees with you is one?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

No Dave, it means you cannot falsify nature. We simply discover how nature proceeds by using the empiricism of science. Would you like to falsify nature, Dave?

You do not seem to want to falsify nature when it does not conflict with your literal interpretation of Genesis. We know that the universe is stochastic (both random and non-random elements) in areas other than origins, but it does not bother you in those areas. You do not bring up the "problem" with those disciplines.

Do you think the universe should either be completely random or completely non random and that any middle ground is not acceptable?

I would rather call random acts non intelligent ones and non random ones the act of intelligence.

You want nature to be both intelligent and not intelligent.

Moron!!!

--Dave

 

[noguru]

I would rather call random acts non intelligent ones and non random ones the act of intelligence.

You want nature to be both intelligent and not intelligent.

Moron!!!

--Dave

It does not matter what you would "rather" call something. Your subjective perspective may or may not be an accurate view of the objective reality compared to another view. That is why we must use empirical testing to verify any claim. Otherwise some charlatan like you could go around convincing gullible people that he has uprooted all of science.

We already know that nature is both intelligent and unintelligent. When it comes to life forms there is a gradient along that line. Some organisms are definitely less intelligent than others. Are you unwilling to accept that some things are more intelligent than others?

 

[noguru]

Intelligence has a new measuring stick, belief in evolution.

Anyone who is not a follower is a moron, or is it that anyone who disagrees with you is one?

--Dave

No, it is not the objection itself that makes you a moron. It is the fact that you must ignore a vast amount of empirical evidence in order to maintain your objection that makes you a moron.

I do think that such mental gyrations on your part are a form of intelligence, a kind of intelligence that is an academic exercise in futility. Though the ultimate result of those gyrations is that you do not face reality squarely and with courage. You are trying to prove how clever you are with misdirection and misrepresentation, rather than just being astute in your observations of nature.

I have met many people like you in my life. They are moderately successful and happy in the short term. But in the long term it is a failed strategy. Hence my reason for seeing your smile as the thin veneer of a facade. A facade that you try to use to cover your contempt for nature and people who are truly astute in their observations of nature.

 

[Jukia]

I would rather call random acts non intelligent ones and non random ones the act of intelligence.

You want nature to be both intelligent and not intelligent.

Moron!!!

--Dave

How's this. A small spring on a hillside. As the water comes out of the spring it has a "choice", it can go uphill or downhill. It always goes down hill Not random, not intelligent.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes Dave genetic variation is in the gene pool because it is constantly changing, not because it is static.

We have already demonstrated how previously random events can serve a purpose for other things/events. You do not study nature much do you, Dave?

Genetic variation is constantly replicating--not static, life forms with diversity for the purpose of adaptation to various environments. It's also the reason we are not all Mr. Smith.

Nothing random about intelligent men using a randomly fallen tree over a river for the purpose of crossing over it.

Non intelligent nature did not select that fallen tree to serve any such purpose.

--Dave

 

[gcthomas]

The production of mutations is an increase of information which the laws of physics says is not possible in a closed system, a cell is a closed system. Sun rays only provides heat and that can only increase entropy, it can not reverse it.

1. The Laws of Thermodynamics that say thermodynamic entropy cannot increase in a closed system do not apply to information entropy. (Information entropy is only called entropy because the equations for calculating the two quantities are mathematically similar.)

2. Cells are not closed systems since they transfer energy containing materials across their membranes (sugars, oxygen, CO2 etc).

3. The Sun provides plenty of short wavelength light (from high temperatures) that can be used to do entropy reducing work in systems that output lower grade heat energy ( to lower temperatures).
The Sun most certainly does power entropy reductions in open systems, at the expense of increases elsewhere, despite your rather hopeful claims to the contrary.

Dave, you have a very high perception of your own understanding: why can't you accept that physics is not your strong point and accept that others (including physicists here on ToL) can help you to understand your errors of fact and theory?

 

[noguru]

Genetic variation is constantly replicating--not static, life forms with diversity for the purpose of adaptation to various environments. It's also the reason we are not all Mr. Smith.

Nothing random about intelligent men using a randomly fallen tree over a river for the purpose of crossing over it.

Non intelligent nature did not select that fallen tree to serve any such purpose.

--Dave

Dave we are turning the corner about to make another complete circle. Give it up, it is obvious that you have a very superficial and therefore inaccurate view of the world around you.

Your attempts to bring a Hollywood movie in now as a lame example will prove as fruitless as your last attempts at misdirection and misrepresentation. Are you really up for another round?

I do have to admire your persistence. I just wish you would channel that in the right direction.

I highlighted the only relevant part of your post. That is accurate. Replication is not always exact. Sometimes a copy has "errors". Do you know what they call a copy that has "errors"?

The Matrix is an analogy to the difference in epistemology between rationalism and empiricism. That's it. It does not work as an analogy to genetic variation and natural selection. Taking the red pill is equivalent to "piercing the bubble of illusion/delusion", that is the strategy of many eastern religions. As well as what Jesus wanted us to do. Unfortunately your choice was to take the blue pill.

 

[DFT_Dave]

No, it is not the objection itself that makes you a moron. It is the fact that you must ignore a vast amount of empirical evidence in order to maintain your objection that makes you a moron.

I do think that such mental gyrations on your part are a form of intelligence, a kind of intelligence that is an academic exercise in futility. Though the ultimate result of those gyrations is that you do not face reality squarely and with courage. You are trying to prove how clever you are with misdirection and misrepresentation, rather than just being astute in your observations of nature.

I have met many people like you in my life. They are moderately successful and happy in the short term. But in the long term it is a failed strategy.

Just where is all this vast amount of empirical evidence?

It's not in the fossil record and no one can go back in time to see evolution actually taking place.

So, I guess it's all taking place in the imagination of minds that were unintentionally designed to imagine such things.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

How's this. A small spring on a hillside. As the water comes out of the spring it has a "choice", it can go uphill or downhill. It always goes down hill Not random, not intelligent.

The water going up stream would be like information increasing in a closed system.

--Dave

 

[Jukia]

The water going up stream would be like information increasing in a closed system.

--Dave

Not really responsive to the comment I tried to make, but given your history here, I am not surprised.

 

[noguru]

The water going up stream would be like information increasing in a closed system.

--Dave

No, that is wrong. You need to open your scope to the whole H2O cycle. Net information in the universe does not increase/decrease (FLoT/Einstein's Relativity), but there is a vast amount of movement and change of the position of that information. The use of that information is constantly in flux. It is that change that creates increases of H2O in some places while at the same time decreases in other localities.

Jukia's example however, was intended to demonstrate how gravity (which seems to have little if any purpose on its own) can serve a function for other events in the universe.

 

[noguru]

Just where is all this vast amount of empirical evidence?

It's not in the fossil record and no one can go back in time to see evolution actually taking place.

So, I guess it's all taking place in the imagination of minds that were unintentionally designed to imagine such things.

--Dave

Dave, you just introduced an article (well you introduced the claim and 6gays included the article) which utilizes a vast amount of empirical evidence. Yet you selected only a tiny portion, of out of context information, to support your original claims. Please do not feign ignorance here. It only makes you look more foolish.

 

[gcthomas]

The water going up stream would be like information increasing in a closed system.

--Dave

No-one is talking about a closed system. And thermodynamics doesn't restrict information entropy, which is not the same thing as (thermodynamic) entropy. And information entropy does not specify the content of the information, so a mutant and the original genome may have exactly the same anount of information.

Apart from that, everything else you said is true. (That is, nothing)

 

[6days]

Anti-biotic resistance to drugs is hardwired into the bacterias DNA... evidence it did not evolve.
http://www.laboratoryequipment.com/n...ve-041212.aspx

From your link:
"Their findings support recent studies at McMaster that suggest antibiotic resistance has a long evolutionary past"
(My bolding)
You seem very keen to jump to your own erroneous conclusions 6days.

On the contrary, alwight... It is you who is anxious to fall for conclusions that fit your belief system.

We know bacteria have anti-biotic resistance long before antibiotic drugs were created.

There is ZERO evidence of any evolutionary past... it is only beliefs.

 

[Hedshaker]

"Creationism" is a belief, same as evolutionism. Beliefs are not falsifiable. However the evidence better fits the Biblical creation model.
In the beginning, God created...

Who are you trying to convince, yourself? Repeating the same assertion over and over like a mantra might be good confirmation bias but that's about all it is.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

From the article Doloresistere posted;





So I see that you accept the evidence which seems to support your model as long as it is out of context of the rest of the article. I am not surprised by your deceitful strategy.

Did you happen to catch this part of the article, which covers a "small" detail I have addressed several times in the past?
Quote:
But the routine dismissal is not as weird as it seems at first blush, Stringer suggests, due to the issue of scaling. “As a general rule,” he says, “the more meat on your bones, the more brain you need to control massive muscle blocks.” An elephant brain, for instance, can weigh four times as much as a human’s. Scaling is also why nobody seems too surprised by the large brains of the Neanderthals, the burly hominids that died out about 30,000 years ago.

The Homo sapiens with the biggest brains lived 20,000 to 30,000 years ago in Europe. Called the Cro-Magnons, they had barrel chests and huge, jutting jaws with enormous teeth. Consequently, their large brains have often been attributed to brawniness rather than brilliance. In support of that claim, one widely cited study found that the ratio of brain volume to body mass—commonly referred to as the encephalization quotient, or EQ—was the same for Cro-Magnons as it is for us. On that basis, Stringer says, our ancestors were presumed to have the same raw cognitive horsepower

.

Wild speculation.
If thats the case, body builders would soon not have the brain power to walk.
:rotfl:

 

[noguru]

Wild speculation.
If thats the case, body builders would soon not have the brain power to walk.
:rotfl:

You are an idiot. Do you know anything about the physiology of bodybuilding? Muscle cells do not increase in number. They increase in size.

Do muscle cells increase in number or size?

You don't really get more muscle cells but each cell grows bigger and stronger. (There is some debate about where cells that get split during working out regenerate as separate cells, but the effect is minimal at best.) Muscle cells are unusual in that they don't have a single nucleus but many nuclei. And also, when the muscle gets worked, they develop more mitochondria, the little powerhouses that convert chemical energy into energy the cells can use.

Are you familiar with human physiology and neurology? The nerve connection to a single cell is the issue being highlighted. And you claim you graduated in the top 5% of the nation for higher education? What nation was that, Atlantis?

It is better to keep quiet and have people think you are an idiot, than to open your mouth/post and remove all doubt.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You are an idiot. Do you know anything about the physiology of bodybuilding? Muscle cells do not increase in number. They increase in size.

Do muscle cells increase in number or size?



Are you familiar with human physiology and neurology? The nerve connection to a single cell is the issue being highlighted. And you claim you graduated in the top 5% of the nation for higher education? What nation was that, Atlantis?

Yeah, size is what I meant.

Cells are not the issue as much as you would now like to say.

Here is your quote from the fossil dude.
That you thought was just fine until now.

Did you happen to catch this part of the article, which covers a "small" detail I have addressed several times in the past?
Quote:
But the routine dismissal is not as weird as it seems at first blush, Stringer suggests, due to the issue of scaling. “As a general rule,” he says, “the more meat on your bones, the more brain you need to control massive muscle blocks.”(NOT CELLS NOGURU) An elephant brain, for instance, can weigh four times as much as a human’s. Scaling is also why nobody seems too surprised by the large brains of the Neanderthals, the burly hominids that died out about 30,000 years ago.