Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Jack_www
Many of you claim that life evolving form one biological family to anther is an established fact. Like apes evolving into humans. Or fish evolving into the first land animals. When I look at the evidence that has been provided, it is not conclusive. As Lincoln brought out there have been many examples of misstakes made. The problem I have is you people trying to say it is an established fact. I can accept as fact minor changes occuring in living things, and natural selection, or survival of fittest. But the rest seems to me as hypthesis, that has very little backing it.

Do you understand what differentiates family, genus and species, in concrete terms to make this claim?

Its actually the Genus that differs humans from apes...

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln


You want a link to where you can find that stored, coded information derives from an intelligent source? Well look no further. There are several examples here. Where did all of the information come from that is on this website. Is it or is it not in coded form?

Answer: Yes, both the language and the hidden codes used in the transmission of the information. Or you can look at the source code and see other coded information that had has its source an inteligent agent.

*snip*

Actually, no...

There is no 'proof' that the information presented on these web pages means that an intelligent source created them.

A computer algorithm could have generated everything you see, except for whatever you specifically posted. Prove otherwise.

What could a computer algorithm not have generated, precisely?

How do you KNOW that this posting, now was not generated by a massively complex algorithm?

[loinburger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I am talking about the origin of that life and the goal is either set by the designer or not.

What do you mean? It is quite possible and even likely that many life forms and proto-life forms have been produced that were not capable of propogation. These life forms and proto-life forms are not around anymore because they died without leaving offspring. There needn't have been a designer involved; it's just a trivial matter that "things that produce more of themselves" are going to be more viable than "things that do not produce more of themselves."

If you have billions of protein fragments in some primordial soup, they aren't all thinking to themselves "I'd better assemble some more protein fragments like me before I'm broken apart, otherwise my legacy will not live on." No, they're lifeless protein fragments; they have no goals or aspirations. Saying that a designer caused some of these protein fragments to combine with other protein fragments into a complex molecule capable of propogation is like saying that some designer caused water to erode rock in order to make the Grand Canyon. The Grand Canyon is still there, but it's because of gravity and erosion, not because of the flick of a magic wand or something. Life is still here, but it's because of chemistry, not because of the flick of a magic wand or something.

If it is not then the programmer that sets this goal is acting in the place of the designer.

Did water have the goal of making the grand canyon?

Well we haven't proved yet that a few simple rules make a life form.

Nor will we. Instead, we will continue to amass evidence in favor of this explanation for life, and we will continue to fail to find evidence in favor of creationism.

And an automobile does have intermediate stages.

No it doesn't. A 5th generation car doesn't mutate into a 6th generation car. Both the 5th and 6th generation cars were designed.

However, a 5th generation genetic algorithm spontaneously mutates into a 10th or 1000th generation genetic algorithm. Similarly, my ancestor from two billion years ago eventually mutated into the fine specimen that is me.

Of course the whole purpose of the machine analogy is to show the complexity of the interdependent parts and machines within the machine.

And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves.

[Lincoln]

You are not considering that life is now based on DNA. You have to get there somehow regardless of "proteins floating around a warm pond".

"And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves."

That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
You are not considering that life is now based on DNA. You have to get there somehow regardless of "proteins floating around a warm pond".

"And the machine analogy continues to fail, because a car is engineered while a life form evolves."

That is circular reasoning. The question under descussion is the evolution or design of life.

In answer to this... I'll keep on asking this argument, until you answer apropriately

Originally posted by Lincoln

*snip*
There is no magic information in a book either it is "just a bunch of atoms." But the information contained in those atoms originated from an intelligent mental source. And no I do not agree with the above statements. If you are talking about cloning then yes, it works. If you are talking about "an endless amount of DNA seaquences" forming themselves into life then no, it must have intelligent input or manipulation so that a code could be formed and viable information can be placed within your theoretical bacteria.

Just plain wrong
If I go through a complete sequence of permutations of DNA then I will recreate the exact structure and sequence of you, every bacteria, and every other being.

To use your book example...

Given an infinite sequence, order and location of atoms for a book.. carbon... etc etc etc. Most of the permutations will not look anything like a book. Some will. Some will look like a book but contain gibberish. Some will contain the bible. Some will have an adendum saying... "I got that bit about creation wrong."

Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence.


Now the simple questions...

1) Do all permutations of atoms (or other appropriate elements) contain all states of an object, including viable and non viable? True or False
2) Would some permutations of atoms appear to have meaning (like for instance a book with 'information')? True or False
3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 100 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No
4) Does this imply that perceived 'information' can be found in permutations of random occurances given enough iterations occur? Yes or No

[Lincoln]

"Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence."

You assume that life is just random atoms that somehow through "permutations" formed themselves into an information based biological machine. You are suggesting that anything is possible period. Are you not?

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Lincoln
"Given massive numbers of permutations anything is possible. The issue is, people have problems conceiving such random behavior, since they have no way to experience it. Its impossible for us to see failed permutations of this process. They never became viable to leave evidence."

You assume that life is just random atoms that somehow through "permutations" formed themselves into an information based biological machine. You are suggesting that anything is possible period. Are you not?

Stop evading, and answer the very simple true or false, yes or no anwers. No explanations necessary. I'm sure you're capable.

[Lincoln]

1) Do all permutations of atoms (or other appropriate elements) contain all states of an object, including viable and non viable? True or False
2) Would some permutations of atoms appear to have meaning (like for instance a book with 'information')? True or False
3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 100 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No
4) Does this imply that perceived 'information' can be found in permutations of random occurances given enough iterations occur? Yes or No

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. No

4. No

[Lincoln]

Now here are my questions again. See if you can actually answer them:

quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


That's just not true Lincoln, the first selection pressure of the first self-replicating molecule (formation by chance, do I have to go into the apes on typewriters typing Shakespeare's works analogy again?). Then evolution kicks in, selection of superior self-replicating molecules. The obvious big jump in superiority is autocatalysis, ie, the structure of the nucleic acid means it has the enzymic activity to reproduce itself, this is why it is speculated that RNA was the first nucleic acid, as examples exist today of autocatalytic RNA. The second big leap was the association of protein. Proteins consisting of polypeptides make far superior enzymes (greater repertoire of properties of amino acids, greater structural possibilities), and the selection pressure for this protein-nucleic acid system rather than autocatalytic nucleic acid system makes the difference between survival and death. And the process rolls on once this desired relationship between protein and nucleic acid (for this to be successful, translation mechanisms have to exist to convert genetic data into protein). There is no data input required from an intelligent being, natural selection can account for it given a reasonable mutation rate. Most varieties will be deleterious and die away, but the odd one will be effective. Remember this is painfully slow, billions of years, the step from this success to humanity is very short in comparison (hundreds of millions of years).

Just consider the numbers involved before you close your mind and refuse to consider the most plausible theory.



A few quick questions PH,

How does “autocatalysis” and a random order of RNA produce a code along with a translation process?

How did the “the translation mechanism” come into existence?

You suggesting the self organization of tRNA. How did about 20 of them form themselves to match both the coded instructions in DNA and the appropriate units of the ribosomes?

How are the triplets discerned initially?

What selective advantage is there for one sequence of RNA or DNA over another if the code or the translation mechanism is unknown?

[Lincoln]

Better answer quick. I am going to bed.

[Lincoln]

Uh oh. My light is going out...

[Goingonit]

Lincoln, though many of your points are valid, you must still get past thinking of RNA as some sort of "translation mechansism". It no more translates a code than does sodium on its way to form salt. All processes going on are purely chemical in nature, and have been explained in detail by biologists more competent than I. Furthermore, RNA is life regardless of whether it forms amino acids on the way, and if you had all possible ermutations of 100 ASCII characters, one of them would be

"Lincoln, though many of your points are valid, you must still get past thinking of RNA as some sort"

Yes, that is a permutation of ASCII characters 100 characters in length, it conveys information, and it can be formed randomly.

The more general rule is that information is contained in the mind rather than that the mind is contained in information: infomration is only information when there is someone who understands it.

EDIT: sweet dreams...

[Ethelred]

I typed this reply to Lincoln just before the server was shut down yesterday. Tried to submit and found it was down.

Fortunatly I copied and saved as I was trying to post it.

Submit
Control-A
Contol-C
have everthing dispear into the ether except that I had JUST saved to my clipboard.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by Lincoln
A little food for thought below I will post several more disputed and fraudulent claims made concerning the fossil record if anyone is actually interested in something than rhetoric here:

So why did you post more dubious nonsense.

Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. ”The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

The fossil are NOT human no one said they were. So its fraudlent to call it fraud. They are not apes, they are not humans, they are Australopithicenes and they are the ancesotrors of Genus Homo.

They stood erect unlike any ape.

Now for more recent quotes from Oxnard. That one you used was from before Lucy was found. Its obsolete. Its fraud to pretend it is still valid.

It has been reported that Dr. Oxnard found the "sophisticated computer analysis" quote quite amusing. It was just a multivariate analysis, something that is taught (for instance) to every Psychology student.

Dr. Oxnard's results were based on measurements of a small number of bones, most of them fragmentary. Nevertheless, he did conclude that australopithecines probably were bipedal (walked upright), unlike modern apes.

Dr. Oxnard did his study in the 1970's, before the discovery of "Lucy" and many other related fossils. His study is therefore out of date, since we have more evidence now. Only a more modern quote would be worthy of debate.

You realy need to use something other than creationists for your sources. They love to use out of date quotes. Even when it is pointed out they will continue to act as if they are true.

Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, “Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

Lucy's hip joint is so similar to modern man its silly to pretend that its even remotely chimplike. Dr Zilman did not claim it was an ape at all.

What Dr. Zilman ACTUALLY said.

Except for the pelvis, the P. paniscus skeleton shows a striking resemblance to fossils of the earliest hominid Australopithecus."

Note the "Except the pelvis" remark. Dr. Zilman does not in anyway claim that Lucy was a chimp. She simply compared Lucy to a chimp as did Dr White in his original work. Anthropologists ALWAYS compare australopithicenes to chimps and to modern humans and to other australopicenes or they would be speculating rather than making well reasoned deductions in compartive anatomy.

Creationists LOVE to take quotes out of context and ingnore everything else the person really said.

So the only fraud here is creationist.

Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, “Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

So where is the fraud there Lincoln? Mehlert has made some bogus claims about Lucy so I can't accept him as an objective source in any case. Homo Habilis may not belong in genus Homo or it may belong. There is no fraud involved except perhaps for Mehlert's false claims that Lucy contains modern human bones as well ancient bones. Mehlert is a creationist and nothing remotely resembling a good source of information.

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's.

I am not going to quote the whole thing as there is absolutely remotely resembling fraud mentioned in it. Why did you post it? It does nothing to show anything except that Peking Man is not well researched by modern standards. Too bad the fossils were lost in WWII.

Do you understand the difference between a difference of oppinion based on incomplete and no longer available evidence and FRAUD? You don't seem to or you wouldn't have posted that.

Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later.

More of the same. You are characterizing differences of oppinion as fraud. That is dubious pretension at best.

There is ONE known fraud in Anthropology. Eoanthropus Dawsoni or Piltdown Man. Thats it and you havn't added any to that. You haven't even tried to even though you put a lot here none of it remotely resembled fraud except for Mehlert maybe and he was attacking Lucy for the Creationist side.

The above is typical of the disputes and the outright fraud that pervades the "fact" of evolution. I have hundreds more...

Above is typical of the bogus assertions of creationist. An out of context quote here, a qoute from a creationist that wrote stuff based on someone elses out of context quotes there and a rearangement of english to characterize a legitimate disagreement as some sort of fraud.

---------------------------------------------------------------

I will get to that PDF you posted later. I am half way through it and I have lots of stuff on his main source Dembski.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Jack_www

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created.

Only if you ignore the Bible as the source of Creationism because it has the wrong order of creation. All you are doing here is saying the a god (can't be Jehovah cause the Bible has the wrong order) created the world to look exactly as if it was done by natural laws of physics plus natural selection for the evolution of life. It predicts nothing. Its worthless as a theory since it only predicts that things will look exactly like there is no god.

Many claim life is self-assembling. This is hard for me to believe. Odds are too great.

You are mixing up ideas here. Life IS self-assembling. That is it grows and isn't asembled by a watchmaker. So there is no reason to demand that there must be a watchmaker to make you from your parents. You self assembled.

The question of life beginning as a self reproding molecule is something else than saying life is self-assembling. There is no reason at present to think that life could not have started as a self-reproducing molecule that first formed by accidental chemical reactions. There is no evidence for it though. There are some labratory experiments showing that it might be possible.

There have been many examples of fraud and miss interruption of fossil, which have been at one time said to be missing links to human evolution.

False, there is exactly ONE fraud. Mixing that in with differences of oppinion is not exactly an honest aproach to discussion.

There is a possibility that Piltdown man was actually a joke by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle. He lived in the neighborhood and had the skills and the materials and he liked practical jokes.

Either Dawson did a lousy job of inspecting the fossils or he did it himself. He is one man not the entirety of anthropology.

Analyzing fossils is not a perfect science, and mistakes can be made, and in fact major mistakes have been made, and some very few people have engaged in out right fraud.

ONE person. Maybe.

True, its not an exact science. We learn more with each new find. However the fossils exist and none of them are in the least compatible with Young Earth Creationism and all are compatible with and indeed require evolution.

With the flood, since MrBaggins keeps brining it up, lets go over the evidence and see if the Flood recorded in the Bible could have really happened.

It couldn't. This is of topic in this thread however.

How about you and Bagggins and Zack start up a thread entitled

Noah's Big Assed Boat

That would be a more appropriate thread.

(Thread title freely stolen from a thread on the Maximum PC forums.)

[MrBaggins]

Lincoln.. as a follow up

Here is a slightly abbreviated BASIC algorithm to print ascii permutations (18 characters- 100 would take hours... but 100 would use precisely the same concept, just more iterations)

for a = 1 to 127
for b = 1 to 127
for c = 1 to 127
for d = 1 to 127
for e = 1 to 127
for f = 1 to 127
for g = 1 to 127
for h = 1 to 127
for i = 1 to 127
for j = 1 to 127
for k = 1 to 127
for l = 1 to 127
for m = 1 to 127
for n = 1 to 127
for o = 1 to 127
for p = 1 to 127
for q = 1 to 127
for r = 1 to 127
string = chr$(a) + chr$(b) + chr$(c) + _
chr$(d) + chr$(e) + chr$(f) + _
chr$(g) + chr$(h) + chr$(i) + _
chr$(j) + chr$(k) + chr$(l) + _
chr$(m) + chr$(n) + chr$(o) + _
chr$(p) + chr$(q) + chr$(r)
print string
next r
next q
next p
next o
next n
next m
next l
next k
next j
next i
next h
next g
next f
next e
next d
next c
next b
next a


during the single permutation that when the print statement was reached
a was equal to 73
b was equal to 32
c was equal to 97
d was equal to 109
e was equal to 32
f was equal to 103
g was equal to 111
h was equal to 105
i was equal to 110
j was equal to 103
k was equal to 32
l was equal to 116
m was equal to 111
n was equal to 32
o was equal to 98
p was equal to 101
q was equal to 100
r was equal to 46

then

I am going to bed.

would appear on the screen- an exact coded informational sentence that you have used.

Is there any magic involved? Any intelligence required by the algorithm?

No...

Why?

There is no specific aim for the algorithm to generate 'coded information', however it randomly DOES occur within the output of the algorithm.

Now... Lincoln... i'll ask 3 again. To be fair, i'll replace the number 100 with 18, and tender the above algorithm (using the BASIC programming language) as evidence.

3) Will an algorithm listing all permutations of 18 ASCII characters (all letters, numbers, symbols and spaces) produce a number of permutations where meaningful 'information' is produced? Yes or No

In the event that you answer no, to save another redundant post ... if no, explain