IF life evolved, then life had to come from non-life...and as life runs on coded information, coded information had to come from raw chemistry, as that is all that biological E has available to it. Thus the key issue for E is getting information that codes for the first life, and then to get the information for all subsequent changes to that first life. If E is incapable of of getting coded information and the first life up and running, it hasn't occurrred...end of story...
There are plenty of semi-organisms which bridge the gap between "life" and "non-life." Viruses, for example, are combinations of chemicals which move and self replicate, but are not considered "alive" in the same way we are. Our earliest "ancestors" were amino acids and other chemicals which formed in such a way that reactions were set off, causing self-replication.
Now to simply say, "God did it" and abandon all scientific progress is incredibly irresponsible. and belongs in 500AD.
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
@rynso First of all, a cursory glance at the full arguments from which the statements were taken will show they are not accusations at all, but facts.
Also when you die it's exactly the same as before you were born. Though any visit to a hospital can show you the physical process.
If you mean what happens to our consciousness, then to further elaborate, the same thing as when you have massive loss of brain function (dementia, alzheimer's and brain damage are some possible causes).
'...will show they are not accusations at all, but facts.'
Such as?
'Also when you die it's exactly the same as before you were born.'
How do you know? Who says?
'Though any visit to a hospital can show you the physical process.'
So?
'If you mean what happens to our consciousness, then to further elaborate, the same thing as when you have massive loss of brain function (dementia, alzheimer's and brain damage are some possible causes).'
so wtf would your hopes and dreams for eternal existence be? hmmm, i'm going to float around in these clouds and contemplate my entirely puny existence on that planet that doesn't even exist anymore (it will be gone at some point). and yea, hitler (who was catholic btw) was killing the name of evolution. morons
No point arguing is there. lets face it if you believe the Bible is the perfect word of God and you believe in God then you're probably ok with the fact that God sanctioned Rape, genocide, infanticide, slavery and war in his name. You're probably ok with the fact that the Bible can't make its mind up as to how Judas actually died. My sunday will be spent in open water enjoying the playground otherwise known as planet earth. you enjoy your poxy building and bullshit sermon.
@jasondcone It seems precisely the reverse applies. You dodged around the issues addressed by the video, which didn't mention the bible.
But I don't know why you should be worried about the questions you raised because in the type of world you appear to believe it is, there is no evil...or good - to quote Dawkins there's 'nothing but pitiless indifference'. If it really is this type of world, why should anyone care what happens?
Clearly this dufus has never heard of the straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy and it goes like this: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
@rynso You tempered the quotes to make Dawkins sound like an idiot and then you refuted the incorrect quotes to make your argument look better. This is a straw man argument buddy. You clearly have not studied evolution. Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact. T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g I suggest you study up.
@rynso You tempered the quotes to make Dawkins sound like an idiot and then you refuted the incorrect quotes to make your argument look better. This is a straw man argument buddy. You clearly have not studied evolution. Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact. T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g I suggest you study up.
@brandonacker Not sure what quotes you're referring. The ideas in the mouth of Dawkins are either his ideas (even exact words) or logical deductions from them.
You said: 'Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact.'
That's a common but bold claim. Care to define 'evolution' as you use the term, so I know what you're talking about? Also could you clarify what you claim 'natural selection' is and does to achieve the 'evolution' you mention. Thanks.
@rynso Now for some information about evolution: "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution." T a l k o r i g i n s. o r g
@brandonacker You said quoting talkorigins: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.'
What sort of genetic change is a fact?
Quote: 'Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors.'
Yeah, that's the belief - held with passion, ardor, and devotion. Not observed.
@brandonacker Quote: 'The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.'
Yeah that's the claim - grand, sweeping, all encompassing - repeated ad nauseum - so often true believers come to believe it's true. It aen't.
Evolution has no means to get genetic info so genetics doesn't support it. Fossils show systematic gaps, so don't support it. Anatomy better fits common plans utilised by a Creator, so that's out...
@rynso Sir, you need to visit the site I referenced and actually do some research because you are being willingly ignorant to the actual evidence. First of all, scientists have mapped the human genome and can compare it to any other animal on the planet. When we do this, we find that all life falls into an perfect, awe-inspiring family tree. That this happens is a fact. You're incorrect claim that genetics don't support evolution is absurd.
@brandonacker So...they've mapped the human genome. Have they mapped the genomes of all 'other animals on the planet'? Well no. How many? I can't imagine many. So how can they compare genomes & generate family trees? It can hardly be 'a fact'.
& what do the genomes say? Can a geneticist given a sequence of DNA, read it & know what it codes for? No. As there are multiple layers of info on DNA, do they know what layer their reading?
As far as I'm aware, we actually don't know much yet...more...
@brandonacker Further...genetic systems are information systems utilising a code. E has no means by which to generate codes, or the information carried on a code. Neither the initial info nor any subsequent info. From all human experience, messages come from minds. There are genetic messages carried on the DNA, thus it came from a mind. E has no place for mind originated genetic info and thus it does not support genetics. What is absurd is to say messages come from matter (non-mind) as E says.
@rynso Secondly, the site I provided contains a giant list of the transition fossils that you creationists don't ever actually look for. You just claim there aren't any and then feel like you've made a good argument. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record, we haven't found all of them! It's amazing that we have as many as we do. But the ones we do have suffice as transitionary fossils. For instance the Australopithecus afarensis, homo habilus, homo erectus, etc...
@brandonacker A Chihuahua, Poodle, Fox Terrier, Labrador, Alsatian, Great Dane could be put into a sequence that looks ancestral, though it would not be. Other animals alive today can also be so arranged, but we know there's nothing ancestral about the sequence because we see one does not derive from the other. Because some skeletal sequence can be arranged does not mean it's an ancestral sequence. Evo family tree diagrams are not facts but postulates. Linnaen lawn/forest, not Darwinian tree.
@rynso Finally, we are 98% genetically similar to a chimpanzee. We are nearly anatomical equivalents. The fact that you are actually attempting to claim otherwise is frankly absurd.
@brandonacker 98% similar. Highly disputable numbers. & what actually has been compared? How was the comparison done, etc?
& yeah there are similarities between some life forms, but who says they're because of ancestral connection? In my house are a raft of different types of doors, which in many ways look similar & fulfil similar purposes. However there's no ancestral connection between them. The connection is in a common idea utilised by the builder to achieve similar ends. Same with life.
@rynso "yeah there are similarities between some life forms, but who says they're because of ancestral connection? In my house are a raft of different types of doors, which in many ways look similar & fulfil similar purposes." Sir this has to be one of the worst arguments from ignorance I have ever heard. You clearly understand nothing about evolution and have not done any (non-biased) research.
@rynso Now, I've supplied you with a website T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g There you will find the overwhelming/awe-inspiring evidence for evolution. Until you read the evidence supplied on this sight I will consider you scientifically illiterate because you've repeatedly demonstrated that your prejudice has not allowed you to do any actual research on the subject.
@rynso You have pointed out how you don't understand how genetics support evolution but instead of actually researching to find out you have clung to your argument from ignorance. I gave you the only website you need to learn that evolution is empirically and demonstrably true. I urge you to put aside your prejudice and actually do some reading so that you will understand that in the scientific world, evolution by natural selection is considered to be a fact. There is no controversy.
So...perhaps you could enlighten me - the unenlightened - how evolution got going. You could address the requirement that life needs from its very first moment, energy supplied in the form of ATP produced by the rotary motor ATP synthase, which is coded for on DNA, which requires ATP to be transcribed.
If evolution can't start occurring. it can't have occurred, end of story...
I guess you will say evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life...
@rynso First of all, no faith is required when evidence is presented. Secondly, you make a fatal error in thinking that evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. Evolution attempts to explain the biological patterns of earth's biota. We need not explain the origin of life to discover overwhelming evidence that all life shares common ancestors. Once again, you've demonstrated your ignorance on the subject so please, just take a look at that website.
@brandonacker I must say you're quick to ascribe ignorance. Perhaps you have some blind spots - like as regards faith.
Everyone has faith, even in relation to 'evidence'. You have to believe those who give the 'evidence' to you. You have to believe your senses. You have to believe the world is understandable, etc and so on. Faith is an inevitable part of life. It's not whether we have faith or not. It's what we put our faith in.
I simply don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist...
@rynso Only problem is you use the word "faith" too loosely. If you want to say I have faith in the scientific method than you are technically correct. But one thing I have to make absolutely clear is that this faith is incomparable to your faith in a god. There is no evidence for creationism, only wishful-thinking. Faith is belief without evidence. All of my beliefs are supported by evidence. You cannot say the same for religious beliefs.
@rynso You cannot deny facts sir. You can, like the vast majority of religious people, say god made this genetic family tree. But you cannot deny that this tree of common descendents exists. I don't want to hear any more opinions from you, you've provided absolutely NO evidence against evolution or for creationism. I've given you several facts that support evolution and a website with a gigantic list of them. If this were a court case, I'd be winning hands down.
@rynso Sir, I will continue considering you scientifically illiterate until you have read the evidence for evolution on the website I provided. You may attempt to refute that evidence but you mustn't be so arrogant to not even read the evidence that is staring you in the face and then claim that you don't accept it because you just don't understand it. Take the time to educate yourself. You won't regret it.
@brandonacker Do you pray to talkorigins? Clearly they're a very significant authority in your life. Will they comfort you when dying? Do they give you meaning to life? Do they guide you in how you should live?
'evidence that is staring you in the face.'
Lie down on the couch and tell me what is the very best, knock-me-down, totally convincing evidence you have. Don't wave your arms around and go on about 'mountains' of evidence. Tell me what you personally find the most persausive.
@rynso Are you being serious? How unscientific of you. How childish in fact. Sir, I've simply supplied talkorigins because it puts all the evidence of evolution in one place. I get the feeling you don't actually want to educate yourself. You would prefer to just sit on youtube making scientifically incorrect statements all day than actually read a science book.
And...might I say...you're somewhat presumptuous, not only being able to read my mind, but knowing my level of education, and also the books I don't read...
@rynso But to humor you, the most persuasive argument is that Charles Darwin and others predicted that all life would fall into a perfect family tree if we were ever able to compare genomes. Obviously 140 years ago we couldn't do this. But in the 50's and 60's we finally developed the technology and guess what happened?! Just like Darwin predicted based on his observations the empirical genetic evidence falls into a beautiful family tree. That this happens is a fact.
@brandonacker Another blind spot: re origin of life. I predicted your responce. It was a boiler plate - comes up everywhere. "The origin of life is a huge problem - massive - insoluable - so to avoid it we'll use a cut down definition of evolution and say E's got nothing to do with it." Sorry it doesn't work - as numerous big name Evos have noted. Whatever the process of biological evolution is (no one knows - if you know tell me), it had to start. If it couldn't start it can't have occurred...
@rynso Go to the site, there are plenty of definitions there. You are just too prejudiced to even do accurate research. One thing I can state as an undeniable fact is that evolution is by far the leading scientific theory. Overwhelming empirical evidence is in support of it and no other theory comes close to touching it. If you want to be so ignorant as to just say "God did it" than I feel sorry for you.
'Overwhelming empirical evidence is in support of it and no other theory comes close to touching it.' How do you know? Have you looked into the claims of creationists - as spelt out by creationists? Have you read any creationist literature? Would you like a website so you could get informed?
What do you say? 'God didn't do it - no intelligence/thought allowed.' Tell me what did. Be specific.
What's your definition of evolution - in your own words?
@rynso How do I know? Because I've listened to many creationist arguments and debates. All you have are arguments from ignorance. I'm done arguing evolution with you. It's not that you are a scientist that has found a evidence against evolution, it's that you're ignorant to the scientific method and prefer the idea of god so you haven't actually done any research. I've given you a website with empirical evidence and several facts about evolution. You've given me nothing in return.
@brandonacker Where & from whom did you listen to creationist arguments?
You said, 'You've given me nothing in return.'
With respect, I've posed you questions evolution has no answer to because it excludes all thought and intelligence from the claimed 'evolutionary process'. (By the way you haven't told me what that process is.)
This is an either or situation. Logically, if 'non-mind' can't produce something, by default 'mind' must have. So the failure of E, means Creation stands...
@rynso I have decided that you are not worth my time. You do not understand the scientific method, you are too stubborn to actually look at the empirical evidence for evolution and most importantly, you are too deluded to actually be taken seriously. Creationism-science is an oxymoron. Please educate yourself.
@rynso How do I know? Because I've listened to many creationist arguments and debates. All you have are arguments from ignorance. I'm done arguing evolution with you. It's not that you are a scientist that has found a evidence against evolution, it's that you're ignorant to the scientific method and prefer the idea of god so you haven't actually done any research. I've given you a website with empirical evidence and several facts about evolution. You've given me nothing in return.
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait....
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait....
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait...
“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.”
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
You dont need to be a creationist to realize that there is a metaphysical side to life. Study physics. The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than a machine, Sir James Jeans British Physicist. Max Planck, said that “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
It sounds as though you're confused about how "novel" information arises.
Well, which "information" exactly are you referring to? At the atomic structure of any organism the basic ingredients are the same and unchanging, i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. At the chemical level carbon (and other elements) combine to form complex molecules, basic constituents that make up DNA which when randomly suffled lead to new, novel information.
Coded information is what is being addressed. Coded information isn't determined by whatever material substrate it is carried on, and is not itself material.The story in a book does not derive from, nor is it determined by, nor is it, the paper and the ink on which it rides. Coded information requires a pre-existing language convention and thus random suffling of letters (the letters are one of the pre-existing conventions) doesn't produce coded information.
By acting like atheism is a religion itself, and then attacking it as such, doesn't that just make the case against religion even stronger?
In other words, your attempt at satire is backfiring and showing how you can only attack atheism, ironically, from an atheistitc (non-religious) standpoint of calling it a religion and therefore wrong/bad/immoral, etc.
Do you see the irony in this? You've made the atheist a "high preist" and the theist a "skeptic".
@Wittgensteinism Not a particularly coherent comment. Perhaps some more explanation is required.
Any case against 'religion' can only be against a particular 'religion', not against religion in per sae, because religious/philosophical questions are asked and answered by everyone one way or another, making everyone 'religious'. It is particular answers to religious/philosophical questions that a cases can be made against...like the overwhelming case against the religion of atheism...
The attack in the video isn't from a specific religious standpoint, but a "general" one, and it fails on that account.
If you applied even a fraction of the rigorous scutiny that you demand from evolution to your OWN beliefs about God, purpose, afterlife, morality, etc. then you'd admit that there's absolutely no basis to believe in magical thinking like that.
If you think you're attacking atheism as a religion, then you're not really attacking A-theism
@Wittgensteinism Somewhat patronising...but not really any clearer...
Who believes in magic? Not me. Perhaps you do! Life from non-life; Coded information from raw chemicals and physics - the story from the paper and ink on which it rides; Morals from matter. All sounds just like the waving of wands, fairy tales, frogs to princes even...
@rynso What do you mean by "built". Did God assemble the first human like a lego toy?
You don't believe in common ancestry right? That humans evolved along with literally everything else on this planet along an unbroken chain of reproduction that all started with single-celled organisms?
Then how else were the first "humans" built? I'd like to know what you DO believe.
@Wittgensteinism I don't know how humans were built...any more than I or anyone really know how they function.
Nor do I know how computers are built, even though I build things all the time. Not knowing how something is built, doesn't mean we can't know that it was built. We can recognise 'fingerprints'.
No, I don't accept common ancestry, but clearly you believe it. Thus you need to show how you get coded information, intelligence, and morals from chemistry and physics, rather than mind.
@rynso I didn't ask what you KNEW about it, i asked what you believe. You said your beliefs aren't magical, so i'd like to know what they are concerning the origin of man. Stop dodging the question.
Further, not knowing HOW humans were "built" ALSO doesn't mean that you CAN know THAT humans were built. And as for ur information question, it's call gene duplication and random mutation, selected by repoductive adaptibility (natural selection). Duh!
@Wittgensteinism 'Duh!' yourself. Gene duplication doesn't produce new information, and mutations do not improve what exists. If they're so hot shot, why fear nuclear accidents? Because mutations produce mutants!
Magic, is humans seeking to manipulate supernatural powers to produce ends the humans want. A supernatural Creator producing the world and humans isn't magic. It's in principle no different to me making something.
There is a vast amount about how humans function that is unknown.
@rynso "Gene duplication doesn't produce new information" - Yea i know, it allows so more information to become part of the gene. The random mutations handle the "new" information. It's the combination of both of these taken together that are at least 1 answer to your question: "What mechanism causes an increase in information in the genome?" Actually, since the question doesn't actually specify "new information" gene duplication is sufficient at explaining how a genome can increase in size.
NOT knowing something, i.e. the origins of man, never gives you any grounds to then claim to KNOW something i.e. that a God must have done it.
It's also a pure failure of imagination. Just because YOU can't think of how something happened without being the work of a supernatural, (by definition) magical being, DOESN'T mean that it's automatically true.
I presume you believe in something beyond nature. I'd like to know your grounds for this
@Wittgensteinism Duh again. That I don't know how a computer is made, doesn't mean I can't know somethings about computers nor recognise fingerprints.
Yes, I believe that there is 'something beyond nature', and that that 'something' is a personal, intelligent, moral being, who created the 'creation' - 'nature' if you will.
Grounds for accepting this? The existence of things within 'nature' that are unable to be produced by nature doing it's thing. Design, morality, intelligence, coded info...
@rynso So your grounds for believing in God is "The existence of things within 'nature' that are unable to be produced by nature doing it's thing. Design, morality, intelligence, coded info..."
You're just plain wrong. Everything in nature can indeed be explaned purely by natural causes, including the natural "designs" (aka patterns, symmetries) morality, intelligence, and information. Nature produces designs all the time that you wouldn't say God was the direct and immediate cause of.
@rynso "I presume you believe there is nothing beyond nature"
Correct.
My grounds for this are twofold. The 1st is purely grammatical; i equate nature with existence itself, so saying "outside nature" literally means "outside existence", in other words, "non-existent".
The 2nd is empirical; i form my beliefs based on what there is empirical evidence to support. All supposed supernatual events have been explained purely naturally. Occams razor makes belief in the supernatural unnecessary
Let me ask you a question........ What really is your beef with Dawkins?
Do you have a problem with the fact that he's an atheist? -or-
Is it that he's a recognised, and well qualified scientific expert, in a subject, which you, in your ignorance, do not wish to accept the validity of?
Why don't you complain to all the academic bodies which made him a professor? - And you obviously NOT- Lol!!
Incidently, an answer to the question you think Dawkins ( a professor in biology) is struggling with: - Gene duplication coupled with frame shift mutation, genetic drft etc etc.....
Hmmm...How do these produce new coherent information?
Duplication is like duplication of pages in a book - just the same information duplicated.
Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page. May change one word into another - making a 'new word' but is actually a degradation of the message.
And all these presuppose the code. How do you go from no code to code to start with?
@rynso "Hmmm...How do these produce new coherent information?"
Ha ha!! - don't you know?? I can see how these "knowledgable creationist" ( a contradiction in terms) thrive in debates. The exasperate the more knowledgable opposition with their own pig ignorance eh??.
Tell you what....You tell me what you think "new information" is, and why you think it's required for evolution?
@rynso "Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page"
Ha ha!! Haven't you noticed? - Every genetic definition of an organism HAS the appearance of scrambling or substitution relative to another..... As does it's phylogeny, and taxonomic morphology!
That's EXACTLY how evolution works!
It seems your ignorance of the subject is the reason you think unqualified creationist pastors are "winning" the argument against REAL scientists eh??
@rynso "Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page"
And what the hell makes you think that genetic "information" is analogous to letters on a page, which are purposeful communication from one intelligence to another. The analysis of of DNA is obviously better described as the forensic understanding of the molecular "ingredience" of any chemical compound in nature. It is what it is!!
You're misrepresenting the definition to assume the conclusion you want.
@Tobytrim You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all...
'And what the hell makes you think that genetic "information" is analogous to letters on a page, which are purposeful communication from one intelligence to another.'
I suppose that's a question. To answer, precisely because the genetic information is at least carried on 'letters' A U G C, which make up 'words'/codons on the DNA strands. It's not called the 'language of life' the 'genetic code' for nothing.
@rynso"You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all..."
Ha! Compared to you it seems I do!!
The letters you speak of are actually chemical ingredients of DNA - Adenine, cytosine, thiamine, and guinine. Because the differing permutations determine the genotype, and eventually the phenotype, biologists attempt to understand it as a code. The ingredients of ANY compound can be construed as a code to tell any intelligence what it is.
@Tobytrim 'The letters you speak of are actually chemical ingredients of DNA." Very good. Top marks. The words I see on my computer screen are also chemical ingredients of stuff in my computer screen. But the chemical stuff does not determine the letters/words in the comments I read. They are just a medium on which the message is carried.
Precisely the same with DNA. Of course its chemical stuff, but the chemicals do not determine the sequence. It is the sequence that is all important.
@rynso "The words I see on my computer screen are also chemical ingredients of stuff in my computer screen"
Chemical, Electronic,ink, pencil - There can be any number of completely different ways to form letters and numbers, and they are still the same recognisable information from a known verifiable intelligent source.
DNA is still the same 4 nucleotide bases carrying different permutations of the same potential groups of proteins and acids which are the ingredients of a given genome.
Virtually any medium can be used to carry messages...but they are only the medium not the message.
The fact DNA only uses 4 letters which chemically are all 'permutations of the same potential groups of proteins and acids', doesn't negate the fact that the NON DETERMINED sequence in which those 4 letters are arranged carries information that transcends chemistry. The paper and ink on the page of a book does not determine the message. Nor does the chemistry of DNA.
@rynso "Virtually any medium can be used to carry messages...but they are only the medium not the message."
AQgain - You are only making my point for me! DNA is only an assembly of chemicals that make it what it is.
Anything forensically analysed to determine it's ingredients, can be read as "information".
There is no difference. What confuses creationists, is that life is an ongoing, complex, reaction, which changes it's form because one of it's chemical functions is self replication.
@Tobytrim You're either intentionally or not, making a logical fallacy by using the word 'information' for two different things. 'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides. Yeah life is complex, as though anyone thinks its not. Actually evolutionisists often try to make out it's simple, as you do - "life is just chemistry" - and adamantly refuse to acknowledge the added complexity of coded information to avoid the obvious.
@rynso "'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides"
Which eliminates DNA as arbitrarily sent information , as it's nature IS totally contingent on it's chemical composition. These chemical permutation which determine what life is rely on them being that exact group of chemicals.
No amount of talking to it, or sending it a letter, is going to make it anything else. Physically changing the chemical composition alone will .
@rynso "'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides"
Yet the nature of the genome is - where does that leave you?
Why are you calling the ingredients of any given DNA structure "coded information" - especially when changing it's chemical structure is the only thing which changes what it is? Why make that assumption? Why assume any prescriptive intelligence? Is this just another belief on faith?
@rynso "Actually evolutionisists often try to make out it's simple, as you do - "life is just chemistry" "
That's because life observably IS chemistry!! -
Though not so simple, which is why you try to wedge your magic sky wizard in.
Declaring the influence of an arbitrarily objective intelligence, in what you assume is a "language" , when otherwise is observable and testably true, does not eliminate your need for good reasoning and evidence.
@rynso "The paper and ink on the page of a book does not determine the message. Nor does the chemistry of DNA"
Ha ha! This is funny!
If the message is, as you claim, "be a horse/tulip/bacteria -etc", then it matters greatly what the compounds of chemicals make up that particular genome!!
Do you really think it doesn't matter what chemicals the nucleotides are made from, or which exact protein compounds they carry??
It's the chemicals whch make a dog a dog, not what you decide is information
@rynso "I suppose that's a question. To answer, precisely because the genetic information is at least carried on 'letters' A U G C"
You mean ATGC....... They are ingredients of a chemical compound read as code. It is very complex, as chemical codes go, (It's life after all) but no more or less a "language" than the ingredients of a chocolate cake which forensically tells you that its a cake. nor any other chemical compound.
Looks like you've been exposed to too much creationist brainwashing!
With all due respect, Coded information is not the same as the ingredients of a chocolate cake. A code, uses arbitarily assigned symbols and is able to convey an infinite variety of messages.
And the messages are independent of the medium on which they are carried. Virtually any medium can be used, so long as it can be arranged somehow in a non-determined sequence.
Messages and minds are always linked. Messages always come from minds.
@rynso "With all due respect, Coded information is not the same as the ingredients of a chocolate cake"
Suit yourself! As I said, code is what you read it to be. If you don't want to call the ingredients of a cake - or of the genome- a code, then we won't call them that.
Either way, they are both chemical compounds that are no more than the sum of their own ingredients! The only difference is in the degree of complexity.
@Tobytrim Of course a difference can be demonstrated...
A cakes ingredients has structural information but no code.
A code can carry information about anything because codes aren't determined by the stuff on which they're carried. Chemical compounds, either graphite, ink, DNA or chocolate cake may be the sum of their ingredients but that says nothing about whether or not those compounds are being used as a medium to carry coded information. Codes ride on, but are not, chemical compounds.
@rynso "A code can carry information about anything because codes aren't determined by the stuff on which they're carried"
Now you have it! - And as any specific DNA is determined, and identified, by the very chemicals that it is composed from, it is demonstrably not a "code, language, or even information, until a conscious mind assigns it as such, and reads it that way.
Any specific chemical compound, including DNA, ceases to be what it is if you change it's ingredients. Information doesn't!
@rynso "A code, uses arbitarily assigned symbols and is able to convey an infinite variety of messages"
You'll have a job proving that the chemical ingredients of either DNA, or say, igneous rock are arbitrary - Lol!!
You seem to be trying to force the ridiculous supposition that the "information" in DNA is a message from one intelligent being to another - Is this the case?
You sound like one of these twits who don't know the difference between descriptive laws/ codes and prescriptive ones!
@Tobytrim It is the arbitary/NON DETERMINED nature of coded symbols that allow them to be used as a code. No one said the chemical ingredients of DNA were arbitary. I said the sequence down the chain is NOT DETERMINED by the chemistry but by the code - which is not chemistry but a mental construct.
Messages are not necessarily from one intelligence to another, but are always without fail, the product of intelligence.
And yes you're correct, I am saying that DNA originated in intelligence.
@rynso "It is the arbitary/NON DETERMINED nature of coded symbols that allow them to be used as a code"
You can say exactly the same about any specific rock, soil. lava, or any other chemical compound, reactive or stable. made-made or natural. The component parts of any mixture of ingredients determine what it is.
You can change the substance and form used to impart "information"hange the composition of a physical entity, (particlarly a polymerised organism) and it ceases to be that entity,
@rynso "And yes you're correct, I am saying that DNA originated in intelligence"
Ha ha! - I see! - And who is this "intelligence" passing this "information" to? Are these chemicals actually concious beings themselves which obey the master and become a cat or a dog or whatever the magic guy tells them to be?
After conception, do the cells form the embryo, then the fetus by verbal "command" too?
@rynso "I said the sequence down the chain is NOT DETERMINED by the chemistry but by the code - which is not chemistry but a mental construct"
Yes you did didn't you? And I don't doubt you even believe it!
The trouble is you are saying it and believing it without any evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, other than intuition and apparent strongly preached creationist dogma alone .
An organism, is observably the sum of its chemical composition. "Information" is ONLY changed chemically!
@rynso "You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all..."
Ha ha! - I think, with this comment, and your conversation with me in general, we can safely put paid to any denials that your video was simply satire. There's a lot of bile in you for scientists who have consequently debunked your book of bronze age superstition and fairytales- Your bias shows somewhat! Lol!!
@rynso"How do you go from no code to code to start with?"
You don't have to. EVERYTHING is a code, if you want it to be!!
A code is only a code because it is assigned, and chosen to be recognised as such, by the mind which percieves it. Same with a scientific, or philosophical "law".
Even the ingredience in a rock, or a turd, can be interpreted, by it's permutation of compounded material, as a "code". You still have a long way to go in order to suggest either were "intelligently designed".
@Tobytrim So...as you say 'EVERYTHING is a code', then perhaps you could tell me what the difference is between your patronising on here in English, and 'a turd'.
Actually...maybe your right...and there is no difference...
@rynso "then perhaps you could tell me what the difference is between your patronising on here in English, and 'a turd'."
Haha! Is that the extent of your response to my arguments....It speaks volumes about how seriously you can be taken by anyone - As if this crappy video didn't already !!
@Tobytrim What a copout! You claimed that 'EVERYTHING is a code', and used turds as an illustration. And then all you do is make this pathetic responce.
If 'everything is code' then what fundamental difference is there between your comments and a turd? You said it, I didn't, so justify your statement. Either there's a fundamental difference between codes (- ie Morse code, English, Russian, etc, Genetic code) and non coding stuff (ie turds), or there's no non-coding stuff as you claim.
@rynso "If 'everything is code' then what fundamental difference is there between your comments and a turd?"
Are you sure you want to go in this childish way with this discussion? After all, this is YOUR OWN video posting you're making a fool of yourself on?
A turd has actually got DNA code , but aside from that it is at least material substance. My comments ARE actually language and non contingent of any material form in themselves ..
@rynso "Exactly. And so is the information on the DNA. It is in an actual language and is not contingent on the material form on which it is carried.."
Ha ha!! Your limited intelligence IS having trouble with this isn't it? Let's try to show you the difference again!
The chemicals in your DNA are physically functional components of a chemical action, and NEED to be those exact chemicals
The INFORMATION in a book or message is NOT contingent on what substance the letters are formed from..
@Tobytrim Arrogant and abusive...a common combination it appears with hot-shot know-it-all atheists...
Whether 'chemicals in your DNA are physically functional components of a chemical action, and NEED to be those exact chemicals' is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The DNA is simply the meduim, in this case a very complicated medium, for carrying the coded instructions for a raft of processes that go on in living things.
These instructions are NOT contingent on/DETERMINED BY the chemistry.
No it's NOT . DNA is the very chemical action and composition, that we know as life. It's ingredients. Try changing that permutation of chemicals and see what the organism turns into. Words like "code" language" even "information" are purely descriptive terms use by moecular biologists and geneticists.
You seem to lack the intelligence to know the difference between what is PRESCRIBED to be something and what is simply DESCRIBED as such
@rynso "What a copout! You claimed that 'EVERYTHING is a code', and used turds as an illustration"
Look again. That's not quite what I said, was it? I made the point that any compound with ingredients can be a code, if someone wants to construe it as such. The ingredients of ANYTHING determine what it actually is. This is a code if you want to call it such.
However if you want to misuse my definitions so, everything, even an element, is the sum and the proportions of it's own ingredients!
@Tobytrim Contra, codes and coded information are not determined by the compounds/ingredients on they are carried,...which can be virtually anything...The 'compounds/ingredients' are simply the medium. They are not the message...
Messages are mental constructs. They are not physical, though are normally carried on physical mediums...
@Tobytrim Why is 'the physically contingent permutation of chemical compounds, we call the genome...obviously NOT a message from any intelligence.'?
You may as well say: 'The physically contingent permutation of chemical compounds, we call a book is obviously NOT a message from any intelligence. Try to understand this very telling point- If these were different chemicals the book could not exist .'
For the hundredth time chemistry DOES NOT DETERMINE codes or coded information!
@rynso "For the hundredth time chemistry DOES NOT DETERMINE codes or coded information!"
Well in keeping with your exaggeration - For the hundredth time the chemistry composition is the ONLY thing that could determine what an organism is -genetically or phylogenically.
Try changing the proteins or the nucleotide and see what the "information" makes out of that chemical mess which is left!! - - Or indeed what information you have?
Give this silly point a rest - You're showing yourself up!!
@rynso "Try to understand this very telling point- If these were different chemicals the book could not exist"
You change the substance of what what you write the information with, or what you write it on, or indeed how you communicate it and you don't change what the information represents.
You change the chemical ingredients, which you claim is merely the "medium" and you change what the whole structure of what you claim the information determines. Your thinking is flawed!
Read second section entitled 'The Genetic Code in DNA'.
Quote: 'The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code...Saying that it is a true code involves the idea that the code is free and unconstrained...their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding...'
@rynso "Quote: 'The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code..."
Ha ha! Why don't you quote the rest of the above.??
i would surmise it would tell you that this code is "expressed in nucleotide bases" which are REAL chemical constructions. Even transcriptase is a chemical reaction!! You seem to use the simplified scientific terminology as literal!
I'll stop laughing at you, when you you get to the peer review evidence which shows it to be the "message from god" you claim it to be.
@Tobytrim Clearly you did not visit the link I gave to read the rest of the material - which was only abreviated due to space.
You seem to think it profound and an indicator or your superior intelligence to point out something no one denies - that bases are 'chemical constructions' and that 'Even transcriptase is a chemical reaction'. And so are smoke signals!
But thanks for advancing the comment count on the video significantly. That's about the only value you've brought to this...
@rynso "A cakes ingredients has structural information but no code"
OK let's follow your thinking here,
Add yeast and heat to a cake it'll rise - a chemical process, albeit finite. So the cake also "functions" as a result of it's chemical composition .
Lets suppose, as RNA/DNA it's chemical construction allowed it to replicate and metabolise. a previously finite process would repeat, add variation, natural selection, 4 B.y you have a chemical complexity that might be interpreted as "coded" .
Comment removed
umutsilva 3 weeks ago
If we were all created and did not evolve, then why do chickens have the DNA for growing teeth?
moroney1 1 month ago
@moroney1
Why not?
rynso 1 month ago
@rynso If you are going to be that disconnected from logic then dont bother to repsond back
moroney1 1 month ago
@moroney1 Sigh...
Why don't you spell out the logic you claim is in your statement? I presume you're able to...I may be wrong...
rynso 1 month ago
This from the lad whose fundamental belief is essentially "Gandalf did it!"
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.
In that regard we are all in the same boat, but only one side of the debate actually looking for evidence.
BunrakukenIII 1 month ago
@BunrakukenIII Boring, unsupported assertions...
'Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs.'
What 'extraordinary claims' are you referring to?
rynso 1 month ago
@rynso he is referring to the claims that you know to be extraordinary. it is you who is boring.
umutsilva 1 month ago
@umutsilva Perhaps you would like to spell out what you think the 'extraordinary claims' are,..
rynso 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso ordinary claim: "coal can't burn without oxygen"
extraordinary claim: "god exists"
i can give more examples if you like.
umutsilva 3 weeks ago
You couldn't even do a Richard Dawkins impersonation?
It's so much easier to "win" a debate when it's a conversation with your straw man, and you don't understand evolutionary theory.
SeamusLight93 4 months ago
@SeamusLight93
IF life evolved, then life had to come from non-life...and as life runs on coded information, coded information had to come from raw chemistry, as that is all that biological E has available to it. Thus the key issue for E is getting information that codes for the first life, and then to get the information for all subsequent changes to that first life. If E is incapable of of getting coded information and the first life up and running, it hasn't occurrred...end of story...
rynso 4 months ago
@rynso
There are plenty of semi-organisms which bridge the gap between "life" and "non-life." Viruses, for example, are combinations of chemicals which move and self replicate, but are not considered "alive" in the same way we are. Our earliest "ancestors" were amino acids and other chemicals which formed in such a way that reactions were set off, causing self-replication.
Now to simply say, "God did it" and abandon all scientific progress is incredibly irresponsible. and belongs in 500AD.
SeamusLight93 4 months ago
@rynso
Your response shows how little you know about what evolution proposes.
A. evolution does not refer to the origin of life.
B. There are several structures with DNA that do not qualify as life.
C. There are even structures without DNA which do qualify as life.
Dawkins already cited a process which adds information to the genome way back in the 70's. Way to fall for creative editing.
BTW, nylonase is caused by an increase caused by duplication and frame-shift mutation.
qabala 2 months ago
@rynso
And yes, your video is one big strawman.
qabala 2 months ago
This is terrible, even as a satire.
justatallguy 4 months ago
This video is so retarded it made me want to die..
DaBluedude100 4 months ago
this was one funny video....lol
lostbot101 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations"-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuits completely altered the education system to suit their evolution agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible.
SpencerBenedict2nd 4 months ago
@rynso First of all, a cursory glance at the full arguments from which the statements were taken will show they are not accusations at all, but facts.
Also when you die it's exactly the same as before you were born. Though any visit to a hospital can show you the physical process.
If you mean what happens to our consciousness, then to further elaborate, the same thing as when you have massive loss of brain function (dementia, alzheimer's and brain damage are some possible causes).
IDGAFcoolface 5 months ago
'...will show they are not accusations at all, but facts.'
Such as?
'Also when you die it's exactly the same as before you were born.'
How do you know? Who says?
'Though any visit to a hospital can show you the physical process.'
So?
'If you mean what happens to our consciousness, then to further elaborate, the same thing as when you have massive loss of brain function (dementia, alzheimer's and brain damage are some possible causes).'
How do you know? Who says?
rynso 5 months ago
so wtf would your hopes and dreams for eternal existence be? hmmm, i'm going to float around in these clouds and contemplate my entirely puny existence on that planet that doesn't even exist anymore (it will be gone at some point). and yea, hitler (who was catholic btw) was killing the name of evolution. morons
isaachaze1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wtf is this shit?
menriquex 5 months ago
answer is in math....
thomasey2 5 months ago
MORE IDIOTS. It doesn't take much to find idiots.
alanjavis 5 months ago
@alanjavis Too easy to find idiots at the best of times !!
domnal 4 months ago
No point arguing is there. lets face it if you believe the Bible is the perfect word of God and you believe in God then you're probably ok with the fact that God sanctioned Rape, genocide, infanticide, slavery and war in his name. You're probably ok with the fact that the Bible can't make its mind up as to how Judas actually died. My sunday will be spent in open water enjoying the playground otherwise known as planet earth. you enjoy your poxy building and bullshit sermon.
jasondcone 5 months ago
@jasondcone hmmmmm...
So...tell me how you get coded information from raw chemistry.
And how you can get machines from matter at the first instant of biological life's existence...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso I lovethe way you dodged round my issues with the Bible. That seems to be standard procedure amongst the brain washed.
jasondcone 5 months ago
@jasondcone It seems precisely the reverse applies. You dodged around the issues addressed by the video, which didn't mention the bible.
But I don't know why you should be worried about the questions you raised because in the type of world you appear to believe it is, there is no evil...or good - to quote Dawkins there's 'nothing but pitiless indifference'. If it really is this type of world, why should anyone care what happens?
rynso 5 months ago
Clearly this dufus has never heard of the straw man argument. It is a logical fallacy and it goes like this: A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Ummmm...what's the strawman you're referring to?
rynso 5 months ago
Comment removed
brandonacker 5 months ago
Comment removed
brandonacker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso You tempered the quotes to make Dawkins sound like an idiot and then you refuted the incorrect quotes to make your argument look better. This is a straw man argument buddy. You clearly have not studied evolution. Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact. T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g I suggest you study up.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso You tempered the quotes to make Dawkins sound like an idiot and then you refuted the incorrect quotes to make your argument look better. This is a straw man argument buddy. You clearly have not studied evolution. Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact. T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g I suggest you study up.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Not sure what quotes you're referring. The ideas in the mouth of Dawkins are either his ideas (even exact words) or logical deductions from them.
You said: 'Biological Evolution by natural selection is a fact.'
That's a common but bold claim. Care to define 'evolution' as you use the term, so I know what you're talking about? Also could you clarify what you claim 'natural selection' is and does to achieve the 'evolution' you mention. Thanks.
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Except your "logical deductions" are worded incorrectly and make his evidence supported arguments sound like nonsense.
brandonacker 5 months ago
Comment removed
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso Now for some information about evolution: "Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution." T a l k o r i g i n s. o r g
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker You said quoting talkorigins: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact.'
What sort of genetic change is a fact?
Quote: 'Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors.'
Yeah, that's the belief - held with passion, ardor, and devotion. Not observed.
rynso 5 months ago
@brandonacker Quote: 'The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact.'
Yeah that's the claim - grand, sweeping, all encompassing - repeated ad nauseum - so often true believers come to believe it's true. It aen't.
Evolution has no means to get genetic info so genetics doesn't support it. Fossils show systematic gaps, so don't support it. Anatomy better fits common plans utilised by a Creator, so that's out...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Sir, you need to visit the site I referenced and actually do some research because you are being willingly ignorant to the actual evidence. First of all, scientists have mapped the human genome and can compare it to any other animal on the planet. When we do this, we find that all life falls into an perfect, awe-inspiring family tree. That this happens is a fact. You're incorrect claim that genetics don't support evolution is absurd.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker So...they've mapped the human genome. Have they mapped the genomes of all 'other animals on the planet'? Well no. How many? I can't imagine many. So how can they compare genomes & generate family trees? It can hardly be 'a fact'.
& what do the genomes say? Can a geneticist given a sequence of DNA, read it & know what it codes for? No. As there are multiple layers of info on DNA, do they know what layer their reading?
As far as I'm aware, we actually don't know much yet...more...
rynso 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso h t t p: // w w w. scientific american . com / article . cfm ? id= lizard -genome -unveiled
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Further...genetic systems are information systems utilising a code. E has no means by which to generate codes, or the information carried on a code. Neither the initial info nor any subsequent info. From all human experience, messages come from minds. There are genetic messages carried on the DNA, thus it came from a mind. E has no place for mind originated genetic info and thus it does not support genetics. What is absurd is to say messages come from matter (non-mind) as E says.
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Secondly, the site I provided contains a giant list of the transition fossils that you creationists don't ever actually look for. You just claim there aren't any and then feel like you've made a good argument. Of course there are gaps in the fossil record, we haven't found all of them! It's amazing that we have as many as we do. But the ones we do have suffice as transitionary fossils. For instance the Australopithecus afarensis, homo habilus, homo erectus, etc...
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker A Chihuahua, Poodle, Fox Terrier, Labrador, Alsatian, Great Dane could be put into a sequence that looks ancestral, though it would not be. Other animals alive today can also be so arranged, but we know there's nothing ancestral about the sequence because we see one does not derive from the other. Because some skeletal sequence can be arranged does not mean it's an ancestral sequence. Evo family tree diagrams are not facts but postulates. Linnaen lawn/forest, not Darwinian tree.
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Finally, we are 98% genetically similar to a chimpanzee. We are nearly anatomical equivalents. The fact that you are actually attempting to claim otherwise is frankly absurd.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker 98% similar. Highly disputable numbers. & what actually has been compared? How was the comparison done, etc?
& yeah there are similarities between some life forms, but who says they're because of ancestral connection? In my house are a raft of different types of doors, which in many ways look similar & fulfil similar purposes. However there's no ancestral connection between them. The connection is in a common idea utilised by the builder to achieve similar ends. Same with life.
rynso 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso "yeah there are similarities between some life forms, but who says they're because of ancestral connection? In my house are a raft of different types of doors, which in many ways look similar & fulfil similar purposes." Sir this has to be one of the worst arguments from ignorance I have ever heard. You clearly understand nothing about evolution and have not done any (non-biased) research.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso Now, I've supplied you with a website T a l k o r i g i n s . o r g There you will find the overwhelming/awe-inspiring evidence for evolution. Until you read the evidence supplied on this sight I will consider you scientifically illiterate because you've repeatedly demonstrated that your prejudice has not allowed you to do any actual research on the subject.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso You have pointed out how you don't understand how genetics support evolution but instead of actually researching to find out you have clung to your argument from ignorance. I gave you the only website you need to learn that evolution is empirically and demonstrably true. I urge you to put aside your prejudice and actually do some reading so that you will understand that in the scientific world, evolution by natural selection is considered to be a fact. There is no controversy.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Your fatih is touching.
So...perhaps you could enlighten me - the unenlightened - how evolution got going. You could address the requirement that life needs from its very first moment, energy supplied in the form of ATP produced by the rotary motor ATP synthase, which is coded for on DNA, which requires ATP to be transcribed.
If evolution can't start occurring. it can't have occurred, end of story...
I guess you will say evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso First of all, no faith is required when evidence is presented. Secondly, you make a fatal error in thinking that evolution attempts to explain the origin of life. Evolution attempts to explain the biological patterns of earth's biota. We need not explain the origin of life to discover overwhelming evidence that all life shares common ancestors. Once again, you've demonstrated your ignorance on the subject so please, just take a look at that website.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker I must say you're quick to ascribe ignorance. Perhaps you have some blind spots - like as regards faith.
Everyone has faith, even in relation to 'evidence'. You have to believe those who give the 'evidence' to you. You have to believe your senses. You have to believe the world is understandable, etc and so on. Faith is an inevitable part of life. It's not whether we have faith or not. It's what we put our faith in.
I simply don't have enough faith to be an evolutionist...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Only problem is you use the word "faith" too loosely. If you want to say I have faith in the scientific method than you are technically correct. But one thing I have to make absolutely clear is that this faith is incomparable to your faith in a god. There is no evidence for creationism, only wishful-thinking. Faith is belief without evidence. All of my beliefs are supported by evidence. You cannot say the same for religious beliefs.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker A true believer...
Hmmm...How do you know there is no evidence for creation? Did talkorigins say so?
'All of my beliefs are supported by evidence.' Thank you for acknowledging your beliefs.
Of course most people would say their beliefs are supported by evidence so the assertion doesn't actually mean much. I find it unpersausive.
'You cannot say the same for religious beliefs.' A mind reader also...
'Faith is belief without evidence.' Now you're showing your ignorance...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso You cannot deny facts sir. You can, like the vast majority of religious people, say god made this genetic family tree. But you cannot deny that this tree of common descendents exists. I don't want to hear any more opinions from you, you've provided absolutely NO evidence against evolution or for creationism. I've given you several facts that support evolution and a website with a gigantic list of them. If this were a court case, I'd be winning hands down.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso Sir, I will continue considering you scientifically illiterate until you have read the evidence for evolution on the website I provided. You may attempt to refute that evidence but you mustn't be so arrogant to not even read the evidence that is staring you in the face and then claim that you don't accept it because you just don't understand it. Take the time to educate yourself. You won't regret it.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Do you pray to talkorigins? Clearly they're a very significant authority in your life. Will they comfort you when dying? Do they give you meaning to life? Do they guide you in how you should live?
'evidence that is staring you in the face.'
Lie down on the couch and tell me what is the very best, knock-me-down, totally convincing evidence you have. Don't wave your arms around and go on about 'mountains' of evidence. Tell me what you personally find the most persausive.
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Are you being serious? How unscientific of you. How childish in fact. Sir, I've simply supplied talkorigins because it puts all the evidence of evolution in one place. I get the feeling you don't actually want to educate yourself. You would prefer to just sit on youtube making scientifically incorrect statements all day than actually read a science book.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker I thought you would like that...
And...might I say...you're somewhat presumptuous, not only being able to read my mind, but knowing my level of education, and also the books I don't read...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso But to humor you, the most persuasive argument is that Charles Darwin and others predicted that all life would fall into a perfect family tree if we were ever able to compare genomes. Obviously 140 years ago we couldn't do this. But in the 50's and 60's we finally developed the technology and guess what happened?! Just like Darwin predicted based on his observations the empirical genetic evidence falls into a beautiful family tree. That this happens is a fact.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker So you reckon we've got this 'PERFECT - BEAUTIFUL even (man you really do lay it on!) family tree'...proved by genetics.
Please tell me how many genomes have been decoded, and of what critters.
And seeing you you've waved your arms a bit too much with all of this, what is the best SPECIFIC evidence of common ancestry you have.
Clearly if there's common ancestry, the amount of genetic info has built up over time - from zero to the present vast amount. How did this occur?
rynso 5 months ago
@brandonacker Another blind spot: re origin of life. I predicted your responce. It was a boiler plate - comes up everywhere. "The origin of life is a huge problem - massive - insoluable - so to avoid it we'll use a cut down definition of evolution and say E's got nothing to do with it." Sorry it doesn't work - as numerous big name Evos have noted. Whatever the process of biological evolution is (no one knows - if you know tell me), it had to start. If it couldn't start it can't have occurred...
rynso 5 months ago
@brandonacker 'Evolution attempts to explain the biological patterns of earth's biota.' 'Attempts' - nice word.
Define evolution.
Have you considered alternative 'attempts to explain the biological patterns of earth's biota'?
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso Go to the site, there are plenty of definitions there. You are just too prejudiced to even do accurate research. One thing I can state as an undeniable fact is that evolution is by far the leading scientific theory. Overwhelming empirical evidence is in support of it and no other theory comes close to touching it. If you want to be so ignorant as to just say "God did it" than I feel sorry for you.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker You're waving your arms again.
'Overwhelming empirical evidence is in support of it and no other theory comes close to touching it.' How do you know? Have you looked into the claims of creationists - as spelt out by creationists? Have you read any creationist literature? Would you like a website so you could get informed?
What do you say? 'God didn't do it - no intelligence/thought allowed.' Tell me what did. Be specific.
What's your definition of evolution - in your own words?
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso How do I know? Because I've listened to many creationist arguments and debates. All you have are arguments from ignorance. I'm done arguing evolution with you. It's not that you are a scientist that has found a evidence against evolution, it's that you're ignorant to the scientific method and prefer the idea of god so you haven't actually done any research. I've given you a website with empirical evidence and several facts about evolution. You've given me nothing in return.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@brandonacker Where & from whom did you listen to creationist arguments?
You said, 'You've given me nothing in return.'
With respect, I've posed you questions evolution has no answer to because it excludes all thought and intelligence from the claimed 'evolutionary process'. (By the way you haven't told me what that process is.)
This is an either or situation. Logically, if 'non-mind' can't produce something, by default 'mind' must have. So the failure of E, means Creation stands...
rynso 5 months ago
@rynso I have decided that you are not worth my time. You do not understand the scientific method, you are too stubborn to actually look at the empirical evidence for evolution and most importantly, you are too deluded to actually be taken seriously. Creationism-science is an oxymoron. Please educate yourself.
brandonacker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso How do I know? Because I've listened to many creationist arguments and debates. All you have are arguments from ignorance. I'm done arguing evolution with you. It's not that you are a scientist that has found a evidence against evolution, it's that you're ignorant to the scientific method and prefer the idea of god so you haven't actually done any research. I've given you a website with empirical evidence and several facts about evolution. You've given me nothing in return.
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait....
brandonacker 5 months ago
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait....
brandonacker 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso I keep supplying evidence for my argument but you haven't supplied any. You've just made ignorant, opinion-based statements. So it's your turn. Wow me with creation. What is the evidence against evolution? What is the empirical evidence for creationism? I'll wait...
brandonacker 5 months ago
Evo Gordy Slack said re origin of life:
“I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close.”
rynso 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
You dont need to be a creationist to realize that there is a metaphysical side to life. Study physics. The Universe begins to look more like a great thought than a machine, Sir James Jeans British Physicist. Max Planck, said that “all matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particles of an atom to vibration which holds the atom together. We must assume behind this force is the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter.“
amercury7 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 6 months ago
I think i know what you're confused about.
It sounds as though you're confused about how "novel" information arises.
Well, which "information" exactly are you referring to? At the atomic structure of any organism the basic ingredients are the same and unchanging, i.e. protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. At the chemical level carbon (and other elements) combine to form complex molecules, basic constituents that make up DNA which when randomly suffled lead to new, novel information.
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism I am not confused.
Coded information is what is being addressed. Coded information isn't determined by whatever material substrate it is carried on, and is not itself material.The story in a book does not derive from, nor is it determined by, nor is it, the paper and the ink on which it rides. Coded information requires a pre-existing language convention and thus random suffling of letters (the letters are one of the pre-existing conventions) doesn't produce coded information.
rynso 7 months ago
this is hilarious
LJonesy2 7 months ago
Richard Dawkins possesed him and made him pwn himself! This guys a bloody moron!
spartonne 7 months ago
Enlightening and entertaining !!! What a combo, Thanks.
piusvapor 7 months ago
This is unlike anything I've seen from Richard Dawkins. I've never seen Dawkins spew drivel.
Slapnuts711 7 months ago 2
@Slapnuts711 Some of what 'Dawkins' says is unedited, straight from his own mouth...
rynso 7 months ago
By acting like atheism is a religion itself, and then attacking it as such, doesn't that just make the case against religion even stronger?
In other words, your attempt at satire is backfiring and showing how you can only attack atheism, ironically, from an atheistitc (non-religious) standpoint of calling it a religion and therefore wrong/bad/immoral, etc.
Do you see the irony in this? You've made the atheist a "high preist" and the theist a "skeptic".
lol.
***IRONY ALERT***
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Not a particularly coherent comment. Perhaps some more explanation is required.
Any case against 'religion' can only be against a particular 'religion', not against religion in per sae, because religious/philosophical questions are asked and answered by everyone one way or another, making everyone 'religious'. It is particular answers to religious/philosophical questions that a cases can be made against...like the overwhelming case against the religion of atheism...
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso You do know what irony is right?
The attack in the video isn't from a specific religious standpoint, but a "general" one, and it fails on that account.
If you applied even a fraction of the rigorous scutiny that you demand from evolution to your OWN beliefs about God, purpose, afterlife, morality, etc. then you'd admit that there's absolutely no basis to believe in magical thinking like that.
If you think you're attacking atheism as a religion, then you're not really attacking A-theism
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Somewhat patronising...but not really any clearer...
Who believes in magic? Not me. Perhaps you do! Life from non-life; Coded information from raw chemicals and physics - the story from the paper and ink on which it rides; Morals from matter. All sounds just like the waving of wands, fairy tales, frogs to princes even...
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso You don't believe in magic? How do you think human got here then?
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Certainly not by magic...
By being thought about, designed, and built.
So...you don't believe in magic? How do you think human got here then?
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso What do you mean by "built". Did God assemble the first human like a lego toy?
You don't believe in common ancestry right? That humans evolved along with literally everything else on this planet along an unbroken chain of reproduction that all started with single-celled organisms?
Then how else were the first "humans" built? I'd like to know what you DO believe.
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism I don't know how humans were built...any more than I or anyone really know how they function.
Nor do I know how computers are built, even though I build things all the time. Not knowing how something is built, doesn't mean we can't know that it was built. We can recognise 'fingerprints'.
No, I don't accept common ancestry, but clearly you believe it. Thus you need to show how you get coded information, intelligence, and morals from chemistry and physics, rather than mind.
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso I didn't ask what you KNEW about it, i asked what you believe. You said your beliefs aren't magical, so i'd like to know what they are concerning the origin of man. Stop dodging the question.
Further, not knowing HOW humans were "built" ALSO doesn't mean that you CAN know THAT humans were built. And as for ur information question, it's call gene duplication and random mutation, selected by repoductive adaptibility (natural selection). Duh!
And we actually do know how humans function btw
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism 'Duh!' yourself. Gene duplication doesn't produce new information, and mutations do not improve what exists. If they're so hot shot, why fear nuclear accidents? Because mutations produce mutants!
Magic, is humans seeking to manipulate supernatural powers to produce ends the humans want. A supernatural Creator producing the world and humans isn't magic. It's in principle no different to me making something.
There is a vast amount about how humans function that is unknown.
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso "Gene duplication doesn't produce new information" - Yea i know, it allows so more information to become part of the gene. The random mutations handle the "new" information. It's the combination of both of these taken together that are at least 1 answer to your question: "What mechanism causes an increase in information in the genome?" Actually, since the question doesn't actually specify "new information" gene duplication is sufficient at explaining how a genome can increase in size.
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@rynso It's called an argument from ignorance.
NOT knowing something, i.e. the origins of man, never gives you any grounds to then claim to KNOW something i.e. that a God must have done it.
It's also a pure failure of imagination. Just because YOU can't think of how something happened without being the work of a supernatural, (by definition) magical being, DOESN'T mean that it's automatically true.
I presume you believe in something beyond nature. I'd like to know your grounds for this
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism Duh again. That I don't know how a computer is made, doesn't mean I can't know somethings about computers nor recognise fingerprints.
Yes, I believe that there is 'something beyond nature', and that that 'something' is a personal, intelligent, moral being, who created the 'creation' - 'nature' if you will.
Grounds for accepting this? The existence of things within 'nature' that are unable to be produced by nature doing it's thing. Design, morality, intelligence, coded info...
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso So your grounds for believing in God is "The existence of things within 'nature' that are unable to be produced by nature doing it's thing. Design, morality, intelligence, coded info..."
You're just plain wrong. Everything in nature can indeed be explaned purely by natural causes, including the natural "designs" (aka patterns, symmetries) morality, intelligence, and information. Nature produces designs all the time that you wouldn't say God was the direct and immediate cause of.
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
@Wittgensteinism I presume you believe there is nothing beyond nature. I'd like to know your grounds for believing this.
rynso 7 months ago
@rynso "I presume you believe there is nothing beyond nature"
Correct.
My grounds for this are twofold. The 1st is purely grammatical; i equate nature with existence itself, so saying "outside nature" literally means "outside existence", in other words, "non-existent".
The 2nd is empirical; i form my beliefs based on what there is empirical evidence to support. All supposed supernatual events have been explained purely naturally. Occams razor makes belief in the supernatural unnecessary
Wittgensteinism 7 months ago
This video is a fail on so many levels.
ndrthrdr1 7 months ago
@ndrthrdr1 Come on, you've got to be able to do better than that!
Spell out why it fails...on 'sooo many levels'.
rynso 7 months ago
You will have to face the FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER for this heresy!
MrKGatl 7 months ago
@MrKGatl I like it...:-)
Ties me all up in knots...has me shakin in the plate...
rynso 7 months ago
ha... silly
kelbykross1 7 months ago
Let me ask you a question........ What really is your beef with Dawkins?
Do you have a problem with the fact that he's an atheist? -or-
Is it that he's a recognised, and well qualified scientific expert, in a subject, which you, in your ignorance, do not wish to accept the validity of?
Why don't you complain to all the academic bodies which made him a professor? - And you obviously NOT- Lol!!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
Incidently, an answer to the question you think Dawkins ( a professor in biology) is struggling with: - Gene duplication coupled with frame shift mutation, genetic drft etc etc.....
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim 'Gene duplication coupled with frame shift mutation, genetic drft etc etc...'
Hmmm...How do these produce new coherent information?
Duplication is like duplication of pages in a book - just the same information duplicated.
Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page. May change one word into another - making a 'new word' but is actually a degradation of the message.
And all these presuppose the code. How do you go from no code to code to start with?
rynso 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso "Hmmm...How do these produce new coherent information?"
Ha ha!! - don't you know?? I can see how these "knowledgable creationist" ( a contradiction in terms) thrive in debates. The exasperate the more knowledgable opposition with their own pig ignorance eh??.
Tell you what....You tell me what you think "new information" is, and why you think it's required for evolution?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page"
Ha ha!! Haven't you noticed? - Every genetic definition of an organism HAS the appearance of scrambling or substitution relative to another..... As does it's phylogeny, and taxonomic morphology!
That's EXACTLY how evolution works!
It seems your ignorance of the subject is the reason you think unqualified creationist pastors are "winning" the argument against REAL scientists eh??
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "Mutations are like random scrambling or substitution of letters on a page"
And what the hell makes you think that genetic "information" is analogous to letters on a page, which are purposeful communication from one intelligence to another. The analysis of of DNA is obviously better described as the forensic understanding of the molecular "ingredience" of any chemical compound in nature. It is what it is!!
You're misrepresenting the definition to assume the conclusion you want.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all...
'And what the hell makes you think that genetic "information" is analogous to letters on a page, which are purposeful communication from one intelligence to another.'
I suppose that's a question. To answer, precisely because the genetic information is at least carried on 'letters' A U G C, which make up 'words'/codons on the DNA strands. It's not called the 'language of life' the 'genetic code' for nothing.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso"You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all..."
Ha! Compared to you it seems I do!!
The letters you speak of are actually chemical ingredients of DNA - Adenine, cytosine, thiamine, and guinine. Because the differing permutations determine the genotype, and eventually the phenotype, biologists attempt to understand it as a code. The ingredients of ANY compound can be construed as a code to tell any intelligence what it is.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim 'The letters you speak of are actually chemical ingredients of DNA." Very good. Top marks. The words I see on my computer screen are also chemical ingredients of stuff in my computer screen. But the chemical stuff does not determine the letters/words in the comments I read. They are just a medium on which the message is carried.
Precisely the same with DNA. Of course its chemical stuff, but the chemicals do not determine the sequence. It is the sequence that is all important.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "The words I see on my computer screen are also chemical ingredients of stuff in my computer screen"
Chemical, Electronic,ink, pencil - There can be any number of completely different ways to form letters and numbers, and they are still the same recognisable information from a known verifiable intelligent source.
DNA is still the same 4 nucleotide bases carrying different permutations of the same potential groups of proteins and acids which are the ingredients of a given genome.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Blind as a bat...
Virtually any medium can be used to carry messages...but they are only the medium not the message.
The fact DNA only uses 4 letters which chemically are all 'permutations of the same potential groups of proteins and acids', doesn't negate the fact that the NON DETERMINED sequence in which those 4 letters are arranged carries information that transcends chemistry. The paper and ink on the page of a book does not determine the message. Nor does the chemistry of DNA.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "Virtually any medium can be used to carry messages...but they are only the medium not the message."
AQgain - You are only making my point for me! DNA is only an assembly of chemicals that make it what it is.
Anything forensically analysed to determine it's ingredients, can be read as "information".
There is no difference. What confuses creationists, is that life is an ongoing, complex, reaction, which changes it's form because one of it's chemical functions is self replication.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim You're either intentionally or not, making a logical fallacy by using the word 'information' for two different things. 'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides. Yeah life is complex, as though anyone thinks its not. Actually evolutionisists often try to make out it's simple, as you do - "life is just chemistry" - and adamantly refuse to acknowledge the added complexity of coded information to avoid the obvious.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides"
Which eliminates DNA as arbitrarily sent information , as it's nature IS totally contingent on it's chemical composition. These chemical permutation which determine what life is rely on them being that exact group of chemicals.
No amount of talking to it, or sending it a letter, is going to make it anything else. Physically changing the chemical composition alone will .
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "'Coded information' wherever found, is NOT DETERMINED (for the thousandth time) by the chemistry on which it rides"
Yet the nature of the genome is - where does that leave you?
Why are you calling the ingredients of any given DNA structure "coded information" - especially when changing it's chemical structure is the only thing which changes what it is? Why make that assumption? Why assume any prescriptive intelligence? Is this just another belief on faith?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "Actually evolutionisists often try to make out it's simple, as you do - "life is just chemistry" "
That's because life observably IS chemistry!! -
Though not so simple, which is why you try to wedge your magic sky wizard in.
Declaring the influence of an arbitrarily objective intelligence, in what you assume is a "language" , when otherwise is observable and testably true, does not eliminate your need for good reasoning and evidence.
Your personal intuition/ignorance isn't enough!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "The paper and ink on the page of a book does not determine the message. Nor does the chemistry of DNA"
Ha ha! This is funny!
If the message is, as you claim, "be a horse/tulip/bacteria -etc", then it matters greatly what the compounds of chemicals make up that particular genome!!
Do you really think it doesn't matter what chemicals the nucleotides are made from, or which exact protein compounds they carry??
It's the chemicals whch make a dog a dog, not what you decide is information
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "I suppose that's a question. To answer, precisely because the genetic information is at least carried on 'letters' A U G C"
You mean ATGC....... They are ingredients of a chemical compound read as code. It is very complex, as chemical codes go, (It's life after all) but no more or less a "language" than the ingredients of a chocolate cake which forensically tells you that its a cake. nor any other chemical compound.
Looks like you've been exposed to too much creationist brainwashing!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim You're right, my bad...ATGC...
With all due respect, Coded information is not the same as the ingredients of a chocolate cake. A code, uses arbitarily assigned symbols and is able to convey an infinite variety of messages.
And the messages are independent of the medium on which they are carried. Virtually any medium can be used, so long as it can be arranged somehow in a non-determined sequence.
Messages and minds are always linked. Messages always come from minds.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "With all due respect, Coded information is not the same as the ingredients of a chocolate cake"
Suit yourself! As I said, code is what you read it to be. If you don't want to call the ingredients of a cake - or of the genome- a code, then we won't call them that.
Either way, they are both chemical compounds that are no more than the sum of their own ingredients! The only difference is in the degree of complexity.
Or can you demonstrate a difference?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Of course a difference can be demonstrated...
A cakes ingredients has structural information but no code.
A code can carry information about anything because codes aren't determined by the stuff on which they're carried. Chemical compounds, either graphite, ink, DNA or chocolate cake may be the sum of their ingredients but that says nothing about whether or not those compounds are being used as a medium to carry coded information. Codes ride on, but are not, chemical compounds.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "A code can carry information about anything because codes aren't determined by the stuff on which they're carried"
Now you have it! - And as any specific DNA is determined, and identified, by the very chemicals that it is composed from, it is demonstrably not a "code, language, or even information, until a conscious mind assigns it as such, and reads it that way.
Any specific chemical compound, including DNA, ceases to be what it is if you change it's ingredients. Information doesn't!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "A code, uses arbitarily assigned symbols and is able to convey an infinite variety of messages"
You'll have a job proving that the chemical ingredients of either DNA, or say, igneous rock are arbitrary - Lol!!
You seem to be trying to force the ridiculous supposition that the "information" in DNA is a message from one intelligent being to another - Is this the case?
You sound like one of these twits who don't know the difference between descriptive laws/ codes and prescriptive ones!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim It is the arbitary/NON DETERMINED nature of coded symbols that allow them to be used as a code. No one said the chemical ingredients of DNA were arbitary. I said the sequence down the chain is NOT DETERMINED by the chemistry but by the code - which is not chemistry but a mental construct.
Messages are not necessarily from one intelligence to another, but are always without fail, the product of intelligence.
And yes you're correct, I am saying that DNA originated in intelligence.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "It is the arbitary/NON DETERMINED nature of coded symbols that allow them to be used as a code"
You can say exactly the same about any specific rock, soil. lava, or any other chemical compound, reactive or stable. made-made or natural. The component parts of any mixture of ingredients determine what it is.
You can change the substance and form used to impart "information"hange the composition of a physical entity, (particlarly a polymerised organism) and it ceases to be that entity,
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "And yes you're correct, I am saying that DNA originated in intelligence"
Ha ha! - I see! - And who is this "intelligence" passing this "information" to? Are these chemicals actually concious beings themselves which obey the master and become a cat or a dog or whatever the magic guy tells them to be?
After conception, do the cells form the embryo, then the fetus by verbal "command" too?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "I said the sequence down the chain is NOT DETERMINED by the chemistry but by the code - which is not chemistry but a mental construct"
Yes you did didn't you? And I don't doubt you even believe it!
The trouble is you are saying it and believing it without any evidence or sound reasoning to back it up, other than intuition and apparent strongly preached creationist dogma alone .
An organism, is observably the sum of its chemical composition. "Information" is ONLY changed chemically!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "You sound like yet one more arrogant atheist who thinks they know it all..."
Ha ha! - I think, with this comment, and your conversation with me in general, we can safely put paid to any denials that your video was simply satire. There's a lot of bile in you for scientists who have consequently debunked your book of bronze age superstition and fairytales- Your bias shows somewhat! Lol!!
I suppose you're a YE creationist too?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso"How do you go from no code to code to start with?"
You don't have to. EVERYTHING is a code, if you want it to be!!
A code is only a code because it is assigned, and chosen to be recognised as such, by the mind which percieves it. Same with a scientific, or philosophical "law".
Even the ingredience in a rock, or a turd, can be interpreted, by it's permutation of compounded material, as a "code". You still have a long way to go in order to suggest either were "intelligently designed".
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim So...as you say 'EVERYTHING is a code', then perhaps you could tell me what the difference is between your patronising on here in English, and 'a turd'.
Actually...maybe your right...and there is no difference...
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "then perhaps you could tell me what the difference is between your patronising on here in English, and 'a turd'."
Haha! Is that the extent of your response to my arguments....It speaks volumes about how seriously you can be taken by anyone - As if this crappy video didn't already !!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim What a copout! You claimed that 'EVERYTHING is a code', and used turds as an illustration. And then all you do is make this pathetic responce.
If 'everything is code' then what fundamental difference is there between your comments and a turd? You said it, I didn't, so justify your statement. Either there's a fundamental difference between codes (- ie Morse code, English, Russian, etc, Genetic code) and non coding stuff (ie turds), or there's no non-coding stuff as you claim.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "If 'everything is code' then what fundamental difference is there between your comments and a turd?"
Are you sure you want to go in this childish way with this discussion? After all, this is YOUR OWN video posting you're making a fool of yourself on?
A turd has actually got DNA code , but aside from that it is at least material substance. My comments ARE actually language and non contingent of any material form in themselves ..
So, which most resemble a "code"?
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim 'My comments ARE actually language and non contingent of any material form in themselves ..'
Exactly. And so is the information on the DNA. It is in an actual language and is not contingent on the material form on which it is carried...
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "Exactly. And so is the information on the DNA. It is in an actual language and is not contingent on the material form on which it is carried.."
Ha ha!! Your limited intelligence IS having trouble with this isn't it? Let's try to show you the difference again!
The chemicals in your DNA are physically functional components of a chemical action, and NEED to be those exact chemicals
The INFORMATION in a book or message is NOT contingent on what substance the letters are formed from..
.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Arrogant and abusive...a common combination it appears with hot-shot know-it-all atheists...
Whether 'chemicals in your DNA are physically functional components of a chemical action, and NEED to be those exact chemicals' is irrelevant to the issue at hand. The DNA is simply the meduim, in this case a very complicated medium, for carrying the coded instructions for a raft of processes that go on in living things.
These instructions are NOT contingent on/DETERMINED BY the chemistry.
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "The DNA is simply the meduim"
No it's NOT . DNA is the very chemical action and composition, that we know as life. It's ingredients. Try changing that permutation of chemicals and see what the organism turns into. Words like "code" language" even "information" are purely descriptive terms use by moecular biologists and geneticists.
You seem to lack the intelligence to know the difference between what is PRESCRIBED to be something and what is simply DESCRIBED as such
Tobytrim 8 months ago
"These instructions are NOT contingent on/DETERMINED BY the chemistry."
Then you have observable evidence for this? After all, it is observable that the nture of an organism is contingent on its chemical constitution.
You must have some testable evidence that there is actual information designed by, and actually being passed from one conscious being to another?
Otherwise you wouldn't have any good reason to believe it to be so, would you?
Or is it because it just SEEMS that way??
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "What a copout! You claimed that 'EVERYTHING is a code', and used turds as an illustration"
Look again. That's not quite what I said, was it? I made the point that any compound with ingredients can be a code, if someone wants to construe it as such. The ingredients of ANYTHING determine what it actually is. This is a code if you want to call it such.
However if you want to misuse my definitions so, everything, even an element, is the sum and the proportions of it's own ingredients!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Contra, codes and coded information are not determined by the compounds/ingredients on they are carried,...which can be virtually anything...The 'compounds/ingredients' are simply the medium. They are not the message...
Messages are mental constructs. They are not physical, though are normally carried on physical mediums...
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "Messages are mental constructs. They are not physical"
Which is why the physically contingent permutation of chemical compounds, we call the genome, is obviously NOT a message from any intelligence.
Try to understand this very telling point- If these were different chemicals the organism could not exist .
It is contingent on it's ingredients. - NOT what we choose to describe as information for ease of analytical recognition!
It is "code" only in our perception, not design!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Why is 'the physically contingent permutation of chemical compounds, we call the genome...obviously NOT a message from any intelligence.'?
You may as well say: 'The physically contingent permutation of chemical compounds, we call a book is obviously NOT a message from any intelligence. Try to understand this very telling point- If these were different chemicals the book could not exist .'
For the hundredth time chemistry DOES NOT DETERMINE codes or coded information!
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "For the hundredth time chemistry DOES NOT DETERMINE codes or coded information!"
Well in keeping with your exaggeration - For the hundredth time the chemistry composition is the ONLY thing that could determine what an organism is -genetically or phylogenically.
Try changing the proteins or the nucleotide and see what the "information" makes out of that chemical mess which is left!! - - Or indeed what information you have?
Give this silly point a rest - You're showing yourself up!!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "Try to understand this very telling point- If these were different chemicals the book could not exist"
You change the substance of what what you write the information with, or what you write it on, or indeed how you communicate it and you don't change what the information represents.
You change the chemical ingredients, which you claim is merely the "medium" and you change what the whole structure of what you claim the information determines. Your thinking is flawed!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim I'm outa here...no point continuing to talk to the blind, deaf, and dumb...
In a couple of clicks I found the following (remove spaces):
hyperphysics . phy-astr . gsu . edu/hbase/organic/gencode . html#c3
Read second section entitled 'The Genetic Code in DNA'.
Quote: 'The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code...Saying that it is a true code involves the idea that the code is free and unconstrained...their sequence is not determined by the chemical bonding...'
rynso 8 months ago
@rynso "Quote: 'The sequence of bases in DNA operates as a true code..."
Ha ha! Why don't you quote the rest of the above.??
i would surmise it would tell you that this code is "expressed in nucleotide bases" which are REAL chemical constructions. Even transcriptase is a chemical reaction!! You seem to use the simplified scientific terminology as literal!
I'll stop laughing at you, when you you get to the peer review evidence which shows it to be the "message from god" you claim it to be.
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Clearly you did not visit the link I gave to read the rest of the material - which was only abreviated due to space.
You seem to think it profound and an indicator or your superior intelligence to point out something no one denies - that bases are 'chemical constructions' and that 'Even transcriptase is a chemical reaction'. And so are smoke signals!
But thanks for advancing the comment count on the video significantly. That's about the only value you've brought to this...
rynso 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rynso "But thanks for advancing the comment count on the video significantly. That's about the only value you've brought to this"
Well I never expected you to admit you'd learned something!!
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@rynso "A cakes ingredients has structural information but no code"
OK let's follow your thinking here,
Add yeast and heat to a cake it'll rise - a chemical process, albeit finite. So the cake also "functions" as a result of it's chemical composition .
Lets suppose, as RNA/DNA it's chemical construction allowed it to replicate and metabolise. a previously finite process would repeat, add variation, natural selection, 4 B.y you have a chemical complexity that might be interpreted as "coded" .
Tobytrim 8 months ago
@Tobytrim Your thinking is as half baked as your cake...
Once again no one denies chemical process. Haven&#