Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Off-Topic Ordeals » Arrrggghhh!!!!

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
Arrrggghhh!!!!
Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

No counters on what I said? Or did you convieniently miss it all? Changing information gives you different information, aka NEW information.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
avatar

Quote:

Natural selection leads to changes but does not add new information.

Sorry? Copy Errors? As I've said before (and as TF said).
It's part of our genome through repetitive copied sequences.

Actually, this blindness to the new information sounds like you have read up on ID points and are arguing from them.. :(

EDIT: You made no mention of the negative mutations I highlighted either.

Quote:

Who says all organisms need to have the best of everything to function the way they are supposed to?

Then if they could function better, but don't.. where is the designer?

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Almost certianly, but its code will probably have mutated, to become usefull.

Are you saying that by the time we discover what it does it will be doing something because it mutated while we were looking for the function? This does nothing to substantiate the claim the certain DNA is junk. You are just assuming it is junk because we haven't found out what it does yet.

Quote:

Sorry? Copy Errors? As I've said before (and as TF said).
It's part of our genome through repetitive copied sequences.

Actually, this blindness to the new information sounds like you have read up on ID points and are arguing from them..

Am I blind for not seeing what is not there? In real experiments the mechanism which is purported to explain how evolution could be possible has not been demonstrated. This makes evolution at best an hypothesis awaiting further testing.

Quote:

You made no mention of the negative mutations I highlighted either.

Well, showing a negative mutation hardly seems like good support that mutations can account for upward movement toward more complex organisms.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

Are you saying that by the time we discover what it does it will be doing something because it mutated while we were looking for the function?

No. Far from it. I never once said there even existed "Junk DNA". I did however say that the genome can and will change.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

No. Far from it. I never once said there even existed "Junk DNA". I did however say that the genome can and will change.

Yep, but will it change in a way that is required for evolution to be true? What I said about new information still stands.

HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
avatar

Quote:

All the experimental data I've been exposed to shows that these things don't happen in practice.

Can you show some of that data?
Some conclusions have been made after mapping and comparing human and mouse genome here

Quote:

HoHo, I've already said we don't want to teach ID in school.

Who are "we"?
That is true, you don't. But there are some (deeply religious*) people who do want to teach it. If there wouldn't be such theory then there would be no problems with deciding wheter to teach it or not.
*) What do you think are the chanses of a not religiously biased person to teach creationism?

I would like to ask what is you think about teaching those other religions in ID classes I gave links to? I know you personally wouldn't teach stuff that cannot be proven but it seems like others do.

Also, qouting yourself:

Quote:

It irritates me when they teach people in school that people came from apes which came from lower animals when they can't actually scientifically prove it.

We can't directly proove many things. Why should anyonr belive that molecules are made up of atoms and atoms of nuklei and electrons? If not then how can we prove it to them with something better than theory? What should have been tought 50y ago? If we can't get any better facts than some test results and theories based on them then why not drop that part of physics from school program?

Todd Cope said:

Please point me to an actual experiment that shows that junk DNA accumulates and can later be used for some other function.

Todd Cope said:

So-called junk DNA is being shown to have use as more data comes in.

Has my fever gone up too much or I just don't get it.

Quote:

Sure it is, the argument here is ID, so far the design has been anything BUT intelligent.

Perhaps the creator is playing something like Black & White or anything from the Sim* series and is kind of evil :P

Quote:

We can't even begin to create anything as amazing as what is seen in the biological world and yet we consider ourselves intelligent.

Have you heard any lifeforms that have been to outer space on their own free will? What about cloning or using artifical body parts? Compared to what we had 80 years ago I say unless we blow ourselves to stoneage the next 100 years will get interesting. Those creations are not yet as big as creating AI or artificial new life forms but seeing the speed of scientific development I think that might not be too far.

Only proof for ID I've seen so far consists of trying to say evolution is false and that everything is so complex that only possibility is that someone created it.

A little side note:
I personally would like that religion would be tought at schools, just not in science class. History would be much better place. I'm especially interested in budism, hinduism and islam, I would like to know more about them to not have superstitions about people of these faiths.

__________
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is - Jan L.A. van de Snepscheut
MMORPG's...Many Men Online Role Playing Girls - Radagar
"Is Java REALLY slower? Does STL really bloat your exes? Find out with your friendly host, HoHo, and his benchmarking machine!" - Jakub Wasilewski

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Quote:

Yep, but will it change in a way that is required for evolution to be true?

It doesn't much matter. Evolution is the current theory, which has been based upon a couple of hundred years worth of study. If some new data comes to light that contradicts Evolution to a large enough degree that it renders the evolution theory "false", then a new hypothesis, and eventually theory will be put forward. This is how science works. Otherwise, the "evolution" theory will be modified to fit the parameters that have been observed thus far.

ID however is based upon people's religious beliefs in that the universe is far to complex for it to have just "been".

edit:
I personally believe the proper solution to the "problem" in whatever state what was, was to institute religious classes, instead of pushing religious propaganda onto science classes.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

In my opinion science fails in communicating to the public what the state of science actually is. Scientists are awefully fond of boasting about their discoveries, but we never hear about the open questions or surprising experimental results that continue driving research and investigations.

Consider 1905 when Einstien had his 'miracle year'; there were several open questions in science that were fairly widely known; 'black body radiation', 'brownian movement' of particles in solution when viewed under a microscope, the 'photo electric effect', and the variation in the observed orbit of Mercury compared to the calculated orbit. Most of the general population was familiar with these phenomena. Einstien explained them all with mathematics from first principals.

Today, what are the open questions in science? We certainly don't hear about them; so far as the laymen is concerned pretty much everything is known; we've 'sequenced the human genome' so we must know quiet alot, right? Not hardly. It turned out that reading the genetic code is about .001% of the problem in understanding life. The laymen may also assume that the only thing missing from cosmology is the 'unified field theorem' ie theory of everything. They won't have heard about the surprising observations from COBE and (edit)WMAP; the universe is much younger than supposed even 10 years ago, and it may not even be of uniform composition thru out.

In my opinion, science and science education in this country have done it to itself. Scientists set themselves on a pedastal and portray themselves as shamans of the religion of science and ID and creationism are the harvest they reap.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

nonnus29 said:

Scientists set themselves on a pedastal and portray themselves as shamans of the religion of science and ID and creationism are the harvest they reap.

Sadly, I agree with that. Science is viewed as an "ocult" of sorts by many people. The very foundation of science is supposed to be its questionability. Unlike with religion where the asking of questions is taboo.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

OMG!!!!

TF and I agreed on something!!!!

:o
:o
:o

[/hug]

;D

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Can you show some of that data?

Not really. I haven't kept track of where I got all this information (mostly I'm going from memory) but I did link to one paper which, while it's main topic is irriducible complexity, talks about some experimental data. Also, the data RP presented is not concise enough to draw any clear conclusions.

I'll read the link you gave after I finish this post.

Quote:

What do you think are the chanses of a not religiously biased person to teach creationism?

Unless creationism can be taught without appeal to any religious text a religiously unbiased person cannot teach it. That is where ID seeks to differ from creationism, it does not appeal to religious texts for support.

Quote:

I would like to ask what is you think about teaching those other religions in ID classes I gave links to? I know you personally wouldn't teach stuff that cannot be proven but it seems like others do.

Move those into a philosophy/religion class if you want them taught. Appeals to religion do not belong in science class. If ID winds up being taught and religious questions arise then open discussion of different viewpoints should be allowed.

Quote:

We can't directly proove many things. Why should anyonr belive that molecules are made up of atoms and atoms of nuklei and electrons? If not then how can we prove it to them with something better than theory? What should have been tought 50y ago? If we can't get any better facts than some test results and theories based on them then why not drop that part of physics from school program?

The difference is the parts of physics studied in school are repeatable and testable ideas. They can be shown to work. Evolution has not been experimentally shown to be possible. If it had I'm sure I could easily find information on it but all the information I've seen is somehow lacking. That kind of evidence would end this once and for all.

Quote:

Has my fever gone up too much or I just don't get it.

I'm simply saying that this information-increasing mechanism has been proposed but never experimentally demonstrated.

Quote:

Perhaps the creator is playing something like Black & White or anything from the Sim* series and is kind of evil

Could be.

Quote:

Have you heard any lifeforms that have been to outer space on their own free will? What about cloning or using artifical body parts? Compared to what we had 80 years ago I say unless we blow ourselves to stoneage the next 100 years will get interesting. Those creations are not yet as big as creating AI or artificial new life forms but seeing the speed of scientific development I think that might not be too far.

Even if we ever get to the point that we can create artificial life it only goes to show that an intelligen cause can create life not that natural processes can make it.

Quote:

Only proof for ID I've seen so far consists of trying to say evolution is false and that everything is so complex that only possibility is that someone created it.

Who says I'm trying to prove ID? I'm only trying to show that evolution isn't true. I fully don't expect to convince anybody. I think I said something like that in my first post on this thread. Anyway, there's no harm in endlessly discussing the details, except maybe time consumption. It's kind of fun and a good intellectual excercise.

Quote:

I personally would like that religion would be tought at schools. I'm especially interested in budism, hinduism and islam, I would like to know more about them to not have superstitions about people of these faiths.

Interestingly, studying these is mandatory in college (at least where I went).

Quote:

Unlike with religion where the asking of questions is taboo.

I asked questions about Christianity and came up with a completely different religion than standard Christianity. It is only taboo to religious people who think that questioning is equivalent to doubt which is equivalent to not believing which is the opposite of what they are supposed to be doing to be "saved."

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

Quote:

I'm simply saying that this information-increasing mechanism has been proposed but never experimentally demonstrated.

But it is known without a doubt that universe self organizes more complex systems from smaller components; quarks to proton/nuetrons to atoms to organic molecules etc... Also you probably don't know that 'information' has a definable thermodynamic relationship; ie information is energy.

So far as 'creating life' to me this is an aspect of sciences arrogance and misleading the publice.

If your goal is to 'prove evolution is wrong' your not going to do it. In fact I've not read the real scientific definition of evolution in this thread, so do you guys even know what your talking about? Evolution is 'change in allelic frequencies over time'. That has been proven unequivicably.

Speciation, as Everet linked, has been shown. So you need to disprove those findings, with out hand waving and without invoking a 'beard in the sky' (thanks X-G). Then you'll have something.

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

But it is known without a doubt that universe self organizes more complex systems from smaller components; quarks to proton/nuetrons to atoms to organic molecules etc... Also you probably don't know that 'information' has a definable thermodynamic relationship; ie information is energy.

Is there any link to this information? Interestingly, what I've remember about thermodynamics states that order is lost over time.

Quote:

Evolution is 'change in allelic frequencies over time'. That has been proven unequivicably.

This definition of evolution is different than what most people understand evolution to be talking about. I am discussing the common conception of what evolution is.

Quote:

Speciation, as Everet linked, has been shown.

You and I agree that speciation has been shown. But the mechanisms by which speciation occur only sort already existing information. No experiment has ever been done that shows an actual information-increasing mechanism that is purely natural (meaning no intelligent manipulation to aid it).

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

Quote:

Is there any link to this information? Interestingly, what I've read about thermodynamics states that order is lost over time.

And this is the '2nd law of thermodynamics' and it is true for a closed system. But the planet Earth isn't a closed a system, there are geological, solar, tidal, and extra-solar sources of energy being inputed into this system. You people always get that wrong. See the link above for information theory.

Quote:

This definition of evolution is different than what most people understand evolution to be talking about. I am discussing the common conception of what evolution is.

Then what is the 'common definition' of evolution you're working from? That man came from apes? No scientist will support that. They'll say we have common ancestor. I require you to come up to a standard level in this discussion, I won't argue vaguaries and suppositions.

Quote:

But the mechanisms by which speciation occur only sort already existing information. No experiment has ever been done that shows an actual information-increasing mechanism that is purely natural (meaning no intelligent manipulation to aid it)

So what would you consider to be 'increase in information'? The fact that bacteria develope immunity to to antibiotics? The fact that that structures in the human brain can be traced to genetic sequences that can be traced back to a population of early humans in northern europe? This argument is a red herring.

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Then what is the 'common definition' of evolution you're working from? That man came from apes? No scientist will support that. They'll say we have common ancestor.

This is the main point I'm trying to refute. The common conception of evolution implies common ancestry for all living organisms. This has been hypothesized but not experimentally shown.

Quote:

So what would you consider to be 'increase in information'? The fact that bacteria develope immunity to to antibiotics? The fact that that structures in the human brain can be traced to genetic sequences that can be traced back to a population of early humans in northern europe? This argument is a red herring.

Developing a new trait such as an immunity can give the illusion of new information. In reality certain information is lost or moved which happens to give the organism some kind of benefit. As for tracing back genetic sequences, this further demonstrates that the traced sequences already existed in the "early humans" and shows nothing of how that information arose in the first place.

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

Quote:

This is the main point I'm trying to refute. The common conception of evolution implies common ancestry for all living organisms. This has been hypothesized but not experimentally shown.

Common ancestry is an entirely separate issue from 'creating information'. Common ancestry is clearly shown by examining the genetic code of DNA polymerase. DNA polymerase is a protein involved in duplicating DNA before cells divide. Every cell on the planet has it. This is a VERY important protein, if it changes very much at all, it's functioning will be wrecked and the organism will die. But it does change over time because some changes don't effect the operation of the protein. (edit; this isn't right, I should be talking about rRNA here, but the result is the same)

So by examining the changes in the genetic code for this protein and performing statistical analysis on the differences it can be shown that, yes, we all come from Eukaryotic bacteria. Relative lengths of time between major branches in the evolutionary tree can be observed as well.

Quote:

Developing a new trait such as an immunity can give the illusion of new information. In reality certain information is lost or moved which happens to give the organism some kind of benefit. As for tracing back genetic sequences, this further demonstrates that the traced sequences already existed in the "early humans" and shows nothing of how that information arose in the first place.

There is an argument here, but your not stating it. It would be better to question how DNA came to be the vehicle for information storage in cellular operation in the first place. That is an open question.

But what your really asking is 'how do new traits develope'? Be it antibiotic resistance or bipedalism, or oxygen breathing etc... Random variations in genes give rise to new proteins which allow new abilities at the cellular level and consequently at the organism developmental and macro level.

There are several examples of this today besides antibiotic resistance in bacteria;

1) nitrogenous psuedo bacteria live as parasites in the root cells of legumous plants (soy beans) allowing them to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere and gain the competitive advantage of 'self fertilizing'. This is also thought to be how we come to have mitochondria today.

2) Cycle cell anemia enfers a survival advantage with respect to maleria in people who are afflicted with it.

3) Alot of genetic based diseases like cystic fibrosis are lethal, but could concievably incur a reproductive advantage to those who have it in some extreme environment (if anyone had a perverse enough imagination to conceive it I suppose).

edit; I'm just countering your questions point by point here, that's not really my goal. My goal is to show you that there are answers to these questions you're raising, but the answers aren't easy and they are places where science has succeeded. There are more questions like I showed above in reference to 'how is dna the information carrying device in life'.

The really key point to me is that the universe as we know it today is miraculous. We know alot more now than we did 100 years ago. The magnitude of the miracle grows more profound with how much more we learn. Personally, I believe in a God, and a creator of some sort. This thing is just too amazing. Is God a beard in the sky or a fundamental property of the universe that permeates everything (the force luke...)? There's something going on and we're a part of it. That's were it gets spiritual to me.

Rampage
Member #3,035
December 2002
avatar

I'm amazed that this is still open. Matthew must be very busy.

-R

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I'd say its because it hasn't turned into a flame war yet.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

Common ancestry is an entirely separate issue from 'creating information'. Common ancestry is clearly shown by examining the genetic code of DNA polymerase. DNA polymerase is a protein involved in duplicating DNA before cells divide. Every cell on the planet has it. This is a VERY important protein, if it changes very much at all, it's functioning will be wrecked and the organism will die. But it does change over time because some changes don't effect the operation of the protein.

The issues are closely related. How does saying every cell contains a certain mechanism prove common ancestry? An intelligent designer would not have "reinvented the wheel" many different times when one mechanism was sufficient to perform the necessary task.

Quote:

So by examining the changes in the genetic code for this protein and performing statistical analysis on the differences it can be shown that, yes, we all come from Eukaryotic bacteria. Relative lengths of time between major branches in the evolutionary tree can be observed as well.

Again ignoring the information problem. Charting the differences between organisms hardly shows common ancestry. It simply points out that there are holes yet to be filled in.

Quote:

But what your really asking is 'how do new traits develope'? Be it antibiotic resistance or bipedalism, or oxygen breathing etc... Random variations in genes give rise to new proteins which allow new abilities at the cellular level and consequently at the organism developmental and macro level.

I have a problem with this because it has not been shown experimentally. Random variation leads to antibiotic resistence but only by shuffling, moving, or losing existing information. Developing bipedalism requires that the pedals are there to begin with.

Quote:

Cycle cell anemia enfers a survival advantage with respect to maleria in people who are afflicted with it.

In a normal environment, sickle cell anemia offers a disadvantage. Only if you are in places where malaria is a problem could this offer any kind of advantage.

Quote:

Alot of genetic based diseases like cystic fibrosis are lethal, but could concievably incur a reproductive advantage to those who have it in some extreme environment (if anyone had a perverse enough imagination to conceive it I suppose).

But how does something lethal/harmful show progress? Showing that they can survive in some perverse imaginative environment better than a healthy person doesn't really prove anything. I've never said mutations do not occur. They just aren't enough to explain the rise of new biological structures.

nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
avatar

Environments change when they do, disadvantages can become advantages.

Quote:

An intelligent designer would not have "reinvented the wheel" many different times when one mechanism was sufficient to perform the necessary task.

This is were I quit, you violate Occam's razor by invoking a designer. That's unacceptable to me, but acceptable to you.

I regard the rest of your response as being obstinate and will no longer address it.

Todd Cope
Member #998
November 2000
avatar

Quote:

This is were I quit, you violate Occam's razor by invoking a designer. That's unacceptable to me, but acceptable to you.

I regard the rest of your response as being obstinate and will no longer address it.

I did not appeal to a designer. I was merely pointing out that common ancestry isn't the only (or even a good) explanation of the data. I'm not saying there is an intelligent designer. There is no solid case for common ancestry. What this might imply is not part of the discussion.

You are saying basically that common ancestry must be true because a designer cannot be accepted as a possibility which is why I brought up axioms earlier in the thread.

And throwing out my responses doesn't do anything to prove me wrong.

I think I'm done here for the day. I've been on the computer way too long and I've gotta get some sleep.

Bob
Free Market Evangelist
September 2000
avatar

It's quite clear that some people are incapable of reading comprehension and avoiding strawmen. As such, it's quite pointless to keep thread thread going.

--
- Bob
[ -- All my signature links are 404 -- ]



Go to: