Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
Interesting.
I've often wondered if the creationist movement gets wrapped around the axle strictly because we're so accustomed to the finite nature of life. In other words, with regard to the creation of the universe and matter, since we're used to everything having a definite beginning and end, we would naturally conclude that this also is the case, for the Universe at large... This leads to the the debate many argue over- when it came to be, when it will end.
I would submit that, at this point, the data seems to indicate that it always has been, that there was no "before" the universe, because it has always been present.
I guess I'm going off the philosophical deep-end here, especially since I've never taken a philosophy class (I've seen what it does to the young mush-heads around me, and this cures my desire to enroll in one).
I don't know. Nor, I might add, does anybody else. To me, there doesn't seem to be any data to prove Creation, or a "beginning." On the contrary, from all we know about subatomic physics, and the fact that matter is constant, I'm convinced that Occam's Razor holds true, even in this question. BTW, Occam's Razor (if you're not familiar with it) says that the simplest answer is usually the right one... So, to the question of "when did it all begin?" the answer would be, "it has always been..."
Your thoughts?
If your DNA sequence (that you refer to above) is longer (counting sequential base pairs) than a sequence equivilant to 96 letters in the English alphabet, then the math shows that it can not happen randomly in 17 Billion years of trying.
The sequencing of any data over that size must be done by a non-natural process, per the math in said proof.
Not always. If you inject feedback into an experiment, then yes, the experiment becomes biased due to your intelligent intervention (ergo, intelligence is indicated).
On the other hand, feedback can exist naturally (speaking broadly).
Speaking on the more narrow topic of this thread, I'm unaware of any scientific evidence that we might have that would indicate that a specific natural feedback mechanism was active in sequencing the first DNA bases, however.
No. Of course, your initial point about the dice is correct, but your conclusion from that point is flawed.
The math for this thread is dealing with the sequencing of data. This math calculates the precise probability / improbability of data forming in the correct sequence. Because the sequencing of data is precise (i.e., changing a sequence will change or even nullify the output), non-equal probabilities for the individual datum will skew the overall potential output AGAINST the probability of correct sequencing.
Wrong. It would indicate a non-random cause, not a non-natural one.
Then you didn't correctly follow the math proof. The math is dealing with the sequencing of data. You do NOT sequence data simultaneously (unless you are very intelligent). The monkeys are typing one letter at a time, building their output little by little in billions of miniscule steps.
That's hardly forming anything all in one step...
"No, I'm arguing that because that ability arose in the 20th century, it is unable to explain the speciation that occurred prior to the 20th century." -Physicist
OK, this is progress. Now you are implying that the only problem with my example completely refuting for all time the Theory of Evolution is: timing.
Can we now agree that Intelligent Design has been demonstrated and will refute Evolution (and send it packing its bags for the land of scientifically discredited theories) if your timing concern is dealt with adequately?
"In the example I listed, yes." - ThinkPlease
What factor makes them superior to you?
No, and this has been answered before. Why is it that you never digest the answers you're given and go on repeating things that have been shown to be false? Are you not interested in the truth?
The fact that genetic engineering now occuurs does not mean that it did in the past.
Even if there were agents capable of performing genetic engineering in the past (a completely hypothetical statement) that would not mean the they were in fact responsible for evolutionary change.
It would not invalidate natural selection. Only an inability to think logically allows one to think so. Both natural selection and genetic engineering can exist. Your argument is based on the premise that they can't, which is absurd.
"Wrong. It would indicate a non-random cause, not a non-natural one." - mlo
I can't speak for the author of the math, but I for one could accept your point that it indicates a non-random cause.
Excellent. Now you need to understand that natural processes are rarely random. They sometimes have random components, but the only purely random events in nature that I can think of happen in quantum physics.
Do yourself a favor and read up on self-organizing systems.
No, my argument in those posts was based upon the condition for the absolute falsification of Evolution as given to me by Physicist. My argument dealt that condition a fatal blow. Your complaint about my argument being based on other premises is flawed. I can certainly understand why you made those complaints, but the real problem is that the condition for falsification was itself flawed.
To wit: Physicist really didn't mean what he said that providing an example of non "Natural Selection" speciation would refute Evolution. Of course it is easy to give an example of non Natural Selection speciation (and I did so), as it is being done in labs across the USA today.
Yet what else could I do. He gave his condition for falsification, and I gave the example that complied with it.
If his falsification condition was scientific and correct, then my example would have disproved Evolutionary theory (that's the nature of meeting falsification conditions, by definition, after all).
Ask yourself if my example met his condition. If so, and if Evolution still isn't disproved, then the problem exists with the falsification condition, not with my logic or example.
It also means that Physicist still needs to give a viable falsification condition for Evolutionary Theory, lest the theory be junked as unscientific...
Click on my profile and note the books that I praise.
So would a non-random process capable of producing useful, sequential data appear more like an intelligent process or a non-intelligent (AKA "natural") process?
Fossils are historical references to organisms long dead. Using these snapshots in time, one can look for trends to see if changes in groups of organisms truly occur on large timescales. In my example, a fossil with no likenesses to a lineage either above or below that could be considered a challenge to evolution, unless tampering cannot be ruled out (see Nebraska Man, and Piltdown Man).
So tell me, why do you consider this pig such immutable evidence? It was not subject to any evnironmental selection pressures like all other non genetically engineered animals on the planet. It is obvious to most of us (but not to you it appears), that because of this, it only proves that man can indeed genetically engineer plants and animals, which is not very astounding. So while it may have been intelligently designed, it doesn't offer any proof that intelligent design might have occurred in the past, which is where evolution explains the origins of life.
Suppose we have chemicals A, B, C, D. In the initial 'round' of reactions we get relatively simple compounds AD, BC, etc. Feedback occurs when these simple compounds are used as 'inputs' to further reactions to create more complex compounds ADBC, etc. Are you saying there is no evidence for this?
Which sequences are considered correct?
No it didn't, you did not offer an example that met his condition. The idea that human genetic engineering NOW somehow refutes natural selection as a process in the PAST, is silly. If you think it is responsive that is your fault, not his.
Physicist specifically said "natural speciation" other than natural selection, a distinction you ignored.
FWIW, if physicist intended to say that showing an alternative natural cause for speciation was sufficient to falsify natural selection, then I don't think I agree with that. But you did not meet his conditions in any case.
Could a million Shakespeares have typed Shakspeare?
Good idea, make the monkeys use quill pens.
And a living specimen rules out that consideration, how?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.