Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Vonsalza:

It’s how it works.

Mutation occurs in Bob that makes Bob more fit for survival. Bob has lots of kids as a result.
Bob’s kids do the same.

Eventually all the people around that don’t have Bob’s adaptation are competed out of existence.

It’s the same with a business that obtains a tremendous competitive advantage. They put all similar competitors out of business.

The problem is, not just Bob, but Bob’s entire ecosystem is going to be effected and have to mutate and evolve right along with Bob"s new fit cousins, so they can be supported.

No! You’re totally right and they do!

It’s like a continuous arms race in that particular way.

So, how many organisms do you supposes there are in Bob’s ecosystem, starting with bacteria and fungi and working your way up ?

 

[Rubee]

You have something useful. Meaning comes into a different category. Natural selection works with the useful, not with the meaningful.

Nice try, we’re not concerned about what natural selection favours. Please stop trying to change the topic. It’s not working. Natural selection can work with ‘useful’ all it wants, we are still concerned about the origin of meaning (a readable, understandable message and instructions) in DNA. The idea that something later goes out of extinction is more of the irrelevancies you’ve been stringing along to support the unsupportable. Add that to the H20 and gravity examples from before. Meaning/language is the point, and explaining how in the world blind processes create them is the question.

Those human tail genes have meaning, but they are not useful. Natural selection ignores them. Any random piece of DNA has “meaning” in that it can specify a string of amino acids. In that sense, all DNA is meaningful and since evolutionary processes can increase the length of DNA, then those processes can increase the meaningful content of DNA. That destroys ID’s argument for design.

That’s a fantasy you have, I’m afraid. Can blind natural processes in nature include a fifth ntide? Or are you simply referring to variations whose potentials already exist in a set process? All you’re doing is pointing to the marvellous engineering of the DNA, and trying to act as if that’s an answer about its origins. Look, we know it’s fabulous! That’s not the point. The point is where it came from. When you have the answer, feel free to publish your work, earn yourself a Nobel, and put all those confounded Origin-of-Life researchers out there out of their present confoundment.

 

[Vonsalza]

As many as there are in your average ecosystem

 

[William_Scott]

Your fault here is the conflation of scientific research with some vague concept of “modern humanist religion”.

Evolution is understood and affirmed by folks who practice every religion under our sun.

Very few folks I know treat science as the end-all, be-all. Your local university, for example, probably just has one or two buildings on campus dedicated to the “hard sciences”. The other score of buildings are dedicated to other important disciplines that lie largely outside the scientific realm.

Hello Vonsalza, syncretism happens—and frequently. The fact that adherents of many religions have compromised or thrown out the teachings of their own faith on origin in order to incorporate the evolutionary origin myth required by secular humanism (and taught in many of the ancient and modern pantheistic belief systems, etc.) is hardly unexpected or unprecedented.

Further, the dominance and wide embrace of the (sort-of) modern “science-ey” sounding origin myths of abiogenesis, microbe to man evolution , etc. is by no means indicative of it being a neutral scientific baseline that people of all religions and creeds can come together on in pure unbiased scientific and religious harmony.

It is far from legitimate science. Its alleged mountains of evidence are the piles of over one hundred and fifty years of unsupportable assumptions that blatantly contradict the known workings of the universe.

I’ve spent a number of years in institutions of higher learning, including time obtaining a degree in the hard sciences. There is nothing truly “hard science” about the microbe to man evolutionary tale. It is a religious teaching, taken by faith (every bit as much and in many ways far more so than the traditional Christian teaching on origins). It is certainly not a belief that one is led to by an unbiased following of the unrelenting logic that marks legitimate science and study of God’s majestic creation.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh sure. I acknowledge that there’s an element of faith required in accepting the theory. Similarly, I have faith that God, black holes and the nation of China are real, as I have never personally experienced them myself in an empirical way.

For me, the faith comes from the fact that the theory is simply the best standing. Alternatives require larger logical jumps, more base assumptions and answer fewer questions. The ToE simply requires less blind faith.

 

[Rubee]

Except when it comes to originating a code. Nothing is more of a leap than TOE as far as DNA’s origins are concerned. Might as well believe in magic.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you actually look into it, no. Not really.

 

[Rubee]

I have and the more I do the more certain I am. Can you tell me how blind forces can create a language? You might be of great help to the guys whove been looking into it for nearly 50 years as I understand it.

 

[Vonsalza]

Loading…

www.sciencedaily.com

As DNA was preceded by RNA, this is a great start.

 

[Rubee]

So your paper says they can tell how the building blocks were made. Great. The Ntides. Fantastic. That’s like saying they can tell how sticks that might draw a letter “A” can be formed. An interesting thing to cite when the question isn;'t the sticks but the language (how the sticks are arranged).

 

[Vonsalza]

At that point you’re just asking why chemistry works the way it does. Which is fine, I guess.

 

[Rubee]

You need to scroll up and read. You’re rehearshing rossum’s attempted arguments from before. What will you point to next? H20? Chemistry and Physics never create codes and instructions. Feel free to cite an example.

And if it was merely an issue of “how chemistry works”, then gee I wonder why it’s such a problem for actual Origin-of-Life researchers.

 

[Vonsalza]

Do you have an actual question?

Gently, it just seems you’re expressing incredulity at the likely answer. And I’ve led enough unwilling horses to water to know when it’s a waste of time.

 

[Rubee]

Do you have an actual question?

Do you have an actual answer? I already asked:

Can you tell me how blind forces can create a language?

Then you said “I know how the material used to communicate complex messages in DNA was made!!” And then “How language is made? It’s just basic chem, you see”.

And yes, my response IS bucketloads of incredulity.

 

[Vonsalza]

That’s not a question really pertaining to the subject, but I’d immediately cry the question as falsely loaded. It’s like asking a gentle man “why do you beat your wife?”

Necessity is the mother of language. If you need me to hunt down a credible site on how language arose in homo sapiens, I’m sure your Google works as well as mine.

 

[Vonsalza]

If you didn’t catch my meaning: the forces promoting the development of language aren’t “blind”.

 

[Rubee]

That’s not a question really pertaining to the subject,

Oh no? You just said “TOE is the BEST answer,” and I said “Not when it comes to DNA origins,” and you said, “Yep, yep, it is”. And now “That’s not the subject.”

Necessity is the mother of language. If you need me to hunt down a credible site on how language arose in homo sapiens, I’m sure your Google works as well as mine.

That’s called not knowing the answer. Quite a step down from the “TOE is just the most logical”. And no. The issue is how blind things not capable of intelligence or language could create one. Pointing to the problem isn’t proof of anything or an answer.

 

[William_Scott]

Faith is the dominant requirement for embracing the wondrous evidence defying mythology of microbe to man evolution. This is in stark contrast with the minimal faith required to agree with the scientifically sound assertions that black holes and China exist.

 

[Rubee]

This is in stark contrast with the minimal faith required to agree with the scientifically sound assertions that black holes and China exist.

I would add the very logically sound assertion that an uncaused cause exists.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh no? You just said “TOE is the BEST answer,”

I said best standing. If something superior comes along, I’ll abandon the inferior belief in the ToE and switch, as rationalism unquestionably demands.

That’s called not knowing the answer.

You asked me a question about language. We’re talking about evolution.

You’re just not making a whole lot of sense to me.