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

[edwest]

Doesn’t matter. And I do doubt the dating methods.

 

[Rubee]

It’s no more a “code” than H+H+O=Water is a code. Again, if you want to find that miraculous, fine with me. But that doesn’t automatically infer anything greater than what it, itself, is.

Nonsense. I’ll just quote myself from before. No need repeating.

f a precise arrangement refers to “eye” and a different precise arrangement of the exact same bits refers to “hair colour”, you have something meaningful.

1. The bits are neither “eye” nor “hair colour”. They are just simple ntides.
2. Their arrangement is neither “eye” nor “hair colour”. They are just signifiers.
3. This means we have abstract information (hence the H20 analogy is irrelevant)
4. These arrangements MEAN very precise things, not just anything. They are meaningful.
5. They are then used to make other things NOT the 4 ntides behave in specific non-random ways
6. These behaviour leads to the building of “eye” and “hair colour”.

If you don’t see a meaning in that arrangement, the problem is on your part. If they were meaningless, the arrangement for “eye” and “hair colour” in things that are not themselves “eye” or “hair colour” would not be precise and decodable just from the arrangement of 4 ntides. There’s nothing inherent to the 4 ntides that makes them have to signify “eye” or “hair colour”. This arrangement is meaningful. The meaning is “eye” and “hair colour”.

 

[Rubee]

Furthermore,

If there was no basic “code” or “language” then the arrangement of the millions of ntides could not be read or decoded as referring to “eye” or “hair colour”.

Examples:

-I took the online EdX Harvard CS50X introduction to Computer Science a few months ago but I never went past the first two classes. But I found it fascinating! But back to the point:

What I remember from it is that the most basic layer of computer programming or the original computer code, not only uses 1s and 0s as the fundamental bits but these signify real physical things in the chip (electric energy). You can use anything physical, however, to do that, so the course instructor used a bulb, (where “on” meant 1, and “off” meant 0) to demonstrate. A specific arrangement of 1s and 0s, signifies something specific so that if you change one digit, you have changed what the arrangement signifies.

Who determined these significations? Who decided that 1 followed by this number of 0s etc will always refer to A, for example, when 1s and 0s have nothing to do with the letter A or B or any letter? Programmers.

My understanding was that these rules (that this precise arrangement shall always signify this other thing) are what we call computer languages. These days, there are a few standard languages and most programmers don’t have to go to the 1, 0 levels to learn computer programming.

Another example , written language is a code for spoken language. In written English, for example, arranging the letters this way: C before A before T (CAT) signifies the sound K-AH-T, not D-AW-G or R-AH-B-EE-T! No. Just K-AH-T. How do I know this? Because there are rules that say that this specific arrangement of letters signifies that specific sound. There is no natural connection between the sound and the letter. I know the right sound to make only because of rules.

None of this is subjective. I’m not dreaming it or making it up. These rules exist apart from me and they are what we call “Written English”. The rules themselves are the language. And they are a code. Who created these rules? That’s right. Some humans at some point in the past did. In the CS example, the rules are not made up by me either when I’m typing on my keyboard.

Furthermore, spoken language itself is a code too! When I make the sound K-AH-T, everyone who speaks English knows I refer to a feline and not a dog, for example, since there’s a rule in English that says canines are not signified by the sound K-AH-T. The rules may say the same sound can signify different things, but all of it is encoded in such a way that we can communicate the ideas of a feline and a canine to another human who has not seen them outside the house and they’ll not be confused about whether I meant a feline creature or a canine.

Feel free to show how H-H-0 signifies anything besides H-H-0, @Vonsalza

 

[Vonsalza]

It’s no more a “code” than H+H+O=Water is a code. Again, if you want to find that miraculous, fine with me. But that doesn’t automatically infer anything greater than what it, itself, is.

Nonsense. I’ll just quote myself from before. No need repeating.

f a precise arrangement refers to…

Hey, if you think two flammable hydrogen atoms and one flame feeding oxygen atom coming together to create flame-retarding water is a miracle of God, I think that’s great!

But what it most directly is evidence of is covalent molecular bonding.

Again, you’re looking at the end result of 3.5 billion years of evolution, in all it’s complexity, and saying “wow! Something must have done this!!!”

Remember what I said about the early nuclear piles vs modern nuclear reactors? Same thing.

What you also need to consider is that there are lots of bits and bobs in our DNA that, and please get this, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.

They are proof of our evolutionary lineage. We may have “used” them long, long ago when we weren’t even homosapiens, but they’re useless now. They’re evidence of our evolved past that, thus far, have not provided any evolutionary incentive for deletion yet. So they sit there. Unexpressed.

 

[edwest]

Well done.

 

[Rubee]

Hey, if you think two flammable hydrogen atoms and one flame feeding molecule coming together to create flame-retarding water is a miracle of God, I think that’s great!

But what it most directly is evidence of is covalent molecular bonding.

I think you are pretending not to understand what I wrote so you can keep play-acting that H-H-O is like the DNA, which is total nonsense. (Not to mention, dishonest). Water molecules do not act like an alphabet. And there is no language in H20 like there is in the arrangement of DNA. It is idiotic to pretend they are like DNA when the ntides and codons behave like an alphabet or the 10 bits of a computer.

What you also need to consider is that there are lots of bits and bobs in our DNA that, and please get this, HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER.

You mean whose purpose we don’t know Besides, who cares? We still have an alphabet, a code, instructions, and a message in DNA. The H20 example is absurdity.

 

[edwest]

I’ve studied the beginning of atomic piles and it’s far, far more complicated than you may think. Modern nuclear reactors are more complex versions but there is a lot to understand.

 

[edwest]

Again, well said.

 

[Vonsalza]

I think you are pretending not to understand what I wrote so you can keep play-acting that H-H-O is like the DNA, which is total nonsense.

No, you’re just a little peeved that I’m not sharing in your bewilderment-as-proof-of-the-divine.

Again, the existence of “junk DNA” more or less kills your theory. You now how to explain why the Intelligent Designer seems to have put meaningless nonsense in your “code” that literally doesn’t do anything.

The best reply you’ll have is “boy-oh-boy, ain’t it mysterious!”.

You mean whose purpose we don’t know Besides, who cares?

CALLED IT!

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Elf01:

Techno2000:

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt yo the change died.

What kind of change, please be more specific.

Sure. The KT boundary is a great example.

Before? Gigantic dinosaurs roaming the planet and oceans.

-BOOM!-

After? The colder, less lush environment could not sustain super-large animals. But who could thrive in such a harsh world? The little furry critters the dinosaurs used to snack on.

Enter: The Rise of the Mammals!

That’s right. Your great (x 13 million) grandfather looked sorta like a rat.
If it’s any consolation, he was my great (x 13 million) grandfather too.
(13 million derived using KT boundary of 65 million years ago divided by 5 year reproductive cycle average of all ancestors, just as a guess. Almost certainly a margin of error there).

Cold temperature doesn’t explain the beauty of an Orchid, the flavor of an Asparagus or the bizarre mating habits of the Angler fish .

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ve studied the beginning of atomic piles and it’s far, far more complicated than you may think. Modern nuclear reactors are more complex versions but there is a lot to understand.

The Chicago pile was, literally, "Hey, lets stack this crap together to see if we can get enough concentrated to reach the theoretical criticality threshold…

Op! We did it! Its starting to get hot!"

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Techno2000:

Elf01:

Techno2000:

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt yo the change died.

What kind of change, please be more specific.

Sure. The KT boundary is a great example.

Before? Gigantic dinosaurs roaming the planet and oceans.

-BOOM!-

After? The colder, less lush environment could not sustain super-large animals. But who could thrive in such a harsh world? The little furry critters the dinosaurs used to snack on.

Enter: The Rise of the Mammals!

That’s right. Your great (x 13 million) grandfather looked sorta like a rat.
If it’s any consolation, he was my great (x 13 million) grandfather too.
(13 million derived using KT boundary of 65 million years ago divided by 5 year reproductive cycle average of all ancestors, just as a guess. Almost certainly a margin of error there).

Cold temperature doesn’t explain the beauty of an Orchid, the flavor of an Asparagus or the bizarre mating habits of the Angler fish .

Who said cold temperature explains those specific phenomena?

 

[buffalo]

Again, the existence of “junk DNA” more or less kills your theory

What? How can you not be aware junk DNA is gone…?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Again, the existence of “junk DNA” more or less kills your theory

What? How can you not be aware junk DNA is gone…?

Sweet. More “fake science” from Buff incoming…

 

[Rubee]

No, you’re just a little peeved that I’m not sharing in your bewilderment-as-proof-of-the-divine.

Again, the existence of “junk DNA” more or less kills your theory. You now how to explain why the Intelligent Designer seems to have put meaningless nonsense in your “code” that literally doesn’t do anything.

The best reply you’ll have is “boy-oh-boy, ain’t it mysterious !”.

Nah. I’m just noting you attempted to pretend H-H-O acts like the DNA. Again, mind telling us what else H-H-0 signifies besides H-H-0?

And called what? Lol. Are you brazenly going to claim that you KNOW there is not a purpose to what you call “nonsense”? You must be so much wiser than those still working on it and discovering more and more “purpose” to what was considered useless yesterday. Your position literally depends on you pretending to have completed science and found all the answers. Pitiable position.

And no. The existence of “nonsense” no more puts a dent in a deliberate design than the existence of accidents puts one in the idea of God. I’ll still await your explanation, (about what H-H-O signifies beyond itself).

 

[Vonsalza]

I’ll still await your explanation, (about what H-H-O signifies beyond itself).

Easy.

It signifies absolutely nothing besides what do can infer directly from it. Same goes for DNA and all the useless junk it’s “divine code” contains, same goes for any material thing.

 

[Rubee]

Same goes for DNA

This is what is called fideism. All you need now is a Bible and baptism in the Holy Spirit and you’ll fit right into a pentecostal church.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Same goes for DNA

This is what is called fideism. All you need now is a Bible and baptism in the Holy Spirit and you’ll fit right into a pentecostal church.

??? (10 char)

 

[edwest]

Not accurate. Oh well.

 

[Techno2000]

Techno2000:

Vonsalza:

Techno2000:

Elf01:

Techno2000:

I love these magical vague environmental changes that could transform entire ecosystems alway for the better, until it produce 10 million perfect species.

The organisms that could not adapt yo the change died.

What kind of change, please be more specific.

Sure. The KT boundary is a great example.

Before? Gigantic dinosaurs roaming the planet and oceans.

-BOOM!-

After? The colder, less lush environment could not sustain super-large animals. But who could thrive in such a harsh world? The little furry critters the dinosaurs used to snack on.

Enter: The Rise of the Mammals!

That’s right. Your great (x 13 million) grandfather looked sorta like a rat.
If it’s any consolation, he was my great (x 13 million) grandfather too.
(13 million derived using KT boundary of 65 million years ago divided by 5 year reproductive cycle average of all ancestors, just as a guess. Almost certainly a margin of error there).

Cold temperature doesn’t explain the beauty of an Orchid, the flavor of an Asparagus or the bizarre mating habits of the Angler fish .

Who said cold temperature explains those specific phenomena?

So, what did, please be specific.