evolution question

by outsmartthesystem 165 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Caedes

  GB,

  I will repeat my question since you have hinted at your position.

  Presumably you are talking about god when you say mind? Because presumably you aren't suggesting that chemistry works differently in living creatures?

  You posted

  For the record, I'm not religious at all. I'm suspicious about the possibility of mind as a substance existing outside the material realm, but that's about it at the moment. As far as any deity is concerned, I can't even begin to imagine a situation which could justify the creation of a world like this one as it is predicated on continuous consumption, but then again most apologists I've encountered have suggested that the defect is my own.

  From this I can only assume that you are asserting that chemistry works completely differently in a test tube than in a living body with a 'mind'?

  I have put the word mind in quotes since you still haven't really explained what your definition of the word is in the context you are using it.

  Why do you think that has never been noticed even once in empirical tests?

  What mechanism does the 'mind' use to control DNA?

  How does that mechanism work in things without a 'mind' such as a virus or a funghi?

  Are you suggesting that evolution can't happen in simpler life forms?
• 

  bohm

  Gubberningbody:
  
  There is a lot of stating the conclusion in the post while disregarding the objections and questions i previously put forward. I am also sad you keep repeating things which are demonstrably false.
  
  The most obvious problem is in this quote:
  I'm pretty clear about what constitutes "information".
  
  Information is not simply a pattern.
  Information requires a code for an exchange.
  Information is what a mind uses in making decisions.
  
  The first claim is true under all common definitions and i will give it to you without objections. The second claim is a tautology, since a code is defined as a mean for representing information. The third claim is arguably true since i see no way to define mind without taking into account its ability to use information from its enviroment and memories to take descisions, but saying X use Y is hardly a defining property of Y, nor a statement of where Y came from: All minds use water, but there was water billions of years before there were minds.
  
  So we get a trivial observation, a tautology and an unrelated observation. We have indeed not come very far.
  
  In your view, though you haven't stated it specifically, there is no information increase in any process, there are only signals and increases in percieved complexity.
  
  My view, which i did state explicitly, was that i think of information in this context as a piece of DNA which does something usefull, for instance make a proteine the organism use. I think that is pretty clear and testable: remove the DNA and see what happends. Also notice my definition is a restricted subset of the 3 statements you made.
  
  You are free to think this definition is wrong. But you are simply factually incorrect when you tell me evolution cannot increase information (under my definition or any other i know) since i gave you a very clear example of that happening.
  
  I contend, that what we see is mind at work, and that - and now I'm repeating myself, that the suggested mechanism of random mutation as a novelty generating device is not sufficient to the task.
  
  you are simply repeating your idea without providing the least shred of evidence they are true; i dont understand why that should convince me.
  Finally it has been directly observed mutation and selection can create DNA which allow an organism to metabolize a new substance; if that is not a novel trait i can only say you use a very perculiar definition of novelty.
  
  That simply doesn't work out by any random walk.
  The math doesn't work.
  Yes, evolution has taken place, but not by way of random mutations.
  
  I don't know what's driven the changes...
  
  I can suggest something: Evolution! evolution is not a random walk (natural/sexual selection), and i strongly doubt you have math that show it does not work. if you do, please submit a manuscript to nature! if you have math that show a random walk does not work, meh, neither does 117 other things.
• 

  gubberningbody

  Bohm,

  You claim that a random walk can change an arrangement of something like 5,000 nucleotides to 3,000,000,000 in 200,000,000 years.

  Show me.
• 

  bohm

  i claim no such thing and my intuition strongly tell me it cannot.
• 

  gubberningbody

  bohm,

  Then you suggest that random point mutations are the sole tools for generating additional complexity.

  Note: natural selection is a sieve - it vetoes legislation, it doesn't draft it.

  I suggest you haven't done the math.

  
• 

  Caedes

  Bohm,

  Gubberningbody:
  
  There is a lot of stating the conclusion in the post while disregarding the objections and questions i previously put forward.

  That seems to be a defining feature of GB's posts on this thread.
• 

  bohm

  bohm,

  Then you suggest that random point mutations are the sole tools for generating additional complexity.

  i suggest no such thing. you keep getting the even most basic things wrong!

  I suggest you haven't done the math.

  even if i could not add 2 and 2 it would not provide evidence for your ideas. I do find your remark slightly amusing in the context of your last two posts.

  Finally, I wonder why you randomly link to the book, since it seem to be firmly grounded in shannons information theory.
• 

  bohm

  Caedes: indeed. I think the main point which is missed by GB is that even if it was true evolution cannot explain biodiversity, that would not provide evidence towards his idea.

  Bob: "Rivers are just to complex, they couldnt have formed naturally"

  Alice: "Why?"

  Bob: "Look at the patterns! it contain information! Information require a MIND!"

  Alice: "But rivers can form naturally, just take a look at this example (example of river changing path)"

  Bob: "nonono! What happened was simply a RE-ARRANGEMENT of sediments! no INFORMATION was created"

  Alice: "wtf"

  Bob: "random water flow cannot create information"

  Alice: "but water does not flow at random, it is driven by eg gravity, i never suggested such a thing..."

  Bob: "Rivers could not have formed naturally! They contain INFORMATION! you propose random water flow and that cannot create INFORMATION"
• 

  gubberningbody

  So, bohm - what's your basis for believing that the math works in favor of random mutations?

  I think you're confusing absence of evidence for evidence.

  The only thing which leads you in this direction must be your own philosophical preference, because all your own daily experiences argue against the position you've been pushing.

  Why do you have to engage in straw man arguments?
• 

  maksym

  GB,

  Great Job in contructing evolutionists to think "outside their religion err box".

  As a study of microbiology I could not tell you that you are spot on in your approach.

  Peace

  Maksym