Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
blood_pardon

Links Missing or non-existing?

Recommended Posts

confused1.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If evolution is wrong, what do you make of the telomeres in the middle of the human chromosome #2?

 

Idk anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
confused1.jpg

Idk anything about it.

You might want to check it out, it's a great question to research.

 

 

Seriously, I'm not trying to be a pain - it's a great example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
confused1.jpg

Idk anything about it.

 

When there are some clues towards a theory or hypothesis which one is not familiar with, a better approach is trying to understand it, or at least to grasp the basic idea, if one really wants to judge if that theory or hypothesis is correct or not. Escaping from the clue couldn't help, not only could not provide something for one to support the theory, but also could not constitute a grounded negative evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And while looking at it, keep in mind the question, "what predictions would the theory of evolution make of this chromosome" and "what predictions would the theory of special creation make of this chromosome".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I said that Evolution is a process, I meant literally that: Evolution is a process as in an engineering or even mathematical sense.

 

What I am going to do is show you why macro-evolution is a mathematical fact.

 

For this you will need to understand what a Turin Machine is and what an Algorithm is (there are not difficult concepts).

 

A Turing Machine is a machine that turns one set of symbols into another set of symbols according to a set of mathematical function (mathematical statements). Computers are a special type of Turning Machine called a universal Turing Machine and these are capable of simulating any Turing machine.

 

So, if Evolution is a mathematical process it can therefore be implemented on a Turing machine. And, if it can be implemented on a Turing machine, then it can be implemented on a Universal Turing Machine (a computer).

 

If you want proof of this, just look up Evolutionary Algorithms in google. They are used form designing computer circuits to air craft, from canoes to roads. And all are implemented on computers.

 

So this establishes that evolution is an algorithm and it is therefore a mathematical process. This means that if 1+1 is true, then so is the existence of evolution and all that comes with it.

 

Now, with evolution it acts on the information in the genome of the organisms. It also does not have any caveat stating that certain parts of the genome are not able to be touched by the process of evolution. All information that can be inherited with variation is subject to the process of evolution (as it is the information within the process itself).

 

In general terms, this means that any and all information inherited from one generation to another is subject to the forces of evolution.

 

As DNA is the main repository of this infomrait0on, then this means that every single base pair on a strand of DNA (and including the length of the DNA as well) can be changed by the process (the algorithm) of evolution.

 

The result of this is that, through evolution, you can turn one piece of DNA into any other piece of DNA.

 

So the DNA that describes a fish can (over a long period of time) turn into the DNA that describes say an amphibian, a reptile or even a mammal.

 

If any part of the information that differentiations one organism from another is subject to evolution, then it all is. If it all is, then Macro Evolution is as mathematically certain as Micro Evolution.

 

As every base pair is subject to variation and inheritance, then this means that every single piece of DNA is subject to evolution, and this means that Macro Evolution exists as a mathematical fact (so you have you prove that computers can not exist to disprove macro evolution - which if you are reading this, then I think you will have a really hard time doing :D).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So this establishes that evolution is an algorithm and it is therefore a mathematical process. This means that if 1+1 is true, then so is the existence of evolution and all that comes with it.

 

You realize that there is no science at all that is as certain as mathematics?

 

The result of this is that, through evolution, you can turn one piece of DNA into any other piece of DNA.

 

That is patently untrue. There has to be a link of at the very least viable organisms connecting the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am sorry, I have to interject again with a drip of reason here. blood_pardon, how are we going to have a decent debate about the evidence (or lack thereof) of evolution if you don't seem to be willing to go by evidence, and instead prefer to stick to claiming you don't believe anything? We don't just put forth claims, we back them up with links and evidence; if you have a specific problem with such links or evidence, then please argue against them, but if you keep claiming that you just don't believe X is X when we just showed you proof for it, then there won't be much of a common language in this debate, will there?

 

Here is (again, from the same site that has answers to the majority of the claims you've raised) a good resource for transitional vertebrate fossils: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

 

 

We're obviously willing to listen to your concerns, but have the least bit of intellectual honesty to - at the very least - look and examine the evidence we give you.

 

 

~moo

 

I do not understand why people refer to the fossil record as support for evolutionary changes over time. We do not need the fossils to support this fact because all of the transitional species are alive today.

 

For example: We have species that do not have any internal organs that live in the deep sea vents in the ocean. We have numerous species that have some of the internal organs but not all of them. There are species that live in the ocean that do not have a stomach so their ability to digest food is absorbed through their bodies that act as a filter and it is processes accordingly. Then we have all of the species that do have a stomach to digest food.

 

stages- 1st stage no organs 2nd stage-some but not all 3rd stage- all internal organs

 

we have species with no limbs, some with small stubs that resemble limbs and others with fully developed limbs.

 

We have species that can only breathe in water, some that can breathe in and out of water, and some that can only breathe out of water.

 

 

As you can see we do not need to prove the intermediate stage in fossils when they are all alive today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kitkat -

 

It's true that everything alive is an intermediate species in that no species is "done evolving," but it wouldn't be accurate to say that existing species are intermediate forms of one another. All those other species are our cousins, not our ancestors.

 

That said, they might resemble our ancestors, and existing species can tell us much about how various structures might evolve from "primitive" forms to more complex forms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

shouldn't there be 10 uniquely distinct loose ends for every one continuous link? 10 different branches for every one trunk?

shouldn't the negative mutations be many times more frequent than the positive ones? shouldn't the fossils of animals with such mutations be found as much as if not more than the complete successful links?

 

why do we keep finding the one lucky intermediate form and miss all the other poor ones which reached the dead end?

 

if you say because the successful link reproduced enough to dim out the rest, then i tell you remember all the millions of years evolution takes!! also, what does the successful intermediate form do, other than start branching into dead ends for some other millions of years, before the fortunate one emerges?

 

for every one good mutation there should be several bad ones, where are their fossils? fossils of animals which are NOT intermediate stages?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

forufes -

 

In fact, the great majority of evolutionary branches have been dead ends. So that should answer your question. (They're still technically all "intermediate forms" except for the last generation before extinction, though.)

 

However, I should also point out that the way you describe isn't really how speciation works. It's not about a single, dramatic mutation creating entirely different organisms. Mutations are extremely common. You and I both probably have several. And they're very subtle. One mutation does not make a new species, or in the great majority of cases even a noticeable difference. And almost none are purely "negative" or "positive." It depends on circumstance. So yeah, the losers do go on living right along with the winners, and statistics gradually favors the winners. But this all takes place within a species.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 3 possibillitys concerning our existance.#1 either we evolved from a lower life form or#2 we were seeded here by a superintelegenc from other planet or#3 We were created,Nobody I mean Noone can say for shure but only speculate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except of course that for one case there is overwhelming evidence, whereas for the others baseless opinions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shouldn't there be 10 uniquely distinct loose ends for every one continuous link? 10 different branches for every one trunk?

shouldn't the negative mutations be many times more frequent than the positive ones? shouldn't the fossils of animals with such mutations be found as much as if not more than the complete successful links?

 

why do we keep finding the one lucky intermediate form and miss all the other poor ones which reached the dead end?

 

if you say because the successful link reproduced enough to dim out the rest, then i tell you remember all the millions of years evolution takes!! also, what does the successful intermediate form do, other than start branching into dead ends for some other millions of years, before the fortunate one emerges?

 

for every one good mutation there should be several bad ones, where are their fossils? fossils of animals which are NOT intermediate stages?

 

I think an honest intellectual hurdle here is trying to picture biological reality I guess. Lets look at human life, its rather complex, do you think we could map everything on a molecular level, what about in the animal kingdom in general, then millions, or however far back in years you would like to go. The daily struggle for life for all of those organisms over such a span of time.

 

I think this is a hurdle because I notice that when it comes to science a lot of times people want easy to follow stuff, be it global warming or quantum mechanics, maybe biological evolution is hard to make simple scientifically when you expand it out to such a level. Reading my genes will not tell you what life was like in 1930's China, I mean you have a lot of information. Yet in this we can track say a broken vitamin C pathway in primates that humans also have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Imagine, for a moment, a human chain. You hold the hand of your mother and she holds the hand of her mother ect. Each mother and child resemble each other just as much as the last. Each mother loves her child as much as her mother loved her. If you extend this chain, and then bend it backwards with first cousins facing each other, a chain of this type having you staring at a chimpanzee would be roughly only 300 miles long.

Just so no one gets the impression we evolved from the chimpanzee somewhere along the line -- we didn't. Humans and chimpanzees merely share a common ancestry. They both evolved separately.

 

I would prefer looking at the evidence myself than allowing a group of men that agree decide whats real or not for me.

There's a whole lot more to it than how you've presented it. No one just glances at or reads someone else's written paper and decides they like it or personally agree with it.

 

Math, testing, independent review, all play a major role. If you didn't know, scientits really enjoy pointing out inaccuracies or errors in the papers submitted by others in their field -- and very often anonymously.

 

Creationists have developed there own peer-reviewed journals, do you accept their claims?

Depends. I might accept the claim, but unless it follows the scientific process of independent tests and verification, I can't accept it scientifically -- only by faith.

 

humanities idea about the God of the bible has been around for thousands of years. Billions of our ancestors, and people alive today have devoted not only there careers but there lives for this Cause.

Unfortunately, a great part of such ideas about God had been spread through fear of punishment by death and/or torture, holy wars, outright deceit, etc. Science has no comparable history to any of that. (...and hopefully won't anytime in the future, though its very nature makes such a thing difficult and highly unlikely)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You realize that there is no science at all that is as certain as mathematics?

Yes, and evolution is a mathematical process none the less. The question for the science is: Does life perform the processes needed for the algorithm of evolution to occur?

 

Now there is overwhelming evidence that it does, but, if there was some non varying but inheritable mechanism that defined species then this definition would not be subject to evolution and life would not be able to undergo Macro Evolution (but there is not evidence of this mechanism - but there is always the possibility that such a thing could exist, however remote).

 

So, evolution as applied to living organisms is still science, but the existence of evolution and the fact that if the inherited information that describes an system is subject to micro evolution, then it must also be subject to macro evolution as long as no non varying encoding of the form exists.

 

 

[quote name='Mr Skeptic;540510

That is patently untrue. There has to be a link of at the very least viable organisms connecting the two.

Again' date=' you are right if you are only applying the process of evolution to current living systems, however, looking at the process of what evolution is, then any string of information [i']can, in potential[/i] be turned into any other string. The point I was making with this is that as DNA describes an organism, then you can't use differences in the DNA as a barrier to macro evolution, because the DNA in one organism could have been changed, through the process of evolution, into the other.

 

With what I was describing in my post, you can't get hooked up on evolution only applying to living organisms. When you are looking at evolution as a mathematical process, the process applies to any system able to implement the functions needed to perform it. Whether this is in a computer program, by cutting straws or in word puzzles.

 

The process I am talking about goes beyond just living systems. Evolution applies to much more than just living systems, and it is the similarities between these systems that demonstrates that evolution is not just a theory, but a mathematical fact, something that emerges from the fundamental functioning of the universe.

 

The functions needed for evolution to occur is

1) Inheritance with variation

2) The inherited information describing the properties of the resultant

3) Selection

 

If you have a system that performs these 3 function, then you will get evolution, and you will get both micro and macro evolution (unless there are other function that specifically disrupt these function).

 

Also note that the variation does not have to be random either. You can have evolution occur with completely deterministic variation. :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, and evolution is a mathematical process none the less. The question for the science is: Does life perform the processes needed for the algorithm of evolution to occur?

 

Well in that case you'd have to say it was a mathematical or philosophical theory, and most definitely not a scientific theory. Your second question would answer whether it would be even possible for evolution to actually occur in the real world, and most definitely not whether it actually does or ever did.

 

May I suggest that in the future if you are referring to the algorithm you call it an "evolutionary algorithm" or a "genetic algorithm" as that is in fact its name.

 

Again, you are right if you are only applying the process of evolution to current living systems, however, looking at the process of what evolution is, then any string of information can, in potential be turned into any other string. The point I was making with this is that as DNA describes an organism, then you can't use differences in the DNA as a barrier to macro evolution, because the DNA in one organism could have been changed, through the process of evolution, into the other.

 

Again, you are wrong. Even as the algorithm, you need to have "fit" strings of information. While the algorithm may not have the hard limit of viability, it most definitely has fitness.

 

In any case, it is precisely the similarities of DNA that are such strong evidence of evolution, along with the sort of differences that are observed. If the DNA were to have been extremely different, that would most definitely have nixed the common ancestry requirement of the theory. If the differences between species were of a different sort, that would also have nixed the theory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh let's not mix terms here, please. Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are special programming strategies to solve problems. They are inspired by evolutionary theories, of course, but do not have the explicit goal of mimicking biological behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Genetic and evolutionary algorithms are special programming strategies to solve problems. They are inspired by evolutionary theories, of course, but do not have the explicit goal of mimicking biological behavior.

True, they are not designer to mimic biological behaviour, but the process that occurs.

 

With Turing Machines, it is not the specific hardware that is important for the proof that an algorithm works, but that the process is proven to work. As far as the process of evolution is concerned, it has been proven to work. So any "machine" that performs those operations will perform the algorithm of evolution.

 

All that then needs to be shown is that living organisms perform these operations, which has been done (reproduction, variation, inheritance and selection).

 

So looking at living organisms without treating life as a special property (basically treat organisms as hardware of a Turing machine), then the processes that occur in living organisms performs the processes needed to implement evolution.

 

The biological behaviours are secondary to the processes that make up the algorithm. Life can be seen as a biological Turing Machine.

 

May I suggest that in the future if you are referring to the algorithm you call it an "evolutionary algorithm" or a "genetic algorithm" as that is in fact its name.

I did.:doh:

 

Again, you are wrong. Even as the algorithm, you need to have "fit" strings of information. While the algorithm may not have the hard limit of viability, it most definitely has fitness.

Through non coding structures (like Non Coding DNA) the sequence can be modified without effecting the fitness. Also, as random variation does not have to occur, you can have deterministic variation to achieve this (yes with real biological organisms this would be extremely hard to do with current technologies - but in computer code it is quite trivial to do).

 

There is a type of word puzzle where you start off with one word, then through modification you have to turn it into another word. Usually the3 puzzles have the constraint of a minimum and/or maximum number of changes you can make, but the game serves as a useful exercise.

 

If you include non-coding (ie does not count when determining the viability or fitness of the word) section, then it is actually trivial to turn one word into another.

 

eg (non coding in braces[]):

Fun

Fun[n]

Fun[nn]

Fun[nnn]

Fun[nnn]

Fun[onn]

Fun[oon]

Fun[ood]

Fan[ood]

an[ood]

ah[ood]

ah [ood]

a hood

hood

hood

good

Good

 

 

From Fun to Good (including capitals and viable words along the way).

 

These could all have been done through evolution (and possibly in shorter time too) and depending on the selection criteria (but if you are going after a specific solution like this then you would be carefully crafting your selection criteria anyway).

 

Remember, I said: In potential it can change, not that it would or has to. :doh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again though, what you are proving is that evolution could potentially happen, not that life did in fact form via evolution. I could show how you could potentially have killed JFK, but that in no way proves or even gives evidence that you did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It appears I need to read up on the DNA evidence surrounding macro-E.
Yes, it does. I provided some good links above as well.

 

Ive examined the transitionals on wiki and I found them all to be ridiculous.
In what way?

 

Idk anything about it.

Perhaps you should look into it. As it stands, that is definitive proof of human evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again though, what you are proving is that evolution could potentially happen, not that life did in fact form via evolution. I could show how you could potentially have killed JFK, but that in no way proves or even gives evidence that you did.

But the purpose of my post was not to prove biological evolution. SO the fact that what I posted didn't prove it is to be expected.

 

What I was attempting to do was to show that if you have micro evolution then you must have macro evolution as well based on the mathematics of algorithms. I even stated that was my goal.

 

I did not state that my goal was to prove that biological evolution occurred. Later on in the post I did show that biological systems were capable of evolution by showing that they had the necessary "functions" to form the Turing Machine that performs the algorithm of evolution.

 

Because I had established that if you get micro evolution you also get macro evolution based on maths (algorithms), then if one can show that life has micro evolution, then life must also have macro evolution.

 

But, I did not set out to prove that life does have any form of evolution, only that if it did, then it must have both micro and macro evolution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, I agree that micro and macro evolution are essentially one and the same thing, mainly with a different required timeframe. However, you are unlikely to get macroevolution on a timeframe of ~7,000 years so you won't convince people who believe in this timeframe.

 

Since there is plenty of evidence that macroevolution did in fact happen, the sort of argument you are making is quite unnecessary as well.

 

What I am going to do is show you why macro-evolution is a mathematical fact.

...

So this establishes that evolution is an algorithm and it is therefore a mathematical process. This means that if 1+1 is true, then so is the existence of evolution and all that comes with it.

...

The result of this is that, through evolution, you can turn one piece of DNA into any other piece of DNA.

...

As every base pair is subject to variation and inheritance, then this means that every single piece of DNA is subject to evolution, and this means that Macro Evolution exists as a mathematical fact (so you have you prove that computers can not exist to disprove macro evolution - which if you are reading this, then I think you will have a really hard time doing :D).

 

These statements you made are completely unsupported, and also false.

 

If any part of the information that differentiations one organism from another is subject to evolution, then it all is. If it all is, then Macro Evolution is as mathematically certain as Micro Evolution.

 

This one is true, but I don't know if you convinced anyone of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These statements you made are completely unsupported, and also false.

Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.