AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[bluehillside Retd.]

Yes it's all good stuff but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?

Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Maybe he and Spud should get a room or something?

[Nearly Sane]

Hi Dicky,

Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.   

http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Dicky,

Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all?   

Because.....to paraphrase Huxley, God must be inordinately fond of people like Dawkins.......evolution is a Dawkins shaped hole...to paraphrase Douglas Adams.

[Dicky Underpants]

Hi Dicky,

Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.   

Yes indeed! I prefer the convergent evolution explanation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Maybe he and Spud should get a room or something?

Well get a room while you get a life.....

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html

The very chaps - thank you.

[wigginhall]

Sword.

Re, evolution and information;

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

(Typo corrected)

Some interesting stuff here.  It strikes me that creationists regularly exploit the ambiguity of the term 'information', so that they can equivocate.   For example, people use the term to refer to meaning, but of course, in information theory it often does not mean that at all, so that random noise is information.   You could say that information is data, so a random mutation adds information. 

I keep thinking of the analogy of the TV channel getting interference, as according to Shannon this is a decrease in information, since the channel is degraded,  but acc. to Kolmogorov, it is an increase, (I think).   The moral is, please define what you mean by information.

[Walter]

Some interesting stuff here.  It strikes me that creationists regularly exploit the ambiguity of the term 'information', so that they can equivocate.   For example, people use the term to refer to meaning, but of course, in information theory it often does not mean that at all, so that random noise is information.   You could say that information is data, so a random mutation adds information. 

I keep thinking of the analogy of the TV channel getting interference, as according to Shannon this is a decrease in information, since the channel is degraded,  but acc. to Kolmogorov, it is an increase, (I think).   The moral is, please define what you mean by information.

as in many circumstances, especially for people like me, a definition of terms is very important at the start. Its got me into bother a few times.

[Enki]

http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html

Interesting and unusual example, NS. The woodcreepers of South America and the treecreepers of the Palearctic and the Nearctic are also good examples of convergent evolution.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

Considering all the criticism I was getting for comparing DNA with the alphabet, musical notes or computer code, the above supports all that I was saying!

No it doesn't. They're only "words" for you if you happen to think the "language" to be the one intended to make you all along.

Are these words too: wewe ni makosa kabisa?

Actually they are, but only if you've decided first that Swahili is the intended language. That's your problem - if DNA had just happened to produce a completely different but sentient organism that was also given to the reference point error, it too would marvel at the fantastic unlikeliness of DNA's "words" producing little old him.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? 

[Walter]

SOTS,

No it doesn't. They're only "words" for you if you happen to think the "language" to be the one intended to make you all along.

Are these words too: wewe ni makosa kabisa?

Actually they are, but only if you've decided first that Swahili is the intended language. That's your problem - if DNA had just happened to produce a completely different but sentient organism that was also given to the reference point error, it too would marvel at the fantastic unlikeliness of DNA's "words" producing little old him.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

because it terrifies him to think he's been wrong for most of his life and all that that entails OR he is intellectually incapable .


Either way is abhorrent so its better to carry on with the pretence in the  hope he can finally ask a question which causes all scientists in the field to rethink what they know.

[wigginhall]

I suppose the ID people want to say that information can only be created by an intelligence, but as we know, they equivocate massively about what information is.   For example, atoms contain 'information' about what kind of element they are, and how to interact with other atoms.   Are we going to say that this must be intelligently driven?   I don't see why. 

And IDers will try to compare DNA to a book or an alphabet, so they can then say, see, it's all intelligently created.   More equivocation.

[Walter]

I suppose the ID people want to say that information can only be created by an intelligence, but as we know, they equivocate massively about what information is.   For example, atoms contain 'information' about what kind of element they are, and how to interact with other atoms.   Are we going to say that this must be intelligently driven?   I don't see why. 

And IDers will try to compare DNA to a book or an alphabet, so they can then say, see, it's all intelligently created.   More equivocation.

information at this level is simply a technical term which, for instance , could mean the transfer of an electron from one ion to another as in the nitrogen cycle of plants. It doesn't mean the plant now knows more than it did before.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

information at this level is simply a technical term which, for instance , could mean the transfer of an electron from one ion to another as in the nitrogen cycle of plants. It doesn't mean the plant now knows more than it did before.

Yes - "information" is any example of cause and effect within a system, and essentially it's an answer to a question. What Sword does though is to confuse "information" (which does not necessarily require an observer) with "knowledge" (which does). He's every bit as enthralled by the reference point error as Hope is by the negative proof fallacy too - which is why he returns endlessly to the "what are the chances of DNA making me?" line without ever managing to grasp that, as the answer has no significance for his position, it's entirely the wrong question to ask.

Ah well.

 

[Walter]

Walter,

Yes - "information" is any example of cause and effect within a system, and essentially it's an answer to a question. What Sword does though is to confuse "information" (which does not necessarily require an observer) with "knowledge" (which does). He's every bit as enthralled by the reference point error as Hope is by the negative proof fallacy too - which is why he returns endlessly to the "what are the chances of DNA making me?" line without ever managing to grasp that, as the answer has no significance for his position, it's entirely the wrong question to ask.

Ah well.

 

maybe SOTS is a PLANT in in more than one meaning of the word.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#925

Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis.

No, he did not.

(emphasis mine)

but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?

Precisely!

It was a similar point to the one I made at the end of my #918:

The problem is always going to be, the taking of a process that works with what is already present, to explain how that which is already present came to be.

Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.

You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?

[Gordon]

Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.

We don't need an explanation but there will be one (or perhaps there will be several) - meantime, 'don't know' is the holding position while the research continues.

You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?

That would be a straw man, and it seems you are still confusing abiogenesis and evolution - perhaps you've been taking science lessons from ~TW~.

[bluehillside Retd.]

SOTS,

No, he did not.

(emphasis mine)

Yes he did

(mistake yours)

Quote from: The Burden of Spoof

but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?
Precisely!

It was a similar point to the one I made at the end of my #918:

Precisely wrong. “Darwinianism” – ie, evolution by natural selection – “stops” when there’s nothing on which it can act that’s susceptible to natural selection. That though says nothing whatever about the validity of the theory of evolution itself. If you now want to abandon your incredulity about the TofE and change horses for a discussion about how organic life began at all that’s fine, but you can’t just conflate the two.

Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.

No it isn’t. No-one says that Darwinian evolution was what gave rise to the first organic life.

You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...

Ooh, it's been a while since anyone attempted the god of the gaps fallacy....

Ugg: “So Hagar, I’ve been looking at this thunder stuff. Have you noticed that it only happens when there are black clouds and then it rains afterwards?"

Hagar: “Aw Ugg, you’re not going to go with that "it’s all natural” crap again are you? Really?”

Ugg (slightly abashed): ”Well, you know – everything else we’ve figured out so far is natural – growing trees to build the long boats and all that – so I’m just saying that there are some big clues already about how thunder could happen too."

Hagar: “But why bother with all that? It’s Thor doing it, so obviously that answers everything we need to know about thunder just there."

Ugg: “But “Thor” is just a word – it explains nothing!”

Hagar: “Yeah right - you do have an explanation for thunder then, don’t you...”

…or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?

That’s a lot to get wrong in just a few words. No-one says that evolution is responsible for “something ultimately evolving from nothing” so why even bother with the straw man?

[torridon]

Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.

You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?

Evolution by natural selection is really just common sense applied to the particular world of biology.  That the fittest survive should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is bleedin' obvious surely, on which planet would a slow gazelle stand the same chance of passing on it characteristics as a quick nimble gazelle ? Evolution by natural selection is just the application to biology of the general principle that successful things will proliferate at the expense of less successful things and this more general formulation has wide application, such as for instance in the world of biochemistry where similar principles see increasingly complex organic compounds gradually absorbing smaller simpler less successful ones, a process that leads to replication, one of the main defining characteristics of life, with no recourse to magic.

[Walter]

Evolution by natural selection is really just common sense applied to the particular world of biology.  That the fittest survive should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is bleedin' obvious surely, on which planet would a slow gazelle stand the same chance of passing on it characteristics as a quick nimble gazelle ? Evolution by natural selection is just the application to biology of the general principle that successful things will proliferate at the expense of less successful things and this more general formulation has wide application, such as for instance in the world of biochemistry where similar principles see increasingly complex organic compounds gradually absorbing smaller simpler less successful ones, a process that leads to replication, one of the main defining characteristics of life, with no recourse to magic.

my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong

[torridon]

my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong

I think the phrase dates back to Darwin's light bulb moment of realising that most species produce many offspring, the reason being that nature is harsh and all but the strongest/fastest/fittest etc will not survive, thus optimising the lineage in the future.  He had a talent for coining a phrase and so it has gained usage in wider contexts since.

[Nearly Sane]

It isn't a coinage of Darwin, it's Herbert Spencer

[BeRational]

my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong

Are you not both correct.

The genes express themselves in body attributes, and are selected by their ability to create a body that fits its environment?

[Walter]

Are you not both correct.

The genes express themselves in body attributes, and are selected by their ability to create a body that fits its environment?

as in snot balls that hang from the ceilings of dark caves, nice!

[bluehillside Retd.]

Walter,

It isn't a coinage of Darwin, it's Herbert Spencer

It's also something of a misnomer because people sometimes think that "fittest" must mean "fastest", "sharpest-eyed" etc whereas in fact it means something closer to "best adapted to the environmental niche it occupies". Thus previously sighted species will become blind when they live underground, while other characteristics will enhance.