Creation vs Evolution

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Evolution cannot be recreated in the lab, because it is far too complex. However, research into robotics has made robots that can evolve in a limited way.

Just because we cannot duplicated something in a laboratory does not mean it is something that can't happen in nature. We have not yet duplicated a black hole in the lab, but they do exist in space.

Originally posted by chickenlover98
that new particle collider theyre un leashing soon has a bunch of people goin crazy. they say itll rip a hole in the spacetime continuim or that it will create a black hole

if it does create a black hole its going to be smaller than a strand of hair.

Still going to be ******* awsome.

any laws that say they might create a black hole or strangelets also say that these will be too unstable to last for more than fractions of a second.

also, afaik, they are a very remote possibility

Originally posted by inimalist
any laws that say they might create a black hole or strangelets also say that these will be too unstable to last for more than fractions of a second.

Ohh ya I know that, its still incredibly cool if they do create a black hole.

Originally posted by inimalist
any laws that say they might create a black hole or strangelets also say that these will be too unstable to last for more than fractions of a second.

also, afaik, they are a very remote possibility

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yes......but itll still be enough to destroy a good chunk around it

you mean like the adjacent atoms?

Originally posted by chickenlover98
yes......but itll still be enough to destroy a good chunk around it

no it wont destroy a good chunk around it because its so incredibly small. Like inimalist said it wont last that long, like a trillionth of a trillionth of a sec, so it wont be around enough to eat up a lot mass around it either.

Originally posted by inimalist
I'll add my 2 cents to this cluster **** now... then leave this to the professionals, I was in agreement with Bardock however, I was very interested in seeing where the yes/no questions went

This was all the way back at the top of page 185. You were so determined to get "straight answers" from people that you refused to answer their points.

So, when we finally play along, the ruse is simply to make the "we can't observe macro-evolution" argument, which has been evidenced against ad nauseum in this thread and in multiple places throughout the internet.

However, that isn't the most ridiculous part of this exercise. The fact that after only 3 yes/no questions you revert back to points of discussion is so... I don't even know the word I want. Its insulting to me for you to do that, but more so, it is insulting to everyone else who was debating you 5 pages ago.

You said you didn't want long thought out answers, then demand them. You ignore the people making thought out posts in order to try and direct the debate as if you are some sort of host. This is childish, immature, and really, you should be ashamed for such idiocy.

also, more the the point, both of the questions I answered were worded in a way that shows very limited understanding of the concepts involved, as if we didn't know that. For example, a mother birthing a child is sufficient to answer your last question.

bump.

😄

Months later and with a few adjustments this is still a succinct and relevant response.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh this is just getting ridiculously stupid, as if it wasn't stupid enough already. The equivalent of spam, that did nothing to dismiss anything Digi, inimalist or Bardock posted.

We get it. Scientists must "document" evolution step by step, base pair by base pair, amino acid by amino acid, of a species into another species at I don't know how high a level in the Linnaean taxonomy to be deemed a different "kind" - a wholly unscientific term with no real criterion - for you to accept evolution. Because scientists haven't been able to document something that takes thousands if not millions of years, base pair by base pair, despite that humans haven't been around that long, you'll go on about how evolution is "just a theory." Of course not realizing that in science "theory" isn't a synonym for "conjecture." Therefore we get a thread seemingly about robots for you to try and prove ID by trying to discredit evolution as "just a theory" with links to the Discovery Institute - which has never really discovered anything (except how to steal videos from Harvard/XVIVO via the internet) and is thus a gross misnomer - despite that this doesn't in any way prove ID.

We get it. No one cares. Stop posting. Believe in your god all you want, just keep him out of science classes.

And don't subvert actual scientific terms into your bullshit.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The way I understood it (from High School biology), would be that there are two answers to that. One that DNA is similar to an anagram (I quickly wikipedia'd an anagram for my example). For example you might have the words "Eleven plus two", now when mutations happen it likely becomes gibberish like "lvepeen sul wot" which is obviously not useful in any way, but it might possibly in some rare cases (if I had listened to my Maths prof I could even tell you the likelihood of that event) turn into "Twelve plus one", which, if it is more useful than the code "Eleven plus two" is likely to be successful and in time will possibly become the new standard of the organisms.

As for just an additional information. Don't people with down syndrome have a whole additional chromosome, isn't that an increase in the amount of information at least? I don't think that's the way evolution happens, but I believe it fits your question.

Persons suffering from Down Syndrome, can point the finger at genetic mutation, not to mention every other birth defect known to man. Documented and observational evidence verify this time and time, again! Not that you have, but others on this forum, have felt the need to bring this topic up, to support Darwinian evolution. It should be embarrassing. Genetic mutations are not beneficial; go ask the scientists exposing fruit flies to radiation with legs growing out of their heads! People suffering from Down Syndrome do have an extra chromosome; but they merely have an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is not new information that previously, did not exist. This is important, because so many of your other statements assume that information within an organism's genome increases, in such that "brand-new" information--information that never existed before--is created/produced. This does not occur in nature.

Originally posted by Bardock42
To come back to my last argument. There are at least two methods of "new" information I can think of. To give another example, if there was a binary code called "1101" and this would now (by what means ever) be changed into either "1101001" or "1110" that would both be "new" information. In one case the old might still be there and there'd be additional information and in the other the old information would have transformed into new one. I believe both has been observed, inimalist at least says so and I trust him to have an acceptable knowledge of Evolution.

I do not mean to be a stickler on this, but this entire statement in based on wishful thinking. I'm sorry. I completely understand the message you are trying to communicate; but such does not occur in nature.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think that is a pretty good example. Just that Software does not "corrupt" as often as organisms copy each other and that the code used is probably less useful to form new good software. But I generally agree, I think if there was a way to make Software "corrupt" itself (i.e. add or subtract errors) and there was a way that makes the corrupter software lose out to more useful software then, just as in evolution, the software would, over time, even though most the "corruptions" decrease the value of the software, get software that is superior to the one started out with.

For example. If there is a line in the software that says "Count to 100", then most corruptions will lead to gibberish in the software, but every once in a while there would be superior code, that would be more useful than all the other codes and by that standard "survive" and "pass it on", so that, after a very long time, this code might have turned into "Count to 100, unless user says otherwise".

In this example neither the invisible hand of "survival of the fittest" nor how it is passed on is present. But I think it gives a pretty good view of what evolution is about, at least as I understand it.

Nature does not work this way! You have got to remove yourself from this false premise!! Theories of this caliber are not based on documented and observational data. They are based on unwarranted speculation, wishful thinking, and faith.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I think my anagram example is relatively good in showing that even an error can produce advantage. If, in the first example, there would also be a mechanism that would make each letter being at the new position more likely, it would relatively fast morph into the new sentence.

Wishful thinking again! You made this statement, but could not produce documented and/or observational data. This is no fault of your own. Millions of years of Natural Selection at work (in nature) and not one example of such can be produced, not even in laboratories.

Fact of the matter is, genetic mutations only harm organisms. And no evidence exists to verify, that genetic mutations create/produce "new" information that previously, never existed! Genetic mutations are merely errors of existing information.

Somehow or another, I am going to be--and I am not implying you--labeled unscientific and/or spreading lies. This is not fair.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Persons suffering from Down Syndrome, can point the finger at genetic mutation, not to mention every other birth defect known to man. Documented and observational evidence verify this time and time, again! Not that you have, but others on this forum, have felt the need to bring this topic up, to support Darwinian evolution. It should be embarrassing. Genetic mutations are not beneficial; go ask the scientists exposing fruit flies to radiation with legs growing out of their heads! People suffering from Down Syndrome do have an extra chromosome; but they merely have an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is not new information that previously, did not exist. This is important, because so many of your other statements assume that information within an organism's genome increases, in such that "brand-new" information--information that never existed before--is created/produced. This does not occur in nature.

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoMutations.html

Originally posted by ushomefree
Persons suffering from Down Syndrome, can point the finger at genetic mutation, not to mention every other birth defect known to man. Documented and observational evidence verify this time and time, again! Not that you have, but others on this forum, have felt the need to bring this topic up, to support Darwinian evolution. It should be embarrassing. Genetic mutations are not beneficial; go ask the scientists exposing fruit flies to radiation with legs growing out of their heads! People suffering from Down Syndrome do have an extra chromosome; but they merely have an extra copy of chromosome 21. It is not new information that previously, did not exist. This is important, because so many of your other statements assume that information within an organism's genome increases, in such that "brand-new" information--information that never existed before--is created/produced. This does not occur in nature.

I do not mean to be a stickler on this, but this entire statement in based on wishful thinking. I'm sorry. I completely understand the message you are trying to communicate; but such does not occur in nature.

Nature does not work this way! You have got to remove yourself from this false premise!! Theories of this caliber are not based on documented and observational data. They are based on unwarranted speculation, wishful thinking, and faith.

Wishful thinking again! You made this statement, but could not produce documented and/or observational data. This is no fault of your own. Millions of years of Natural Selection at work (in nature) and not one example of such can be produced, not even in laboratories.

Fact of the matter is, genetic mutations only harm organisms. And no evidence exists to verify, that genetic mutations create/produce "new" information that previously, never existed! Genetic mutations are merely errors of existing information.

Somehow or another, I am going to be--and I am not implying you--labeled unscientific and/or spreading lies. This is not fair.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think there is nothing I can say really to that. I think you are incorrect in your dissmissing of my points. We were talking point for point. And you asked if there is more information available or different. And that is what you admitted. You said it is always harmful. But you admit that it exists.

Let us not get ahead of ourselves; I stated:

1) genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial. Genetic mutations have always been the cause of birth-defects, and

2) genetic mutations do not create/produce information that previously did not exist.

That being said, of course I except the reality of genetic mutations. What is your point?

Originally posted by ushomefree
Let us not get ahead of ourselves; I stated:

1) genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial. Genetic mutations have always been the cause of birth-defects, and

2) genetic mutations do not create/produce information that previously did not exist.

That being said, of course I except the reality of genetic mutations. What is your point?

Do you mean genetic mutations like white skin?

I think I know where you are going with this; but for the sake of thoroughness, explain.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Let us not get ahead of ourselves; I stated:

1) genetic mutations are harmful, not beneficial. Genetic mutations have always been the cause of birth-defects, and

Originally posted by ushomefree
I think I know where you are going with this; but for the sake of thoroughness, explain.

White skin or the lack of pigment in our skin is a genetic mutation. If all genetic mutations are bad then...?

Shakyamunison-

That is not an example of "genetic mutation."

Guess I'm being ignored, I must be really dumb or he can't answer my questions 😉

Originally posted by ushomefree
Shakyamunison-

That is not an example of "genetic mutation."