"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Ziphius

mickrock wrote: »

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions, applications and capabilities? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

The answer I would give is no.

And why not? If the mutations arise and adequate selections are there this would happen.

Theoretically this could occur. However the chances are infinitesimal. But evolution doesn't operate by transforming one organism into another Platonic ideal.

kiffer

mickrock wrote: »

By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

The answer I would give is no.

Based on what?

mickrock

Ziphius wrote: »

Theoretically this could occur. However the chances are infinitesimal.

If we see complex software we know an intelligence created it.

Similarly when we see the genetic code it's not unreasonable to infer that inteligence is the most likely cause.

legspin

mickrock wrote: »

If we see complex software we know an intelligence created it.

Similarly when we see the genetic code it's not unreasonable to infer that inteligence is the most likely cause.

Now its the blind watchmaker? An argument that was refuted 150 years ago and you think we're going to fall for it now?

There isn't a face palm hard enough for this bullshít.

mickrock

legspin wrote: »

Now its the blind watchmaker? An argument that was refuted 150 years ago and you think we're going to fall for it now?

No, it's not the "blind watchmaker".

It's the "watchmaker" and it hasn't been refuted at all, although Darwinists like to think it has.

legspin

That you refuse to accept as such does not make it less of a fallacy.

Anyway, I'm done listening to your particular brand of rampant, wilful and oh so proud if itself ignorance and you are now on ignore.

oldrnwisr

Since we are close to the end of this thread I think a fitting finale would be a legacy of information for anyone curious (and I mean actually honestly curious) about what evolution is, how it works and why it is one of the most robust theories in science.


So here goes:


Basic Primers

• Understanding Evolution
• Human Evolution - A Very Short Introduction
• Fundamentals of Biology (MIT Course)
• Introduction to Biology (UC Berkeley)

Books - Academic

• Adaptation and Natural Selection
• The Logic of Chance - The Nature and Origin of Biological Evolution
• The Evolution of Parental Care
• Behaviour and Evolution
• Patterns and processes of vertebrate evolution

Books - Popular

• The Red Queen - Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature
• The Selfish Gene
• The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Life
• Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters
• Why is Sex Fun? - The Evolution of Human Sexuality
• Why Evolution is True
• Evolution: The Human Story

Papers

• Evolution of biological complexity
• The evolution of reciprocal altruism
• Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's "Complex Specified Information"
• Evolution of biological information

Videos

• Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism
• Falsifying Phylogeny
• Origins - The Series
• Facts of Evolution/Natural Selection
• Evolution, Ecology and Behaviour (Yale Course)
• Human Behavioural Biology (Stanford Course)
• Darwin's Legacy (Stanford Course)
• Evolution: Fact or Fiction (dlofnep)
• How Evolution Works

Other websites

• An index to Creationist Claims
• Phylointelligence
• Tree of Life
• The Scientific Case for Common Descent

One final note - this isn't even skimming the surface of all there is to learn on evolution. Most of this list has been crafted from personal interest and utility but hopefully there's something in there for everyone.

mickrock

Think for yourself!

Delirium

mickrock wrote: »

Think for yourself!

Doctor Strange

mickrock wrote: »

Think for yourself!

A fitting note for you to sign off with on this thread. Your ignorance is caused by some misguided attempt at "free thinking".

Sarky

mickrock wrote: »

I think a computer progam is even better. I posted this before:

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions, applications and capabilities? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

The answer I would give is no.

And you would be wrong. I mentioned genetic algorithms before. I would love to think you were just so busy reading oldrnwisr's posts that you missed it the first time, but somehow I get the impression that you didn't bother reading any of the links or information we've given you time and again.

I guess the message we can all take from this thread is that some people just aren't interested in improving their knowledge, and no amount of showing them precisely why they're wrong will get them to let go of their ignorance. It's kind of depressing.

On a brighter note though, I'm very glad to have had the opportunity to share some of my knowledge with you guys in this thread, and it's been a pleasure learning off you guys. Too many to mention everyone, but shoutouts in particular to oldrnwisr, Zombrex, Sycopat and doctoremma. Awesome work, you guys.

Oh, and thanks to mickrock and J C as well. Your shining example of pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the eye is a warning to us all, and an inspiration to never, ever settle for the easy answer.

Ok, I think we're done here. How bittersweet.

Gbear

Thankfully this thread has passed the 10k post mark and can now be disposed of.


Preferably in nuclear fire.

Zombrex

mickrock wrote: »

I think a computer progam is even better. I posted this before:

Let's liken the genetic information in the first unicellular life form to a computer program (which somehow has formed by chance). The role of natural selection is played by a person familiar with programming. Random changes are made to the program which he can either accept or reject.

Almost all the changes he'll reject because they'll corrupt the program and he'll let the beneficial ones be incorporated. Since each change is random it is unrelated to the one that preceeded it and to the one that will follow.

If this process is allowed to continue for a long time will we end up with a far more sophisticated program with new functions, applications and capabilities? By a similar process, can the genetic code in a single cell evolve into the genetic code of a horse?

The answer I would give is no.

God you cannot be that silly.

There is an entire discipline in computer science, called Genetic Algorithms, that do precisely what you claim wouldn't work.

There seems to be no end to your ignorance.

And you never answered my previous question to you.

robindch

Unforgettable _ Fire wrote: »

A fitting note for you to sign off with on this thread.

If past history with creationists is anything to go by -- and I think it's fair to say at this point that mickrock is, indisputably, a creationist -- then he'll be back shortly, repeatedly posting the same silly talking points, repeatedly ignoring honest question after honest question, sticking his fingers deep into his ears, thumbing his nose at what he doesn't understand and doesn't want to understand, and generally debating with all the grace and honesty of a bum railyard preacher.

Why do creationists insist on doing this? Does the man make the manner, or the other way around? I have no idea. Seems dreadfully tedious to me.

Still, pray continue. While mickrock's silly contributions are instantly forgettable and forgotten, other people's are not.

MrPudding

Corkfeen wrote: »

This thread requires an epic score for the final 38 posts.... The end is nigh!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl5McGN2L-E

One of the most educational topics around but at the same time, it can be completely mad and idiotic.....

Excellent piece of music and excellent movie.

MrP

Doctor Strange

I'm only sorry I got to this thread so late. You'll have to forgive my often short responses. I'd love to use what I'm learning in college to tear down the points made by creationists/ID'ers, but said college takes up too much time. I'm learning quite a bit here also, particularly from oldrnwisr, Sarky, doctoremma and a load of others.

endacl

Are we in injury time now?!?

kiffer

Well... that was a big anticlimax.
What happened to the lock?
Everyone was wrapping up and winding down.

It's like those doomsday cults when it turns out that Rapture isnt happening this week and we all drove out to the desert for nothing.

While there may be differing hypothesis with regard to what causes variations in genetics it still comes down to natuallly inheritable characteristics, natural selection and time.
Mickrock's guided/theistic evolution position is not supported at all.
The idea that mutations are deliberate changes towards some outsider's goal is unsupported... for all intents and purposes, and in every way we can measure, as far as I am aware*, the changes a statistically random.


*Please if you have data that show otherwise please provide it. Something meaty, not "I read on a website that 5% of biologists think that it's deliberately controlled by some sort of external meddler"...


MOD NOTE
Thread now closed as have passed Boards' 10,000 post guideline limit.
New thread to be found here.