@sonhouse saidYour complaint was nonsensical the first time you said it, and it remains so! He was speaking about chemical reactions and comparing the Miller–Urey experiment to the findings in a meteorite he had the opportunity to experiment on, looking for similarities in the results of them, and finding many.
@KellyJay
You base your chemist argument based on what we know today. We already know more today than yesterday. New work coming in about reactions that took place in interstellar clouds of prebiotic material shows that chemist you refer to does not have the whole story. The interstellar story trumps the bit about Earth not having enough time to do all the prebiotic chemica ...[text shortened]... till base your arguments on religious grounds and I fear no new science will convince you otherwise.
How much of the whole story must one speak on before you are happy? The time and resources are in play no matter what; they can already be on the earth or fall there from the sky; it is meaningless how they got here. All the necessary things for the sake of argument can be together in one place, that doesn't solve the problem in his discussion, it wasn't all about just resources; it was about how the chemical reactions required for life occur in a natural environment, verses an unnatural one like a lab where we cause things to happen by design and still cannot produce life from non-life.
5 edits
@kellyjay saidNo, the evolution of the genomes isn't just purely random but as a result of natural selection acting on mutations. Natural selection isn't purely random because it has some predictability. Thus it is not our claim or position that genomes came into existence by just random chance but rather given the right conditions it was inevitable that partially optimized and well functional genomes would come into existence. Also, many perfectly functional AI software programs have already been created via genetic algorithms that simulate evolution (I know because I dealt with some at university when doing my degree) thus indicating by analogy evolution in nature can also create functional genomes and much more in nature.
If you know we cannot introduce random code into a computer to create AI, then how do you justify it is possible for DNA to be altered to produce, not a artificial intelligence, but one from a living system?
@humy saidStating the beliefs surrounding that theory isn't proving anything. You are aware of how complex DNA is, and you are also a highly skilled programmer, do you appreciate the complexity in DNA coding when it comes to life? From a programmer's perspective, when something exceptionally sophisticated with all of it’s functionally, that takes place in a single cell, when looking at the DNA of a single cell compared to your work in AI, which of these is the more complex code? Since these are codes (I assume you agree) do you think that entering random changes without a plan would turn both into something nonfunctioning or the death of a lifeform? You are assuming for millions of years, random changes in DNA caused something to acquire more and more information that, in turn, guides life into being something more functionally complex, this is logical to you?
No, the evolution of the genomes isn't just purely random but as a result of natural selection acting on mutations. Natural selection isn't purely random because it has some predictability. Thus it is not our claim or position that genomes came into existence by just random chance but rather given the right conditions it was inevitable that partially optimized and well functiona ...[text shortened]... ng by analogy evolution in nature can also create functional genomes and much more in nature.
Suggesting that natural selection can do this because we see life is circular, you have something else to use as and example this can occur?
3 edits
@kellyjay saidYes. DNA is not particularly complex. It has only 4 bases.
You are aware of how complex DNA is
do you appreciate the complexity in DNA coding when it comes to life?If what you mean by "DNA coding" here is the creation of the genome, yes. And there is also no limit to the complexity evolution can create so what's your point here?
when looking at the DNA of a single cell compared to your work in AI, which of these is the more complex code?sometimes its the genome of the cell and sometimes its the software of the AI; It depends on the complexity of the AI. So what has any of this got to do with anything? What's your 'argument' here and for what?
Since these are codes (I assume you agree) do you think that entering random changes without a plan would turn ...Natural evolution isn't a 'plan' and also isn't completely random but has some predictability and under the right conditions inevitably creates huge complexity of structure and forms thus your question makes no sense.
You are assuming for millions of years, random changes in DNA caused something to ...No, I am not. I assume and know EVOLUTION caused something. Just random changes without a selection process is unlikely to do much!
Suggesting that natural selection can do this because we see life is circularWhich is why I never suggested it. We know natural selection exists and is part of evolution because we have observable and verifiable scientific EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) of this.
@humy said"Which is why I never suggested it. We know natural selection exists and is part of evolution because we have observable and verifiable scientific EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) of this."
Yes. DNA is not particularly complex. It has only 4 bases.do you appreciate the complexity in DNA coding when it comes to life?If what you mean by "DNA coding" here is the creation of the genome, yes. And there is also no limit to the complexity evolution can create so what's your point here?
[quote] when looking at the DNA of a single cell compared to you ...[text shortened]... of evolution because we have observable and verifiable scientific EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) of this.
The proof centers on that there are small changes, assuming these don't have limits, and that they can create something new like a limb or an organ, there is no evidence of this, except mere speculation. Is this why you refused to watch that Chemist speak to chemistry, it would pop your bubble on some of your "evidence" and possibly force you back to square one?
@humy said"Yes. DNA is not particularly complex. It has only 4 bases."
Yes. DNA is not particularly complex. It has only 4 bases.do you appreciate the complexity in DNA coding when it comes to life?If what you mean by "DNA coding" here is the creation of the genome, yes. And there is also no limit to the complexity evolution can create so what's your point here?
[quote] when looking at the DNA of a single cell compared to you ...[text shortened]... of evolution because we have observable and verifiable scientific EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) of this.
Having just four bases isn't why DNA is complex; mathematics in binary can still be quite complex. Being binary doesn’t add or take away from that, that would rest more on what and how something is done. It is the information in the DNA chain that is complex, not due to the base numbers. The use of those four bases to write all of the information for just a single cell, incredibly long making it very complicated. The information we see in DNA, where did it come from? You can say evolution, but there is nothing about that process that creates something new; you can show a modification of what is already there, nothing more. I supposed you might attempt to say it is in the fossil record; then, you are moving into the realm of faith, suggesting things that cannot be proven only asserted.
3 edits
@kellyjay saidYou appear to be confused. DNA isn't a calculation but a molecule thus it isn't like mathematics but an object. Are you confusing genome with DNA because a genome is usually but not always (some RNA virus genomes being the exception) MADE of DNA? X being made of Y doesn't imply X is Y. A genome is at least in most cases pretty complex. DNA isn't. But not even a genome is a calculation but rather is just an evolved code.
Having just four bases isn't why DNA is complex; mathematics in binary can still be quite complex.
The information we see in DNA, where did it come from? You can say evolution, but there is nothing about that process that creates something new;Apparently then you haven't heard of these things called "mutations". Mutations can and often do produce new information in the genome.
Only one of the most common ways a new gene evolves is by a two stage process of first a mutation consisting of an extra copy of a gene that is then passed on and then only later one of those two identical genes mutating so now the two genes become different and thus with different functionality. There are observed examples of that happening in nature.
@KellyJay
Speaking of fossils, recent work by archeologists , geologists and other scientists, fossils found in Colorado have shown the progression of mammals after the death of dinosaurs, a magnetic reversal line gave the time frame showing how mammals starting off as shrew size and the ones surviving the asteroid hit had a wide food base, and could eat anything. The ones who had specialized nutrition, lost out and became extinct because the plants and animals that were the food chain collapsed.
So those omnivores eeked out an existence and how after about 300,000 years legumes came back and that is a highly nutritious food source so the rise of mammals was tied to the comeback of legumes and a timeline of the fossils showed a change in the size of the mammals from the size of shrews to over 100 pounders in less than a million years.
It took 20 MILLION more years before the next growth in size of the mammals to something like we see today.
@sonhouse saidTo be clear, as you look at a fossil you don't know its past you see a fossil and as soon as you start assigning linage you are going beyond reality into something else. So someone comes up with a progression of mammals after the death of dinosaurs, there anything beyond imagination that validates this? It isn't like there are name tags on the things giving us detailed information concerning them.
@KellyJay
Speaking of fossils, recent work by archeologists , geologists and other scientists, fossils found in Colorado have shown the progression of mammals after the death of dinosaurs, a magnetic reversal line gave the time frame showing how mammals starting off as shrew size and the ones surviving the asteroid hit had a wide food base, and could eat anything. The ones ...[text shortened]... 20 MILLION more years before the next growth in size of the mammals to something like we see today.
You got from looking at fossils a time frame of what was when, their diet, nutritional data, how a food chain collapsed and on and on. You can buy into this, but chemistry which can be validated today that you refuse to look at, go figure.
3 edits
@humy saidYou didn't see me say there were calculations taking place in DNA. What I did say was there is a lot of information within DNA.
You appear to be confused. DNA isn't a calculation but a molecule thus it isn't like mathematics but an object. Are you confusing genome with DNA because a genome is usually but not always (some RNA virus genomes being the exception) MADE of DNA? X being made of Y doesn't imply X is Y. A genome is at least in most cases pretty complex. DNA isn't. But not even a [i] ...[text shortened]... rent and thus with different functionality. There are observed examples of that happening in nature.
Evolved code, is a little vague, evolved from when and what? Are you talking about evolution from some made-up first lifeform at abiogenesis, or something much closer to reality, something alive today? The small changes within current lifeforms, because one does not mean the other is true.
1 edit
@humy said"Natural evolution isn't a 'plan' and also isn't completely random but has some predictability and under the right conditions inevitably creates huge complexity of structure and forms thus your question makes no sense. "
Yes. DNA is not particularly complex. It has only 4 bases.do you appreciate the complexity in DNA coding when it comes to life?If what you mean by "DNA coding" here is the creation of the genome, yes. And there is also no limit to the complexity evolution can create so what's your point here?
[quote] when looking at the DNA of a single cell compared to you ...[text shortened]... of evolution because we have observable and verifiable scientific EVIDENCE (proof, in fact) of this.
A snowflake is a complex structure; what we are talking about are functional organs or systems that are performing vital tasks. The topic under discussion is something alive and functionally complex as a single cell, or a circulatory system. Those types of things just don't appear because some environmental change turns some non-living materials into living ones; neither can you show where some lifeforms ancestors that didn’t have a heart, acquire one, through evolutionary processes except by assertions. Assertions made about things that cannot be falsified, like this fossil was once one of these or one of those, that is faith.
2 edits
@kellyjay saidAgain, you seem to be very confused. The theory of evolution does NOT say the complex structures in modern cells or the complex structures of, as you just said, "a circulatory system", evolved directly from "non-living materials" but rather they incrementally EVOLVED from much simpler life. Now you are completely confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which are NOT the same thing but totally different things.
something alive and functionally complex as a single cell, or a circulatory system. Those types of things just don't appear because some environmental change turns some non-living materials into living ones;
In fact, in (wild) theory, one can happen without the other because if some gods, or tooth fairies or green aliens or whatever, was what made the first primitive protocell on Earth, we wouldn't expect the subsequent evolution to be any different let alone NOT occur!
Alternatively, you could have life always existing with no beginning and evolution would still work just fine although then there may be some issues explaining some of the aspects of the fossil records which may be very difficult but not impossible to explain with that hypothesis.
In short, the theory of evolution does NOT say life came from non-life.
@humy said"...neither can you show where some lifeforms ancestors that didn’t have a heart, acquire one, through evolutionary processes except by assertions. Assertions made about things that cannot be falsified, like this fossil was once one of these or one of those, that is faith."
Again, you seem to be very confused. The theory of evolution does NOT say the complex structures in modern cells or the complex structures of, as you just said, "a circulatory system", evolved directly from "non-living materials" but rather they incrementally EVOLVED from much simpler life. Now you are completely confusing abiogenesis with evolution, which are NOT the same thing ...[text shortened]... ain with that hypothesis.
In short, the theory of evolution does NOT say life came from non-life.
You are very selective in what you respond to, failing to take in the full context.
9 edits
@kellyjay saidFalse. We can show evidence of evolution and show weblinks showing that evidence on request although, if you want to know the truth, you would have already looked at them and accepted the evidence as the evidence, so thus I guess you never will. What is the main thing that is holding you back from the truth is faith and more specifically your religious beliefs, although being totally confused about some pretty basic concepts also seems to play a big role with that (biogenesis is NOT evolution etc ).
"...neither can you show where some lifeforms ancestors that didn’t have a heart, acquire one, through evolutionary processes
We (me + most scientists) on the other hand just look at the evidence and accept whatever truth it indicates even if we don't like the truth; No faith there! I don't WANT evolution to be true any more than I WANT the earth to be round so that's not the reason why I do; thus no faith involved. The only thing I want here is to know the truth, even if, and as very often IS the case such as regarding what happens after I die (Occam's razor combined with NO evidence of afterlife really sucks! Why the hell would I WANT NO afterlife!? Unless I am really WEIRD or unless I really hate myself, which I don't, that makes NO sense whatsoever! ) etc, I don't like it and really hate it. That's not faith no matter how you define faith!
Also, if I and scientists some time in the future WILL finally see some evidence that there is a god or gods, then we, including I, will instantly believe there exists a god or at the very least probably exists a god and then we will ALL become theists; No problem! And that proves our (current) atheism isn't faith-based. But then, if that happened, theistic beliefs would for the very first time become part and parcel of REAL science! -you know, the science you have been verbally attacking because it offends your faith!
@humy saidAbiogenesis and evolution are two different things, for abiogenesis to be true many things had to have occurred and that is no different for you and AI before we get to altering code. The hardware has to be created, the software you use has be loaded on the computer to write the code you are going to use to create what you call AI. I can write scripts in PERL and did in my old job, but even with that skill set I cannot do it where I am now because PERL isn't loaded on my PC, and until that is true it doesn't matter that I know how.
False. We can show evidence of evolution and show weblinks showing that evidence on request although, if you want to know the truth, you would have already looked at them and accepted the evidence as the evidence, so thus I guess you never will. What is the main thing that is holding you back from the truth is faith and more specifically your religious beliefs, although being to ...[text shortened]... O sense! ) etc, I don't like it and really hate it. That's not faith no matter how you define faith.
Evolution can only take what is there and change it, the changes we can see are very small and do not add up to a new organ or over time a system. You can make an assertion this is connected to that, but that isn't proof just speculation on your part nothing more, it is faith on your part. Another thing covered in that link you refused to watch, the different between faith and science, we can validate in science you are only making claims when it comes to fossils.