Evolution Q & A

@indonesia-phil said
I don't 'begin by saying there is no god', I 'begin' with an open mind; you simply can't grasp the idea that anyone could see the world where a god isn't the first thing they think about. In what way have I cried foul? What I and others have done here is to ask a Christian (any Christian) to address the blatant contradictions in the Christian faith, and how that faith ...[text shortened]... but the art of communication is making that clear to those with whom you are trying to communicate.

You don't begin in conversation, but you always get it in a few shots about God, I don't think there are too many of your posts that don't have them. I have said each time the age of the earth comes up I don't think that is important as a topic, and I will grant you any time you desire for the age of the universe without questioning it. So trying to find fault with that only shows that is just one more thing you are not paying too much attention to, but don't mind getting it wrong as you talk about it as if you know what you are saying is true.

The Age of the Universe is just one more example of you doing this as you did when I was speaking about natural selection issues, and you attempted to turn what I was saying that was strictly about natural selection and claimed I was speaking about evolution. Your denial of what Dr. Tour said, the science he was sharing about you found nothing to say about any of that, but you did find fault in him being a Christian.

I'd welcome specific questions based on science and logic, I just so far have not seen you even attempt at one.

@moonbus said
Evolution Q & A: if you understood anything at all about evolution, or Darwin as a man, you'd know that evolution does not begin by saying there is no God. Darwin only very late in his life came to the conclusion that his thesis was incompatible with a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis (which is still not the same thing as saying there is no God). What evol ...[text shortened]... aims and how the various parts of it (natural selection, genetic mutation, and so on) actually work.

The trouble you have even suggesting that evolution provides some type of cover to not have to accept God is required, is that evolution doesn't explain either the beginning of that process and its informational processing, and is inadequate an explanation for the creative processes required to come up with new features and forms. There are no mechanisms that anyone can point to that can explain it, they may restate the belief that it is possible, but that is it, so you are left with complaining about your worldview compliance issues, it doesn't fit your worldview and that is where you spend most of your time complaining.

@kellyjay said
The trouble you have even suggesting that evolution provides some type of cover to not have to accept God is required, is that evolution doesn't explain either the beginning of that process and its informational processing, and is inadequate an explanation for the creative processes required to come up with new features and forms. There are no mechanisms that anyone can poi ...[text shortened]... nce issues, it doesn't fit your worldview and that is where you spend most of your time complaining.

A) Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It does not pretend to explain the origin of life. No serious scientists working in the life sciences expect evolution to explain the origin of life. You persistently confuse two separate issues: origin and speciation.

B) The ‘mechanisms’ (that’s a metaphor, BTW) have been explained to you many times and you still don’t understand them.

@moonbus said
A) Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It does not pretend to explain the origin of life. No serious scientists working in the life sciences expect evolution to explain the origin of life. You persistently confuse two separate issues: origin and speciation.

B) The ‘mechanisms’ (that’s a metaphor, BTW) have been explained to you many times and you still don’t understand them.

I am not confused about this at all, every ongoing process has beginning that can account for everything in it. Evolution would be no different and ignoring the beginning simply shows that there is a great issue with the process as there is no reason for it to exist. Every process has constraints on the it, the information driving it will never increase without outside influences. This is true digitally and biologically! You believe in make believe things!

@moonbus said
A) Evolution does not explain the origin of life. It does not pretend to explain the origin of life. No serious scientists working in the life sciences expect evolution to explain the origin of life. You persistently confuse two separate issues: origin and speciation.

B) The ‘mechanisms’ (that’s a metaphor, BTW) have been explained to you many times and you still don’t understand them.

You saying there isn’t any mechanism while having to acknowledge level checking simply shows you believe in something and your beliefs contradict themselves while ignoring reality! The only way you can have level checking is through a design that preforms specific jobs, reading what is needed and then reacting to it accordingly, which by any definition is information processing!

@kellyjay said
You don't begin in conversation, but you always get it in a few shots about God, I don't think there are too many of your posts that don't have them. I have said each time the age of the earth comes up I don't think that is important as a topic, and I will grant you any time you desire for the age of the universe without questioning it. So trying to find fault with that only ...[text shortened]... specific questions based on science and logic, I just so far have not seen you even attempt at one.

What would you like me to talk about during conversations regarding the existence/nonexistence of a god, cheese? Kangaroos? I'm sure it's very convenient to find the subject of the age of the earth unimportant, you apparently attach the same unimportance to all questions regarding your religious beliefs. I don't have any 'specific questions based on science and logic' which would be appropriate to a Spirituality Forum, science is logical (something which Dr. Tour would do well to remember) , what more do you want me to say? I'd welcome specific answers to questions put to you based on your religious beliefs and logic, I just so far have not seen you even attempt at one.

@indonesia-phil said
What would you like me to talk about during conversations regarding the existence/nonexistence of a god, cheese? Kangaroos? I'm sure it's very convenient to find the subject of the age of the earth unimportant, you apparently attach the same unimportance to all questions regarding your religious beliefs. I don't have any 'specific questions based on science and logic' ...[text shortened]... you based on your religious beliefs and logic, I just so far have not seen you even attempt at one.

Well start a thread on your questions on any topic, here it has been evolution. Dr. Tour expertise is science on the molecular level, and nothing you said about him had anything to do with his research or points, you were only interested in speaking about his faith in a very negative and scoffing manner. You have not been basing your arguments on what you believe is true, all you seem to be looking for are people who see the world as you do. Which means you are not trying to find truth just conformation.

@vivify said

Hopefully we can put an end to misinformation about it so we don't have to keep running circles correct the same mistakes.

A-a-a-and 20 pages later....

@soothfast said
A-a-a-and 20 pages later....

The thing about concerns about information and misinformation, is that what is being discussed gets looked at so the details are factually understood. Blanket statements about one position being the correct one, simply by complying with another’s worldview is not looking evidence honestly it’s simply wanting to be in the crowd.

@indonesia-phil said
What would you like me to talk about during conversations regarding the existence/nonexistence of a god, cheese? Kangaroos? I'm sure it's very convenient to find the subject of the age of the earth unimportant, you apparently attach the same unimportance to all questions regarding your religious beliefs. I don't have any 'specific questions based on science and logic' ...[text shortened]... you based on your religious beliefs and logic, I just so far have not seen you even attempt at one.

Specific answers to questions regarding my religious beliefs from scripture even though the Bible is not a science book; however, it does speak about reality.

God is the prime reality everything came from Him, this is much more reasonable instead of a dated universe that created itself out of nothing with no evidential evidence supporting that, or a dated universe always was with no evidential evidence supporting that.

Reality is mathematically compressible to us, so it and us were made for each other. 🙂 Such is also true in life, the functional complexity of systems embedded into systems doing level checking, start stops, and replication is all the work of information processing, not random chance and necessity, that is simply not up to the task of creating life's processes let alone altering them through time.

@kellyjay said
You saying there isn’t any mechanism while having to acknowledge level checking simply shows you believe in something and your beliefs contradict themselves while ignoring reality! The only way you can have level checking is through a design that preforms specific jobs, reading what is needed and then reacting to it accordingly, which by any definition is information processing!

Define "level checking". I haven't a clue what you think that is or how you think it applies to molecules.

@moonbus said
Define "level checking". I haven't a clue what you think that is or how you think it applies to molecules.

Blood pressure is kept within healthy limits, body temperatures are kept within healthy ranges, our metabolism works to keep us healthy. When what is required that can fluctuate depending upon various circumstances maintaining what the healthy norm means being able to react accordingly and only as long as necessary. To over compensate is as dangerous as not reacting at all.

@kellyjay said
Blood pressure is kept within healthy limits, body temperatures are kept within healthy ranges, our metabolism works to keep us healthy. When what is required that can fluctuate depending upon various circumstances maintaining what the healthy norm means being able to react accordingly and only as long as necessary. To over compensate is as dangerous as not reacting at all.

You have not provided a definition of "level checking." What you have provided are examples of homeostasis. No one here doubts that homeostasis happens; I don't need further examples of effects.

I'm still waiting for a definition of "level checking" and how you think it applies to molecules (viruses and DNA).

@moonbus said
You have not provided a definition of "level checking." What you have provided are examples of homeostasis. No one here doubts that homeostasis happens; I don't need further examples of effects.

I'm still waiting for a definition of "level checking" and how you think it applies to molecules (viruses and DNA).

The definition of level checking is checking levels, for crying out loud, seriously you cannot work that out!? It doesn't matter if it is being done digitally looking for Vhigh and Vlow so that the voltages don't go too high or low, or if some physical biological requirement is met, like blood sugar is maintained at a specific level. I can only surmise that if things this obvious are escaping you, it has to be because you refuse to look critically at what you are defending.

@kellyjay said
The definition of level checking is checking levels, for crying out loud, seriously you cannot work that out!? It doesn't matter if it is being done digitally looking for Vhigh and Vlow so that the voltages don't go too high or low, or if some physical biological requirement is met, like blood sugar is maintained at a specific level. I can only surmise that if things this o ...[text shortened]... ious are escaping you, it has to be because you refuse to look critically at what you are defending.

As I suspected. You don't know what you're talking about. There is no level checking going on inside a molecule or a virus or DNA. You impose an arbitrary human pattern on a mindless process. One could just as well assign to molecules the values do re mi fa so la te do, and then I could accuse you of willful deafness that you don't hear the melody.

Of course there is some level (or saturation) of sugar in the blood; what there isn't is any sort of "checking." When a threshold is reached, something happens, something non-linear. Just as when one calorie of heat is applied to one cc of water, the temperature is raised one degree Celsius, linearly. But when a certain threshold is reached, namely 100 degrees Celsius, there is a non-linear change; at 100 degrees Celsius, one more calorie of heat does not raise the temperature of the water to 101 degrees. Do you think there is some sort of level checking going on there?? There is not. Well, it's the same with blood sugar; once a threshold is reached, something happens which is non-linear, but there is no "level checking" going on there and no Transcendental Mind directing it.

I suggest you do some research in the peer-reviewed literature on blood sugar. I am confident that there is no serious scientific peer-reviewed research on the chemistry of blood sugar which looks like the following: chemical reaction a occurs, then chemical reaction b occurs, then chemical reaction c occurs, then the Hand of God intervenes to check it and make it right if it isn’t.