Confronting Friends and Family

[thesummerqueen]

You are either a huge troll or have your head so far up your ass you can't even type "Google" properly.

[Creed of Heresy]

I'm not sure what you mean about DNA growing and improving on its own apart from the creature that uses it, but uh... You're actually rather wrong about things not being expected. Abiogenesis, for example. The concept that inorganic matter can become organic matter [basically non-living material becoming living material]. The most common crux of the "AHA, THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION IS FLAWED" argument the creationists typically dredge up, was proven to actually happen under controlled laboratory environment testing. Now with that piece of the puzzle on the board we now have to determine when/if Earth ever was in such a state, though it's not very far-fetched to say it would be.

As for scientists becoming very bull-headed about certain theories, that's hardly surprising at all; science has become a bit of a celebrated thing, and to be shown you are wrong can be very damaging to one's ego. Christians, I am sure, are used to that, given how even to this day they continue to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting evolution as fact; it must be very galling to the collective Christian ego to have to admit that the story of genesis makes absolutely no sense regardless if it's taken literally or metaphorically, even though they've claimed it to be literal fact since damn-near Day One.

Christians complaining about scientists being stubborn...heehee.

[Brakeman]

[quote='Daniel' pid='358080' dateline='1351926784']
[quote]
What about the Pioneer probes? Drifting off course, and nobody knows why. Every possible explanation was fully explored and disproven - every one. It's the same thing with the mythical extra dark matter that holds galaxies together; it's clear evidence that the theory of general relativity is incomplete, yet nobody wants to admit this.

And then we finally come back to the theory of Evolution. It's a great theory, but all the things we expect to observe we are consistently unable to. The biggest hole in the theory at present, is that it still assumes that DNA grows and improves on its own - that is, apart from the creature that uses the DNA. Amoeba DNA contains 670 Billion base pairs, that's an average growth rate of about 220 new bas pairs per year! So what's the extra 440,000 it has since the time of Christ?
[/quote]

Eh.. no..

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-the-P...3673.shtml

Guessing what your point was about the DNA of the Amoeba. Polyploidy?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

[Aractus]

Eh.. no..

http://news.softpedia.com/news/Why-the-P...3673.shtml

That's an interesting theory, I'll have to have a look at it.

Guessing what your point was about the DNA of the Amoeba. Polyploidy?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB141.html

That isn't my point, or for that matter my agenda. I'm simply stating that evolution is MORE involved - has MORE driving forces than something that is only driven by DNA mutations and splicing. Just because we share a universal system doesn't mean we're defined by it. DNA can't do anything in its own interests apart from the greater interests of the creature it's a part of. Thus the view of the "selfish gene" (Dawkins) is necessarily wrong. Darwin's view is also too narrow to be considered correct.

For instance, DNA is a tool, but we aren't able to precisely define exactly what its function is - some view it as a "program" others view as a "blueprint" still others see it differently yet again. Scientists marvel at the way in which it is replicated. But it isn't self-replicating; its simply a coded index that requires copying take place using a 3rd-party mechanism. The cycle is inherently co-dependant, you can't expect DNA to do anything at all on its own, and you can't expect proteins to do their functions without it.

Furthermore you can not map out the creature from the DNA, it is not possible. They do have a relationship to each other, but that relationship is not "one way". The space of their systems are different to each other, but they overlap. Put another way, DNA alone does not determine how the creature develops, nor does the creature determine what DNA it needs. I’ll even prove this point - that creatures can develop significant physical changes without altering their DNA. It is in fact a requirement of their ability to be adaptable to their immediate environment. And just as environmental factors can change the way that a creature develops, so too the creature can develop exactly the same even with substantial modifications to its DNA. Look how similar we are as a species to each other with such diverse DNA, for instance.

---

Abiogenesis, for example. The concept that inorganic matter can become organic matter [basically non-living material becoming living material]. The most common crux of the "AHA, THE FOUNDATION OF EVOLUTION IS FLAWED" argument the creationists typically dredge up, was proven to actually happen under controlled laboratory environment testing. Now with that piece of the puzzle on the board we now have to determine when/if Earth ever was in such a state, though it's not very far-fetched to say it would be.

I'm not really interested in that argument, and I don't know why you brought it up. But since you did, why did you explain it in such a crude way? Do you really think we're too "dumb" to comprehend science?

Crystallography is the basis for what eventually leads to what you think is the origin of life. The basic ability of non-organic matter to arrange itself and replicate itself. This theory is typically separate from the theory of evolution because it doesn't share much in the way of how it works and the space in which the mechanisms take place. Just like you don't talk about crystallography using quantum mechanics because it gets you nowhere (there's no "map" that leads from one to the other). There isn't a clear "map" for how you get from crystallography to biology either, the two follow different rules and operate in their own spaces.

Crystals are very simple, and organic matter is far more complicated. No scientist in the world can tell you exactly what point chemistry ends and biology/life begins. To quote Christian de Duve on the subject: "life is either a reproducible, almost commonplace manifestation of matter, given certain conditions, or a miracle. Too many steps are involved to allow for something in between." And Carl Sagan, "the origin of life must be a highly probable circumstance; as soon as conditions permit, up it pops!" We don't have a theory yet that demonstrates this point, but it is necessary to natural evolution that life begins on its own as a direct result of the natural laws of chemistry.

As for scientists becoming very bull-headed about certain theories, that's hardly surprising at all; science has become a bit of a celebrated thing, and to be shown you are wrong can be very damaging to one's ego. Christians, I am sure, are used to that, given how even to this day they continue to have to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting evolution as fact; ...

Science is about theory, not fact. Evolution is a theory, it's a good theory, but an incomplete one and I've pointed out some of the present problems in it. Even though scientists are loathe to admit it, you can't create something as complicated as a heart through random chance mutations in DNA code alone (let alone more complicated structures still). There has to be another driving force. Now, I'm not even trying to tell you that the driving force is God, that isn't my agenda at all. I'm just saying that whatever it is it isn't random chance genetic mutations. If you can figure it out and demonstrate it correctly, then you'll probably win a Nobel Prize, and it would be the most significant advance in science since the theory of General Relativity. Even Einstein was clearly wrong in his view of QM - yes he was free to criticise it, but his extreme view without evidence was a clear indication of his own personal bias on the matter.

[thesummerqueen]

I'm not understanding how humans not understand YET the mechanisms behind everything leads to whatever it is you're arguing for.

[Kirbmarc]

I'm simply stating that evolution is MORE involved - has MORE driving forces than something that is only driven by DNA mutations and splicing.

I'm sure that you know that evolution also requires natural selection.

Just because we share a universal system doesn't mean we're defined by it. DNA can't do anything in its own interests apart from the greater interests of the creature it's a part of.

DNA doesn't have "interests". And evolution isn't guided by "interests", it's guided by survival and reproduction.

Thus the view of the "selfish gene" (Dawkins) is necessarily wrong.

The theory known as "selfish gene" is simply the assertion that a seemingly altruistic behavior is actually motivated by natural selection.

Individuals who care for their next of kin have more offrisprings who grow old enough to reproduce and pass their genes to the next generation.

The "selfish gene" theory explains that parental instinct exists simply because it allows more of your children to survive, reproduce and pass on (part of) your genes.

There's no doesn't need to talk about "interests" at the level of genes.

Scientists marvel at the way in which it is replicated. But it isn't self-replicating; its simply a coded index that requires copying take place using a 3rd-party mechanism. The cycle is inherently co-dependant, you can't expect DNA to do anything at all on its own, and you can't expect proteins to do their functions without it.

This is why the first "organisms" were probably based on the replication of RNA, not DNA.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

Look how similar we are as a species to each other with such diverse DNA, for instance.

Insects and birds also have similar structures in their wings. It's called "convergent evolution" and it's simply the result of adapting to similar ecological niches.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convergent_evolution

No scientist in the world can tell you exactly what point chemistry ends and biology/life begins.

This is probably because there is no such point. Would you call a virus alive? "Life" is a vague, ill-definied concept, so it's not surprising that the line between chemistry and biology is blurred.

Science is about theory, not fact. Evolution is a theory, it's a good theory, but an incomplete one and I've pointed out some of the present problems in it.

No, I'm sorry, but you haven't. You have pointed out a few aspects of abiogenesis that need to be understood better, but you haven't reported anything problematic about the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Even though scientists are loathe to admit it, you can't create something as complicated as a heart through random chance mutations in DNA code alone (let alone more complicated structures still). There has to be another driving force.

Yes, there is. It's called natural selection. A complex structure, such as a heart, didn't magically pop up from nowhere. It derives from less complex structures, which derive from even less complex structures, and so on.

To whom it may interest: A very crude and simple introduction to the study of the evolution of the human heart

I'm just saying that whatever it is it isn't random chance genetic mutations.

It is random chance genetic mutations that are progressively selected through natural selection.

[Aractus]

DNA doesn't have "interests". And evolution isn't guided by "interests", it's guided by survival and reproduction.

Survival of what? The species?

If yes, then good you're on the right path, but it leads you to the problem that the interests of the species can conflict with the interests of the individual. Penguins are known for their ability to huddle together to keep warm, yet the individual penguins rotate their position and all, selflessly, spend exactly the same amount of time on the outside as each other. That's just one example of the system functioning against the direct wishes of its components. Thus you can't find all the answers you're looking for in the components only of the system; the functions run through the larger system but are not found in the individual components. It's the reductionist's nightmare.

Insects and birds also have similar structures in their wings. It's called "convergent evolution" and it's simply the result of adapting to similar ecological niches.

You've understated convergence. In fact convergence is a requirement of Evolution, if you couldn't observe convergence then you wouldn't be able to prove, at all, that complex structures can develop from simple rules in the world of biology. Convergence is in a sense predicted by the theory of Evolution, just as Einstein's theory of General Relativity "predicts" the existence of Black Holes.

No, I'm sorry, but you haven't. You have pointed out a few aspects of abiogenesis that need to be understood better, but you haven't reported anything problematic about the theory of evolution by natural selection.

Then explain to me specifically how Evolution works in such a manner that will be produce predictions that I can test. You can't. That's because you don't know how evolution works - you don't even know the exact relationship between "creature" and "dna". Just because you know that evolution takes place, doesn't mean you have a complete theory that explains it. You simply have the observation: evolution takes place; not the theory that produces it. It's like talking about how molecules relate to each other without understanding or even knowing about chemistry - you can only "know" so much.

Yes, there is. It's called natural selection. A complex structure, such as a heart, didn't magically pop up from nowhere. It derives from less complex structures, which derive from even less complex structures, and so on.

...

It is random chance genetic mutations that are progressively selected through natural selection.

Again you show the error in your view of the world. You see creatures as being "defined" by a function they share in common (dna). They also share the laws of quantum physics in common. Are they just a quantum uncertainty principle then? Of course not.

Let me explain this another way. If you were to blindfold a child from birth for the first three years of their life, they would never, ever, be able to see anything - they would be permanently blind, forever. The same with language - if you were never to communicate with a child for the first 5-6 years of their life, they would be unable to fully learn, understand and use any human language (Google "feral humans" for examples of these points). Our brains have to "learn" the functions, we're not given them from DNA or directly from our environments. Our brains are not pre-wired. Dyslexic people have a genuine problem with literacy because their brains didn't have the same learning capacity for that specific function as "most" people. The difference between what "might" and "mightn't" be is incredible, the exact same genetic material produces huge diversity, and diverse genetic material produces huge similarities, these two things are inescapable.

"Natural selection" is just a function, it is not the overarching law that governs how evolution behaves. If there truly is a "law" of evolution, as there are other laws of physics (laws of biology, laws of chemistry, etc), it isn't the "law of natural selection"; rather "natural selection" is a necessary by product of the "law of evolution". It is predicted, but not defined by, the law. Frankly I think I have more of a belief in evolution then you do, since I'm able to actually communicate what some of its functions are, yet you look to the functions as "laws" themselves that govern the system. One day someone will figure it out, just like we figured out that a fractal is a mathematical shape.

[Creed of Heresy]

One thing you will notice is I will occasionally make nods, references, or gestures to other instances that may only vaguely have anything to do with the topic at hand in an overarching sense. I am aware you're probably not a creationist nor have any inclination to it but it's something I felt like bringing up all the same. you'll get used to it. I just like saying more than I need to.

"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why. Think of it like this; you exist. This is fact. You know it's fact, I'm...PRETTY sure it's fact [unless you're a figment of my imagination in which case...well I probably need to get my ass to a mental clinic on the double, then, don't I?]. But do you, yourself, know the EXACT process by which you were born? Do you know the rate at which each organ developed, at what time the sperm entered the egg, the rate of cellular growth you underwent? No, but you do have a general idea, right? That's SORT of how it is with evolution, though more advanced than that. It's fact that it happened and continues to happen but we've only had like two centuries of study in it and we have to basically look at a timetable going back to the beginning of the universe itself; the EXACT understanding of the mechanics are still being pieced together. Obviously we can't discount it just because we don't know it since we've come far enough to essentially conclude that, within a reasonable error of margin, it MUST work like this, that or the entire thing needs to be revised.

THAT is where the bias tends to come from. You go with what seems to make the most sense currently...because the likelihood is greater that that is how it works, because all existing explanations make sense. The other makes less sense for one of two reasons; it's just simply wrong, or there isn't as much information backing it up. If it's wrong and you're on the right path, well, no time wasted, and if you're wrong and the less-likely theory is right, well, you'll reach that point eventually, now won't you?

That's why some scientists seem to be refusing to acknowledge new evidence; if one piece of evidence contradicts a hundred pieces of evidence, but both sides make sense, you're gonna go with the quantity of evidence until evidence starts to stack up against it. A single piece or even several pieces aren't quite enough to throw a theory out or revise it entirely...but if the big pile starts falling apart because of the new pile, then there's something to it...which is why you'll notice scientists changing their tack after multiple pieces of evidence start building up in different paths of thought.

But scientists are human, too, so...ego is a part of it. XD

[Aractus]

"Fact" is a funny word to use. Depends on how pure you want your fact to be. The fact of evolution itself on the overall whole IS fact...but not all the explanations of the HOW it is fact are all there or entirely accurate. It's fact...though we just don't know ENTIRELY why.

No, that depends on your definition of "fact". Language is another example of something governed by "laws" that is found in complex systems; but is not a part of any of its individual components. No one has yet come up with the full theory on linguistics. It's something we can observe, it's something we can use, it's something found in the system, but it's not in the components. It develops and grows without any permanent physical link to its components. It is implicit that a system such as ours will necessarily give rise to it, we don't know why, we don't know the rules (or if you like laws) and we can't predict its behaviour, at present.

Let's turn this on its head for a moment. Our universe, we suppose is 13.8 Billion years old. It has been expanding since the time of its inception, it has also been cooling and the radiation dissipating. For the first time (and the only time) since the creation of the universe, it is now able to support life, our Earth was formed at exactly the correct time to allow life to exist on it. A few billion years in the future, the universe will be too cold to support life as we know it, yet it will continue to expand forever, never again supporting life. Everything we have is possible because we have a universe that is just the right age, that is just the right size and - most importantly - has just the right fundamental physics to enable life to exist. We don't have multiple universes, we only have one. Before I hear you argue the point on this - do you understand rudimentary General Relativity, and if so - do you actually understand rudimentary SCC that would replace it?

I find it a lot easier to think of the world in terms of QM - because at the heart of it, QM behaves much the same as classical physics, and this is easy to comprehend. GR is difficult to picture in your head - mainly because it turns our observations of the whole universe on its head. Sadly, both theories can't be true at the same time - they have an uneasy coexistence. QM works for its own systems - its own window of reference, but it can't be used beyond it. How it actually relates to the laws of chemistry is unknown - if it is indeed responsible for giving rise to the laws of chemistry in the first place. GR in the same way works for its systems - its own window of reference. Galaxies shouldn't be holding together, but scientists readily ignore this problem and claim dark matter holds them together (this isn't the only patch-up we do for this theory either).

No one can ignore the fact, whatever their view on the make up of the universe, that what we EXPECT to see, according to traditional reductionism, is simplicity. But the inner workings of the universe are fundamentally complex, this is a paradox. The universe can't be a computer - that is, it doesn't perform calculations to determine the next state of matter within it, so how do the systems that are built upon it function within it?

We're given a universe with the correct laws of chemistry to support life. Not just chemistry either, we have the correct laws of physics - whatever they are - that allow life to self-start as well; as impossible as it seems. We were given an Earth at exactly the right time for life to begin. And then add to that, we have a universe that has the correct laws of physics that give rise to the law of evolution that allows complexity to be downhill - the path of least resistance - a universe that not just allows, but demands (requires) diversity in life, and great complexity as well. In fact it also requires this level of complexity to rise from such a short period of evolution. Look at our history on Earth - as soon as conditions permitted, life started... as quickly as possible, life evolved into very complex organisms.

I view it as nonsensical to hold all these scientific views of the world, and then not see design. Not because it's impossible, but because there are so many fundamentally essential systems in our universe, that are held in the balance and work together to allow for life to exist and to enable it to have the kind of existence we observe. But, people will believe what they want to believe.

[KichigaiNeko]

You are funny aren't you?