(February 25, 2015 at 7:22 am)paulpablo Wrote:Quote:It seems you do not have proper understanding of Abstract Objects. I think if you give some time to study Abstract Objects then you would better understand what does that mean when I say “… which lie outside space and time”
You are familiar with numbers. Almost in all areas of our lives, we use numbers heavily. In fact, without numbers no scientific activity is possible. Yet numbers are Abstract Objects, as they can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. That does not mean that numbers are not real.
I didn't say numbers aren't real, I said assault courses are physical, they are not a singular object so it would be wrong to call an assault course an object, but they are physical and made from physical objects.
Quote:This whole assumption is wrong. The main idea behind Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the evolution of simple structures into complex by the process of elimination.
No I don't think that is the main idea behind evolution. Elimination is a part of natural selection and natural selection is a part of evolution, this doesn't make elimination the main idea behind evolution.
Quote:I have specially highlighted the word CAREFULLY to emphasis conscious nature of selection.
I know, but I already told you that you're looking at the wrong definition of selection, it's actually very simply laid out in the dictionary for you.
Quote:selection
sɪˈlɛkʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: selection; plural noun: selections
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
2.
Biology
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.
"there has been more than enough time for selection to generate specific DNA sequences of the required length"
I highlighted and underlined the word biology so that now you can easily see which one you should be looking at when talking about biology.
I think you are trying to twist the image of Evolution on purpose because I do not see any reason why you are following evolution if you do not know it well.
I think we both agree that Dawkins knows evolution better than we do (at least)
Look carefully what is happening with him in this video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIucvYJYxdM
Then read his apologetic explanation over that incident
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/
Specially, give you attention over the section under the heading “Information in the Body” at the end of paragraph four and in the beginning of paragraph five see what Dawkins is writing.
“Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO STUDY DETAILS. But we can use the “LENGTH OF BOOK” THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, IF ONLY WE HAD ANCESTRAL ANIMALS TO LOOK AT.
The answer in practice is COMPLICATED and CONTROVERSIAL, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a LIMITED FORM of yes answer.”
This small section is the clear confirmation, provided by one of the most notorious biologist, that there is no evidence and proof to support the claim “INFORMATION CONTENT INCREASES OVER EVOLUTION” is FALSE
