Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTAForums Annual Awards 2018

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. Gameplay
      2. Missions
      3. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Gameplay
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    1. Crews & Posses

      1. Recruitment
    2. Events

    1. GTA Online

      1. Arena War
      2. After Hours
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Grand Theft Auto Series

    3. GTA Next

    4. GTA V

      1. PC
      2. Guides & Strategies
      3. Help & Support
    5. GTA IV

      1. Episodes from Liberty City
      2. Multiplayer
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
      5. GTA Mods
    6. GTA Chinatown Wars

    7. GTA Vice City Stories

    8. GTA Liberty City Stories

    9. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    10. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    11. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
      3. GTA Mods
    12. Top Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    13. Wiki

      1. Merchandising
    1. GTA Modding

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    3. Featured Mods

      1. DYOM
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Red Dead Redemption

    2. Rockstar Games

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Programming
      5. Movies & TV
      6. Music
      7. Sports
      8. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. News

    2. Forum Support

    3. Site Suggestions

Dingdongs

Creationism or Evolution?

Recommended Posts

Aqua97

 

But pantheists don't believe in an afterlife, of which I do...

 

I'd like to hear more about your thoughts on this.

 

okay.. *takes deep breath :p

 

Like I said before:

"Imagen everything is part of a singularity, Everything all at once existing in this consent state of superposition. I believe it's all just superposition, there is no defining anything, it's all one unified field in quantum theory."

 

I think that consciousness is also part of this "state of superposition" or part of a singularity. And when the body dies are consciousness leaves the body. Most people have these NDE's and what do they all describe? A bright white light... what is that light? I don't know, could be the centre of everything (God) I just don't know...

 

Why do I think their is an afterlife?

 

Well what do we do right from birth? we start learning! we spend out hole life learning and gathering new experiences and I just can't see all of those memories and experiences just "going" when our body dies... I think it moves on somewhere, or our consciousness moves on to somewhere...

Edited by Aqua97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

Yes, I will settle for Pantheism :^:

V0bJEFU.gif

From Here>>

But pantheists don't believe in an afterlife, of which I do... But I've not got much more to say, I feel like I'm starting to repeat myself... But I do think the natural forces behind evolution/creation are intelligent...

 

I never really quite understood pantheism, when you say nature is god do you mean nature created itself but is conscious? Or that god is a separate entity from nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's also not really what pantheism means. Generally it's not so much that nature (as we recognise it) is God but that the universe itself is (that's what people typically mean in thus context by "nature"- the natural state of all things). It's a rebuttal to the idea of a personal God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Well, I believe that nature created itself, I think it's intelligent, it always finds the easiest way. Rather like a river finds the quickest route down a valley for example. And how though evolution it developed us and is continuing to, it seems intelligent. whatever the natural forces are behind it, that is what I believe God is. But is it conscious? Well I like I said before I believe the natural forces behind evolution are intelligent, as in I don't think it's all happening by chance... so if I believe that there is intelligence there, there could also be some sort of consciousness. Because thinking about it life is also conscious and I believe that God is part of life so... yes. :):^: in one way or another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

Nature merely appears intelligent. It comes with the old Human mind way of trying to find patterns in things. Just like your dog appears intelligent, that monkey that learned to fish with a stick appears intelligent. A river finds the quickest way due to physics, not because it's smart or nature is smart. We are all accidents. It's easy to point at us as humans or other species and say "look! Nature/God is smart! It made us perfect!", and you'll be completely ignoring the millions of years of evolution, and the millions of species that have perished because nature "failed" them. They aren't here to tell the story, because they're dead, they failed. If we could look through all the species that ever existed in this planet, you'd probably find hairy fish, blind birds, monkeys with one leg, gigantic creatures that couldn't stand the heat, mammals with spiny dicks. Was nature/god intelligent in making these?

 

Nature merely abides by the rules set by physics. It isn't thinking about anything it is doing, it doesn't care, it just is. Had there been a different condition in the beginning, we wouldn't be here today. That's how rare life is. Nature doesn't decide to rain in some area; the conditions exist that allow for the rain to appear. Nature didn't decide to create humans or evolve monkeys, rather after generations of generations of smarter monkeys, they started to evolve into humans.

 

Heck, we are all accidents, and here by chance. There were million other sperms competing for the egg. Why did ours win? Because it was smarter? Because nature decided so? Because god made it so? No. It was chance, it was "luck".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

That's also not really what pantheism means. Generally it's not so much that nature (as we recognise it) is God but that the universe itself is (that's what people typically mean in thus context by "nature"- the natural state of all things). It's a rebuttal to the idea of a personal God.

 

So would that make a pantheistic god more of a concept rather than god being it's own separate entity? The main thing I'd see wrong with that would be if god were the universe itself then that would basically mean the universe created itself therefore not really answering the initial cause.

 

Well, I believe that nature created itself, I think it's intelligent, it always finds the easiest way. Rather like a river finds the quickest route down a valley for example. And how though evolution it developed us and is continuing to, it seems intelligent. whatever the natural forces are behind it, that is what I believe God is. But is it conscious? Well I like I said before I believe the natural forces behind evolution are intelligent, as in I don't think it's all happening by chance... so if I believe that there is intelligence there, there could also be some sort of consciousness. Because thinking about it life is also conscious and I believe that God is part of life so... yes. :):^: in one way or another.

Nature merely appears intelligent. It comes with the old Human mind way of trying to find patterns in things. Just like your dog appears intelligent, that monkey that learned to fish with a stick appears intelligent. A river finds the quickest way due to physics, not because it's smart or nature is smart. We are all accidents. It's easy to point at us as humans or other species and say "look! Nature/God is smart! It made us perfect!", and you'll be completely ignoring the millions of years of evolution, and the millions of species that have perished because nature "failed" them. They aren't here to tell the story, because they're dead, they failed. If we could look through all the species that ever existed in this planet, you'd probably find hairy fish, blind birds, monkeys with one leg, gigantic creatures that couldn't stand the heat, mammals with spiny dicks. Was nature/god intelligent in making these?

 

Nature merely abides by the rules set by physics. It isn't thinking about anything it is doing, it doesn't care, it just is. Had there been a different condition in the beginning, we wouldn't be here today. That's how rare life is. Nature doesn't decide to rain in some area; the conditions exist that allow for the rain to appear. Nature didn't decide to create humans or evolve monkeys, rather after generations of generations of smarter monkeys, they started to evolve into humans.

 

Heck, we are all accidents, and here by chance. There were million other sperms competing for the egg. Why did ours win? Because it was smarter? Because nature decided so? Because god made it so? No. It was chance, it was "luck".

Though I'm not sure I could agree with everything I think they're interesting views. Personally I'm skeptical of the current model of evolution, there seems to be fundamental designs across separately evolved species which simply doesn't make sense coming from blind chance. There have been several recent articles showing both crows and dogs (and I'll assume many more) have parts of the brain specifically designed to recognize individual human faces.. The last ancestral meeting point of these two creatures would've been back in the dinosaur ages long before man was ever around meaning they would've both had to evolved the same part of the brain and specific ability independently which probability alone would be beyond imaginable not to mention how odd such a specific thing would randomly evolve more than twice. That's just one example as well, considering also the ability of flight and evolution of wings and aerodynamic bodies evolved independently in atleast 4 different kinds of animals- avians, insects, mammals, flying fish ect along with many other traits found across the entire animal kingdom.

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Though I'm not sure I could agree with everything I think they're interesting views. Personally I'm skeptical of the current model of evolution, there seems to be fundamental designs across separately evolved species which simply doesn't make sense coming from blind chance. There have been several recent articles showing both crows and dogs (and I'll assume many more) have parts of the brain specifically designed to recognize individual human faces.. The last ancestral meeting point of these two creatures would've been back in the dinosaur ages long before man was ever around meaning they would've both had to evolved the same part of the brain and specific ability independently which probability alone would be beyond imaginable not to mention how odd such a specific thing would randomly evolve more than twice. That's just one example as well, considering also the ability of flight and evolution of wings and aerodynamic bodies evolved independently in atleast 4 different kinds of animals- avians, insects, mammals, flying fish ect along with many other traits found across the entire animal kingdom.

 

 

 

There's no fundamental designs. There's no design. There's just evolution. What you see now is the products of generations and generations of mutations that happen by chance. They make all the sense coming from randomness because our universe is full of randomness.

 

Can you source the articles about crows and dogs having parts of the brain designed to recognize human faces?

 

Instead of being "designed to recognize human faces", they might have been "designed to recognize important elements", which over time became human faces due to the contact between dogs/crows and humans. And, again, these things don't happen over a single animal over night; they happen continuously over generations based on survival. There's nothing odd about it. And more importantly; evolution has not stopped. It is still ongoing, mutation is still happening; tis why we get babies born without a leg, or with three eyes or what have you. It is very likely that due to extensive contact between humans and those animals, that that part of the brain previously utilized for recognizing important elements slowly got shaped into "love humans", as dogs that had more interest in being nice to humans tended to live longer/better and breed more than those that didn't. The brain is highly adaptable; it's also why some people can fully recover from severe brain injuries if they had other highly sophisticated parts of the brain, like musicians and other skilled individuals. The brain adjusts.

 

The first eye was nothing more than a cell that could detect whether there was sunlight or not, allowing creatures with it better chance of survival by hiding in the dark. Mutations appeared that led to better light detecting cells, then more mutations that led to multiple light detecting cells, to being able to process colors, shapes, and finally vision as we know it.

Those kinds of mutations are so fundamental that they likely happened before land animals, thus could be shared between species and evolved differently over time.

 

That also explains the aerodynamic bodies and the differences between the different types of animals that can fly. Fish that slowly got different flappers that allowed them to propel themselves in the air for whatever reason, giving an advantage to those who could do it better landing at the fish we have today. Again, if we could zoom through the history of evolution, with an example of every single mutation out there, you would find hundreds, thousands more aerodynamic designs that failed, because they were essentially "Work in progress" created by chance.

 

The main problem comes with understanding randomness and chance. It is something that is difficult for human beings to grasp fully because there's no reason behind it. It's just pure, unpatterned randomness. Think of chance. I can tell you something has a chance in a million of happening. How will you understand that? "Oh it will take a million tries for it to happen." Sure. But no. The event can happen in the very next try, heck, it can happen in the very next 10 tries, and still be 1 in a million. That's how chance works. It is very, very unlikely, but it can happen.

 

So when you say "probability alone would be beyond imaginable", it is because we only see the victorious side of evolution, and you are making the assumption that these kinds of things would be rare, which is also wrong. Mutations can happen at any moment in any living thing. Over generations, hundreds of thousands of years, all those probabilities add up, leading to the event happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

meaning they would've both had to evolved the same part of the brain and specific ability independently which probability alone would be beyond imaginable not to mention how odd such a specific thing would randomly evolve more than twice.

It's actually more common than you'd think for organisms to evolve similar traits separately - if it's beneficial enough, you can have lots of individual organisms and even more time and it can just take one of a species gaining the mutation for it to eventually become a part of the species as whole, and then this happens for more than one species. Even with the low low chance that mutations have, the total amount of individuals of a species to ever exist adds up to the chance become a lot further from zero.

 

And even then, there'll be lots of species that would greatly benefit from such a trait not getting it, because they were...well, unlucky. Having a few species evolve similarly separately is pretty reasonable.

Edited by RedDagger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
There's no fundamental designs. There's no design. There's just evolution. What you see now is the products of generations and generations of mutations that happen by chance. They make all the sense coming from randomness because our universe is full of randomness.
Can you source the articles about crows and dogs having parts of the brain designed to recognize human faces?

 

 

Instead of being "designed to recognize human faces", they might have been "designed to recognize important elements", which over time became human faces due to the contact between dogs/crows and humans. And, again, these things don't happen over a single animal over night; they happen continuously over generations based on survival. There's nothing odd about it. And more importantly; evolution has not stopped. It is still ongoing, mutation is still happening; tis why we get babies born without a leg, or with three eyes or what have you. It is very likely that due to extensive contact between humans and those animals, that that part of the brain previously utilized for recognizing important elements slowly got shaped into "love humans", as dogs that had more interest in being nice to humans tended to live longer/better and breed more than those that didn't. The brain is highly adaptable; it's also why some people can fully recover from severe brain injuries if they had other highly sophisticated parts of the brain, like musicians and other skilled individuals. The brain adjusts.

 

 

What part of recognizing individual human faces is necessary for survival for a crow? I find it very odd that not only is it unnecessary to survival but it's also extremely specific.

The first eye was nothing more than a cell that could detect whether there was sunlight or not, allowing creatures with it better chance of survival by hiding in the dark. Mutations appeared that led to better light detecting cells, then more mutations that led to multiple light detecting cells, to being able to process colors, shapes, and finally vision as we know it.
Those kinds of mutations are so fundamental that they likely happened before land animals, thus could be shared between species and evolved differently over time.

 

 

How do you go from a cell that cannot detect any light to one that can? Not only would the actual complex mechanism needed to have evolved but also the ability to process the information being detected by the light sensitive cell and make sense any of it.
That also explains the aerodynamic bodies and the differences between the different types of animals that can fly. Fish that slowly got different flappers that allowed them to propel themselves in the air for whatever reason, giving an advantage to those who could do it better landing at the fish we have today. Again, if we could zoom through the history of evolution, with an example of every single mutation out there, you would find hundreds, thousands more aerodynamic designs that failed, because they were essentially "Work in progress" created by chance.

 

 

That's the issue though.. where are these endless examples of failures? Practically any complete fossil dug up is classifiable under whatever kind it is. To defy gravity is not an easy feat, the trial and error would be enormous yet we only find complete birds and fully winged insects all throughout the fossil record.

The main problem comes with understanding randomness and chance. It is something that is difficult for human beings to grasp fully because there's no reason behind it. It's just pure, unpatterned randomness. Think of chance. I can tell you something has a chance in a million of happening. How will you understand that? "Oh it will take a million tries for it to happen." Sure. But no. The event can happen in the very next try, heck, it can happen in the very next 10 tries, and still be 1 in a million. That's how chance works. It is very, very unlikely, but it can happen.
So when you say "probability alone would be beyond imaginable", it is because we only see the victorious side of evolution, and you are making the assumption that these kinds of things would be rare, which is also wrong. Mutations can happen at any moment in any living thing. Over generations, hundreds of thousands of years, all those probabilities add up, leading to the event happening.

 

 

I think maybe you're misunderstanding me.. or just underestimating biology. To evolve a multi-faceted system where there was none before requires multiple random mutations orchestrated at once. Even a simplest of single celled organisms has a base requirement of fundamental parts to allow it to sustain itself. It's like a car, you can have all this finely tuned and designed mechanical parts but if you don't have a timing belt the whole machine is useless. What evolved first; the pistons, spark plugs, fuel system or the distributor and what use was each part individually without the whole?

 

 

This is a video I had seen many years back that gave me an interesting viewpoint of the subject, as a mathematician and scientist I feel he approaches the issues of evolution from a logical and skeptical standpoint and anybody who's opened to the possibility of evolution having more underlying mechanisms I feel should watch just to gain a new perspective. It's a bit longer but well worth it and I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on it-

 

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Hi all, I wasn't going to post this but I will anyway... Now these NDE's that people have... I go bye them... and my own thoughts. I do look into a lot of peoples accounts of them... the reason I think they are genuine is because most if not all of these accounts are all vary much the same... and their are thousands of them, and that just the ones that are documented... and what has really strengthened my beliefs in them was that my grandmothers neighbour had one of them... he was a complete atheist and after the accident he had completely changed. But he is no longed an atheist, he just says he doesn't know any more... What he described is what the typical NDE is, he just said he was floating above his body, but he said it felt more real than now... and he could see the paramedics working on him... only from above. But he has now made a full recovery :^:

 

Anyway from what I've seen though research, after people have had an NDE they all describe God very close to a pantheists point of view. That's why I'm going for pantheism, and my own thoughts into the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lprf3zoJJ_0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

So would that make a pantheistic god more of a concept rather than god being it's own separate entity?

A pantheistic god is a contradiction in terms really. God is both a singular and personal term, where as pantheists see divinity in everything but don't attribute it to a humanised, personal creator.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

Cool. But doesn't really say that these parts were there since the beginning of dog and crows. And if any case, it proves further that evolution exists as these crows adapted and adjusted to being able to recognize the important human faces.

 

What part of recognizing individual human faces is necessary for survival for a crow? I find it very odd that not only is it unnecessary to survival but it's also extremely specific.

 

 

 

You misunderstood me. I meant that crows had a part of their brain specifically for detecting important elements in the landscape, like food or predators. Overtime, populations of crows became more in contact with populations of humans, and that part of their brain started to adapt to that and focus more on humans, since they were either benign to the crows by feeding them, or bad by attacking them. Either way, with the advent of larger human populations, the natural predators for crows began to disappear, and humans replaced altogether the main stimulus for crows. It wasn't designed for recognizing individual human faces. It adapted into that. Crows that could identify humans better had better chances at getting fed or avoiding bad people. The ones that could recognize the bad people better survived the most.

 

How do you go from a cell that cannot detect any light to one that can? Not only would the actual complex mechanism needed to have evolved but also the ability to process the information being detected by the light sensitive cell and make sense any of it.

 

That's your misunderstanding. IT's not complex at all, and it didn't come all in one go. It didn't come from "here's a cell that does nothing" to "here's a central nervous system that can distinguish the colors in all spectrums. It is very simple, and not complex at all. Your skin can detect light at a very small level. Light affects it. All you needed was a small mutation that made a cell react differently to the light, by emitting back a signal to the brain that something was awkward. At the beginning, the beings couldnt fully understand what happened. By chance, they started to associate that receiving that signal = good and safe, as they survived longer, and the combination of their genes led to further mutation. It's basic biology. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is complex.

 

 

 

That's the issue though.. where are these endless examples of failures? Practically any complete fossil dug up is classifiable under whatever kind it is. To defy gravity is not an easy feat, the trial and error would be enormous yet we only find complete birds and fully winged insects all throughout the fossil record.

 

 

 

They are dead. Their fossils are gone, crumbled to dust. It takes a special kind of situation for a fossil to be preserved. Where is the chicken that you ate last week? Where are the skeletons of the millions of babies in history that were born with some incurable mutation? Look at the ocean, where are the fossils of every single fish that has ever existed? Probably got eaten by something bigger that was able to digest it in entirety, or became a rock in some place, or still under piles and piles of rock in some mountain somewhere that we haven't cared to look at.

To defy gravity is not easy for us, humans, for birds and other winged creatures it is quite effortless.

 

 

 

 

To evolve a multi-faceted system where there was none before requires multiple random mutations orchestrated at once. Even a simplest of single celled organisms has a base requirement of fundamental parts to allow it to sustain itself.

It does not require them to be orchestrated at once. It is slow steps, that's how evolution works. Things mutate, and the system adapts and reacts to it. An eye began with a cell, which led to further mutations in the nervous system, which leds to further mutations in the cell and so on and on. Those that survived, were better, thus had stronger mutations. Not at once, not at all.

 

 

 

It's like a car, you can have all this finely tuned and designed mechanical parts but if you don't have a timing belt the whole machine is useless. What evolved first; the pistons, spark plugs, fuel system or the distributor and what use was each part individually without the whole?

 

This is a pretty invalid comparison since a car doesn't grow from a bunch of cells into a full sized car.

 

 

 

This is a video I had seen many years back that gave me an interesting viewpoint of the subject, as a mathematician and scientist I feel he approaches the issues of evolution from a logical and skeptical standpoint and anybody who's opened to the possibility of evolution having more underlying mechanisms I feel should watch just to gain a new perspective. It's a bit longer but well worth it and I'd be interested in hearing other people's thoughts on it-

The only problem with evolution is that we haven't found all the links. Simply because you'd have to trawl through the entire planet to be sure you've found everything. Which is why scientists continue to look for them. But the evidence is already compelling enough, and far, far outweighs any validity of claims of an intelligent designer. All evidence points to evolution. None of it points to a designer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
It's basic biology. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is complex.

 

 

No biology is anything but basic or simple.. there are tons of things occurring at once within a single cell.

 

 

 

 

This is a pretty invalid comparison since a car doesn't grow from a bunch of cells into a full sized car.

 

 

A single cell alone is the equivalent to not a single car but an entire self sustaining car factory that creates multiple different cars that all are designed with specific purposes. A car is more equivalent to a single protein that was created on the production line within the cell.

 

 

The only problem with evolution is that we haven't found all the links.

 

All the links that are missing seem to be the ones most vital for evidence. We have no issue finding fossils they're absolutely abundant across the Earth's sedimentary layer many can go dig in their back yards and find some. We can find modern mosquitos fossilized 80 million years ago, the ginkgo tree is identical as it was when it first appeared in the fossil record 270 million years ago, parrots haven't changed anymore in the past 60+ million years than they have in the last 2,000 years, they're all still within their genetic genus as since they first appeared. Fish, worms, snakes, frogs, turtles, jellyfish ect remain within their genus showing only minor variations within their kind just as we still observe today

 

It's not that I'm against evolution, personally I find the mental image of a foggy primitive prehistoric Earth overridden with giant overgrown fauna fascinating, it's just the current model doesn't actually explain much at all. If biology and evolution really were as simple as easy and you make it out to be we'd be able to write out mathematical algorithms and watch life create itself through entirely unguided random mutations on a computer program, but we can't. The theory isn't applicable to real life or even observable/testable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

Just thought id put this in here>> Thought it was very interesting... :)

Edited by Aqua97

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedDagger

Just thought id put this in here>> Thought it was very interesting... :)

The entire reasoning behind that is "we create code, DNA is code, DNA is therefore created" which is nonsense. The entire point of evolution is that complex things get created over time, which pretty easily explains the complexities of DNA and others.

 

 

If biology and evolution really were as simple as easy and you make it out to be we'd be able to write out mathematical algorithms and watch life create itself through entirely unguided random mutations on a computer program, but we can't.

I can let Tchuck handle the rest of this, but we do
, for example with self taught AI - it tries random things, and the ones that get closest to the goal are further iterated on. That's pretty much what evolution is. We can't model evolution of just life because of the immense computing power required to do that. That's literally it.

 

The theory isn't applicable to real life or even observable/testable.

This bit is objectively wrong. We have observed it, we do observe it, and we'll continue to observe it just like we're doing. Notably fruit flies, plus selective breeding is pretty much the same thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

DNA also isn't code. It's a false analogy created by the human desire to see patterns in basically everything. DNA is data, not code; code is interpreted and has no objective meaning in and of itself whereas DNA does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith

 

I can let Tchuck handle the rest of this, but we do model simple evolution, for example with self taught AI - it tries random things, and the ones that get closest to the goal are further iterated on. That's pretty much what evolution is. We can't model evolution of just life because of the immense computing power required to do that. That's literally it.

 

This is nowhere close to what evolution is or anywhere near replicating it. These are programmed this way, near the exact opposite of what evolution is claiming. The lack of computing power isn't the issue, it's the method itself that simply does not work.

 

 

 

This bit is objectively wrong. We have observed it, we do observe it, and we'll continue to observe it just like we're doing. Notably fruit flies, plus selective breeding is pretty much the same thing.

 

This is extrapolating the facts, we only observe minor variations. How long would it take altering finch beak sizes and feather patterns to make the bird a sub-aquatic creature?

 

DNA also isn't code. It's a false analogy created by the human desire to see patterns in basically everything. DNA is data, not code; code is interpreted and has no objective meaning in and of itself whereas DNA does.

 

 

Could you explain more into this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Code is a human creation. It does not exist in the natural order. It's a term used to refer to instructions or data which are codified in such a way they require interpretation to be understood. It therefore has no objective meaning without an interpretive framework and contextual understanding.

 

The information in DNA and RNA is not encoded. It does not required interpretation to understand, and whilst the contextual framework dictates how particular celluar behaviours appear to an observer the processes are effectively dictated explicitly by the structure and order of the genome.

 

The "DNA is code" arguments for intelligent design play on two factors- the human desire to see patterns in everything (Apophenia) and the fact most people don't actually understand what code is. It sounds good to a lay person to draw a comparison between the information stored in DNA which effectively acts as an instruction set for cellular behaviours and human (I.E intelligence, designed) computer code, but in reality they're absolutely nothing alike. Even the most fundamentally basic computer code- machine code- is dependent on additional interpretive factors (in this case the processing hardware on which it is run) and therefore not uniform. Conversely, the same piece of information or instruction isolated from the wider genome will not induce a different cellular reaction in and of itself in one organism compared to another. It is, to put it polietly, a coy attempt by creationists to play on the floibles and ignorance of most people.

 

This is extrapolating the facts, we only observe minor variations.

Actually it isn't. A microbe spontaneously developing the ability to digest the stabilisation agent used in their Petri dishes is a pretty humungous change from an observer perspective (certainly not a "minor variation" in observed behaviour), and that happened within a few days of an experiment starting. Over the course of tens to hundreds of millions of years, such fundamental evolutionary change in far more complex organisms isn't a logical oddity but mathematical certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Hi all, I wasn't going to post this but I will anyway... Now these NDE's that people have... I go bye them... and my own thoughts. I do look into a lot of peoples accounts of them... the reason I think they are genuine is because most if not all of these accounts are all vary much the same... and their are thousands of them, and that just the ones that are documented... and what has really strengthened my beliefs in them was that my grandmothers neighbour had one of them... he was a complete atheist and after the accident he had completely changed. But he is no longed an atheist, he just says he doesn't know any more... What he described is what the typical NDE is, he just said he was floating above his body, but he said it felt more real than now... and he could see the paramedics working on him... only from above. But he has now made a full recovery :^:

 

Anyway from what I've seen though research, after people have had an NDE they all describe God very close to a pantheists point of view. That's why I'm going for pantheism, and my own thoughts into the matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lprf3zoJJ_0

A near death experience is as relevant for establishing the existence of an afterlife as any experience you could have on drugs or while dreaming. It is an altered state of consciousness (probably a symptom of anesthetics in the case of surgery) and therefore unreliable. You could have a dream that's just as profound and "realistic" and you wouldn't necessarily attribute it any meaning. The fact that people attribute these meanings to NDEs is mostly due to their preexisting beliefs and the fact that they went through a traumatic experience. You are also ignoring the thousand of people who have an NDE and they remain unconscious the whole time (e.g.

). How are your examples, even if there are thousands, statistically relevant? There are just as many people who experience no such a thing when they come close to dying.

 

I actually used to experience something akin to this a while back while sleeping. It's called sleep paralysis. It's basically a dream—very often more realistic and believable than normal dreams—where you appear to be aware and lying in your bed and you begin to hallucinate (it's like a state between a dream and the waking state). On one occasion I was laying in bed and I was looking at my window and I noticed a dark figure that looked small and alien like. I wanted to move but I felt paralyzed and a light appeared and the alien somehow lifted my body and I was heading towards the light. My fear was quickly replaced by anger and I basically told the alien to go f*ck itself because I'm not going anywhere and I woke up. Any naive person having this experience could have concluded that the aliens did in fact try to kidnap them. However, you need more evidence than that to establish something that is already hard to believe. The fact that you experienced it first hand doesn't make it any more real. You could always be hallucinating, especially if you are not actually awake and conscious.

Edited by Kristian.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aqua97

I don't think they are just "hallucinations", I mean on multiple occasions people who have experienced them have been clinically dead. (no brain activity)That has been confirmed by doctors who where by there side... So in my opinion there is much more to it and it needs to be looked into in greater detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DEALUX

Clinical death is not synonymous with no brain activity. I don't think that there is any way of knowing exactly when a brain completely ceases to function. The fact that it can resume its functions after a short period of being "inactive" suggests that it can't completely turn off otherwise there would be obvious and permanent brain damage.

 

However, even if clinical death meant zero brain activity (again, it doesn't) the person experiencing these things would have no way of knowing at what point they started experiencing them. You're saying that they experienced them when their brain ceased to function (when was that by the way since there is no accurate way to establish that?) which is a claim that no one can prove, not even the person experiencing it. You cannot be aware of your brain being turned off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

 

I don't think spirituality is a fundamental human trait, I think it's just another way of coping.

The case could (and has) been made that the advent of religious traditions was the first and most obvious marker of homo sapien's transition to a higher form of social organisation. Other subspecies of humans (our forerunners and contemporaries) had comparable technology but apparently lacked spirituality, or at least the means to express it.

 

It's been extrapolated from this that having a shared narrative and a feeling of being part of something greater is a part of what separates human societies from comparable animal societies (so, a beehive is more cohesive and capable of greater synthesis than a pack of wolves, we're more like a beehive). Organised religion is one expression of this, so is nationalism, or the reverence of nature or science that you see these days.

 

 

 

If it is a part of human nature, that would contradict the steady increase in atheism and decline of spirituality in some countries.

People can satisfy a spiritual impulse in some way without being (overtly) religious. That Richard Dawkins guy has some nature worship thing going on. And as I understand it, the number of atheists hasn't increased dramatically, rather people have started abandoning organised religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Code is a human creation. It does not exist in the natural order. It's a term used to refer to instructions or data which are codified in such a way they require interpretation to be understood. It therefore has no objective meaning without an interpretive framework and contextual understanding.
Even the most fundamentally basic computer code- machine code- is dependent on additional interpretive factors (in this case the processing hardware on which it is run) and therefore not uniform.

That's an interesting way of looking at it but doesn't DNA still require interpretation? A genome is useless without the RNA polymerase to transcribe the information into RNA to be translated into amino acids through the ribosome then sent off to be folded into working nanomachines. Every 3 nucleotides is read as a word that corresponds to a specific amino acid, there are capitals and periods to a sentence of the genome very similar to how written human language is structured. The fact the laws of biochemistry are finetuned in such a way to allow all these complex mechanisms to occur just for life to exist is fascinating and could be seen by some as evidence of underlying design and intent. Not to mention also how a single strand of DNA holds two separate codings for both protein production and gene control all in one which is not only brilliant in design but troubling for the theory of abiogenesis.

 

 

A couple of cool things, a table of the language of DNA and a couple animation of DNA

LUT.jpg

 

 

 

 

 

Actually it isn't. A microbe spontaneously developing the ability to digest the stabilisation agent used in their Petri dishes is a pretty humungous change from an observer perspective (certainly not a "minor variation" in observed behaviour), and that happened within a few days of an experiment starting. Over the course of tens to hundreds of millions of years, such fundamental evolutionary change in far more complex organisms isn't a logical oddity but mathematical certainty.

 

 

I fail to see how digestion capabilities will turn a bacteria into anything beyond bacteria?

Edited by GrandMaster Smith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

Code is a human creation. It does not exist in the natural order. It's a term used to refer to instructions or data which are codified in such a way they require interpretation to be understood. It therefore has no objective meaning without an interpretive framework and contextual understanding.

Now that he's had to have you explain to him the very concept of words, maybe we'll get somewhere.

 

ffs GMS, you're whole point relies on the connotations of the word 'code.' Yes, 'code' suggests it was created deliberately... but 'code' is a word and the meaning you personally assign to a word does not change any objective reality.

 

Okay, so human technology is complex. Machinery seems to be the most intricate thing in the universe, besides life itself. 'Technology' implies intent, and humans function like our most advanced technology... that doesn't mean that humans were created intentionally. There are other intricate systems in the universe (in fact the universe itself is a series of interlocking systems more complex than any human technology), a car is just one of many. The fact that a car is the most visibly obvious example of intricate complexity doesn't mean all examples of intricate complexity must have come from the same process as a car. Do you understand what I'm saying? 'A watch must have a watchmaker' but the gravitational workings of a solar system are more complex than a watch and pre-date the concept of 'watches' by billions of years, so watches don't set the rules for the entire universe. f*ck.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

but doesn't DNA still require interpretation? A genome is useless without the RNA polymerase to transcribe the information into RNA

Please look up the definition of the word "transcription" and the definition of the word "encode". I'll give you a helpful pointer- transcription is simple copying and therefore requires, contrary to your assertion, no processing or interpretation.

 

Every 3 nucleotides is read as a word

 

there are capitals and periods

 

very similar to how written human language is structured

You're falling into the Apophenia trap again; placing human attributes to structured information by falsely attempting to rationalise the structure of DNA and organic processes in terms implicitly indicative of intelligence and design. It's not much more than an analogy designed to give people without a scientific background a 5 minute crash course in genetics and evolutionary biology. Don't mistake it for actual science.

 

two separate codings

Stop using words you clearly have no understanding of the meaning of.

 

troubling for the theory of abiogenesis.

According to whom? You, who doesn't understand the difference between transcription and encoding and who can't tell the difference between science an a metaphor?

 

a table of the language of DNA

DNA doesn't have a language. It can be compared with a language, it could be argued you could interpret it as one, but it doesn't have it as an attribute.

 

I fail to see how digestion capabilities will turn a bacteria into anything beyond bacteria?

In a single evolutionary stage, it won't. But evolution of complex organisms doesn't happen in a single stage, as you full well know and yet seem completely unable to comprehend or acknowledge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
Please look up the definition of the word "transcription" and the definition of the word "encode". I'll give you a helpful pointer- transcription is simple copying and therefore requires, contrary to your assertion, no processing or interpretation.

 

 

en·code
inˈkōd,enˈkōd/- convert (information or an instruction) into a particular form.

DNA information is converted into a 3 dimensional nanomachine which would fit the definition wouldn't it? Or did I miss your point and point out the obvious?

 

You're falling into the Apophenia trap again; placing human attributes to structured information by falsely attempting to rationalise the structure of DNA and organic processes in terms implicitly indicative of intelligence and design. It's not much more than an analogy designed to give people without a scientific background a 5 minute crash course in genetics and evolutionary biology. Don't mistake it for actual science.

 

 

That was simply an example showing how DNA is constructed in such a manner that's just as and even more complex than human language which we all know is the product of intelligence itself. The resemblance between the two is really interesting imo.

 

 

Stop using words you clearly have no understanding of the meaning of.

 

 

These are standard definitions I'm using from biology sites.

 

cod·ing
ˈkōdiNG/
noun
  • BIOCHEMISTRY
    the process of coding genetically for an amino acid, protein, or characteristic.

 

In a single evolutionary stage, it won't. But evolution of complex organisms doesn't happen in a single stage, as you full well know and yet seem completely unable to comprehend or acknowledge.

 

 

Evolution can only work in individual single stages, it does not plan or prepare for the future- every mutation is independent upon itself.

 

 

 

ffs GMS, you're whole point relies on the connotations of the word 'code.' Yes, 'code' suggests it was created deliberately... but 'code' is a word and the meaning you personally assign to a word does not change any objective reality.

 

If this is all you're getting from what I'm saying maybe I'm not explaining myself well enough. What I'm trying to get at is life is programmed and highly orchestrated.. it's not something that's along the lines of "well it's too complex and I don't really understand it therefore I'll just attribute creation," it's based off the logic of what we do understand about intelligence and design from observing humanity and other intelligent creatures. It's not unscientific to look at a computer and say it was created with intent, you could know this even if you you'd never seen a computer before in your life. The laws of the universe at large and biochemistry all work in a harmony to support the existence of life.. I can understand how one can see life as a cosmic accident as that's how I used to look at things years back but the more and more I looked into it the harder it was to believe it's just some accident. I won't claim to know what created it, I can't consider myself a religious person because there's too many things I disagree with but I do have strong beliefs there's something outside the observable universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tchuck

 

It's basic biology. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it is complex.

 

 

No biology is anything but basic or simple.. there are tons of things occurring at once within a single cell.

 

Yes. And we mostly understand every single one of those things. We may not fully understand what some of the mechanisms do yet, but we know what all the pieces are doing.

 

This is a pretty invalid comparison since a car doesn't grow from a bunch of cells into a full sized car.

 

A single cell alone is the equivalent to not a single car but an entire self sustaining car factory that creates multiple different cars that all are designed with specific purposes. A car is more equivalent to a single protein that was created on the production line within the cell.

 

Except the comparison is irrelevant because one is an artifical thing that was created by people in a hypothetical scenario with an intent behind it. The other is the product of chance.

 

 

The only problem with evolution is that we haven't found all the links.

 

All the links that are missing seem to be the ones most vital for evidence. We have no issue finding fossils they're absolutely abundant across the Earth's sedimentary layer many can go dig in their back yards and find some. We can find modern mosquitos fossilized 80 million years ago, the ginkgo tree is identical as it was when it first appeared in the fossil record 270 million years ago, parrots haven't changed anymore in the past 60+ million years than they have in the last 2,000 years, they're all still within their genetic genus as since they first appeared. Fish, worms, snakes, frogs, turtles, jellyfish ect remain within their genus showing only minor variations within their kind just as we still observe today

Except not really. There are plenty of links that indicate that evolution is a thing, and is happening and has led to the multitude of species today. And sure, if we went digging every single spot on the planet, we would likely find all the evidence we are missing, but that is quite an expensive and pointless endeavour. We don't need to find the link that led to a cat, because there won't be a specific species that we can point and say "aha! that's the pre-cat", because evolution is about small changes, in large quantities, over huge periods of time.

 

Trees don't evolve in the same rate animals do. A tree's lifespan is what, hundreds of years? How many other trees does a single tree give "birth" to? It doesn't have nearly the same chances of mutation as an animal does.

As for the parrots, source please. I call bullsh*t.

 

What do you expect? That fish suddenly be classified as something else? Oh, and here's another thing, every year thousands of new species are discovered. Some were just hidden all this time, some the product of evolution.

 

 

 

It's not that I'm against evolution, personally I find the mental image of a foggy primitive prehistoric Earth overridden with giant overgrown fauna fascinating, it's just the current model doesn't actually explain much at all. If biology and evolution really were as simple as easy and you make it out to be we'd be able to write out mathematical algorithms and watch life create itself through entirely unguided random mutations on a computer program, but we can't. The theory isn't applicable to real life or even observable/testable.

 

It is applicable, and it is observable, and you just want to ignore it. Life is not some mystical thing created by something. Life is an accident. A random accident. By chance. That has been modified over and over across millions of years and millions of species and quadrillions of mutations. Oh, and given enough time and computational power, we could randomly stumble upon the "code" of life.

 

 

That was simply an example showing how DNA is constructed in such a manner that's just as and even more complex than human language which we all know is the product of intelligence itself. The resemblance between the two is really interesting imo.

 

But it isn't, we merely interpret it that way. The same way the letters on your screen are just 0s and 1s being interpreted by a processor that doesn't know the meaning of 0s and 1s. DNA evolved over time into the complex heap of stuff it is.

 

 

Evolution can only work in individual single stages, it does not plan or prepare for the future- every mutation is independent upon itself.

 

Exactly! It works in small steps, which lead to a greater goal, without there being a greater goal. It just happens. Mutation combination can lead to good things. But nature doesn't care, it doesn't have a judgement, it just does according to the laws of nature.

 

 

What I'm trying to get at is life is programmed and highly orchestrated

 

Except it isn't. It started out as simple cells floating around doing its things, and overtime it became complex. If you were to travel back before the cambrian period, there would be no complex life forms whatsoever. You speak as if everything was created as is, which is factually wrong. Life itself is nothing but a bunch of electric impulses to get more food and survive. Only through a slow growth, a slow addition of layers of complexity to it, do we reach what we have today. That's it. There's no design, no creator, no nothing. It just happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

en·code

inˈkōd,enˈkōd/- convert (information or an instruction) into a particular form.

 

DNA information is converted into a 3 dimensional nanomachine which would fit the definition wouldn't it? Or did I miss your point and point out the obvious?

It doesn't change form, though. The information itself is the same. To use an analogy befitting your own earlier references, information transferred from a sheet of paper to a stone tablets has not been encoded but transcribed. Notwithstanding the fact merely using the word "nanomachine" (incorrectly, I might add) is yet another attempt at implying intelligent design by equating cellular biology with creationism.

 

That was simply an example

Linguistically designed to imply creationism or intelligent design from the off. If you can't make arguments using terms and analogies which don't themselves show a predisposition towards creationism, then it becomes very difficult for an external observer to see your comments as anything other than an attempt to justify dogma with bad science.

 

These are standard definitions I'm using from biology sites.

cod·ing

ˈkōdiNG/

 

noun

  •  

     

    BIOCHEMISTRY

    the process of coding genetically for an amino acid, protein, or characteristic.

Except in this context "coding", despite bring listed as a noun in your summary, is actually a verb. "The process of" is the giveaway. Therefore a comment about DNA holding "two separate codings" isn't really linguistically correct, again notwithstanding the fact it's not actually true. The process of protein production is gene dependent, so explain to me how these two "codings" are in fact separate when one is reliant on the other?

 

The processes for protein production are pretty complex and really very interesting, but the information for production of amino acids is not distinct from that used for gene replication.

 

I really don't know what you're trying to say here, whether you've been confused by the idea of "coding strands" in literature on the subject or something, or whether you incorrectly see gene expression as distinct from protein production?

 

Evolution can only work in individual single stages, it does not plan or prepare for the future- every mutation is independent upon itself.

Yes. What's your point here? The fact evolution only works in single stages does preclude evolutionary processes taking place over multiple stages, does it? Or do you think it does?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrandMaster Smith
It doesn't change form, though.

 

 

Of course it does, you start with a giant strand of nucleotides and end up with a protein that does whatever job it's specified todo. The end result is in a very different form than the original.

 

If you can't make arguments using terms and analogies which don't themselves show a predisposition towards creationism, then it becomes very difficult for an external observer to see your comments as anything other than an attempt to justify dogma with bad science.

 

 

 

Proteins and cells are by definition machines-

 

machine
[muh-sheen]
Spell Syllables
Examples Word Origin
noun
1.
an apparatus consisting of interrelated parts with separate functions, used in the performance of some kind of work:

 

Yes. What's your point here? The fact evolution only works in single stages does preclude evolutionary processes taking place over multiple stages, does it? Or do you think it does?

 

Yes I do, in the sense of working towards a greater goal.

 

 

If you were to travel back before the cambrian period, there would be no complex life forms whatsoever.

 

 

Single celled organisms are very complex, I'm not sure how you could think otherwise..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Of course it does, you start with a giant strand of nucleotides and end up with a protein that does whatever job it's specified todo. The end result is in a very different form than the original.

You still don't seem to understand the point I'm making for you. Let me spell it out in the most simplistic way possible.

 

If you give me the instructions and raw materials to enable me to assemble a piece of furniture, I have not encoded your instructions into the furniture. I have simply followed a set of instructions supplied to me. That's basically the process you're referring to here. No encoding is taking place.

 

Proteins and cells are by definition machines-

Cells are arguably analogous to machines, but proteins most definitely aren't. Not any more than any other complex macromolecule is, anyway. Or are all long-chain polymers actually machines?

 

Your problem here is that you're attempting to define a complex biological entity using very basic English. If we define a duck as a "medium sized aquatic bird" then I've also implicitly defined geese and penguins as ducks, even though they're not. The simpler a definition, the more prone it is to over-broadness.

 

Also, I question whether you can apply the word "work" to cellular organisms at all. The top definition of "work" is "activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result" and given that cellular organisms are neither capable of menal perception nor physical exertion then how can they be said to perform work? They also aren't consciously seeking to achieve any kind of result, but silently following their intrinsic instructions- programming, if you will, to perform actions.

 

Yes I do, in the sense of working towards a greater goal.

Your understanding of evolutionary progression is utterly baffling. Individual mutations can and do influence future mutation. Evolution doesn't work towards any goal; it's a simple process in which organisms that have acquired certain traits through fandom mutations are better suited to changes in environmental conditions than others. Do you honestly think that proponents of evolution think it's got some kind of greater goal, some kind of logical progression? The only logic in evolution is retrospectively that which we apply to it as intelligent observers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 Members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.