Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)

wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 20:25:33 GMT, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
>
>>wf3h@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 19:51:15 GMT, Wall Of Sleep <Sabotage@xxxxxxxx>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Granted, these legends grew to spectacular, mythological proportions,
>>>>but what if they were based on a nugget of truth? The fact that there
>>>>are so many of them, and that they pretty much unanimously point to
>>>>beings with abilities beyond the capabilities of humans - many times
>>>>actually living with and interacting with humans and nature, is evidence
>>>>of something.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>common brains give common dreams.
>>
>>And common experiences give common accounts.
>
>
> circular logic and a violation of occam's razor....unless, of course,
> you already believe in the supernatural and try to use the
> supernatural to prove the supernatural exists...
>

I fail to see your logic here.
Why are accounts handed down from one generation *of humans* to another
"supernatural"?
Unless you are contending that these ancient legends *were written* by
supernatural beings, (and I'm not) they are entirely human in origin.




>>>except, of course, kow evolution happens TODAY as does speciation. it
>>>hasn't stopped. so beyond your mere assertion, you have no proof.
>>>
>>
>>I never said evolution doesn't happen. I said it's incapable of building
>>complex functions.
>
>
> nothing is more complex than speciation. and we observe it happening
> today.
>

Nothing? The development of an eye from a light sensitive spot is *less*
complex than the arbitrary line of "speciation"?


>>
>>>e The very fact that a mutation is essentially a *corruption*
>>>
>>>
>>>>of existing genetic data limits it's power as a builder mechanism.
>>>
>>>
>>>why is it a corruption? who decided what constitutes the perfect
>>>genome such that a change is a 'corruption'?
>>>
>>>oh. no one does.
>>>
>>
>>In fact, pretty much everyone (except you apparently) agrees that a
>>mutation is a corruption of existing data.
>
>
> it's a change in data. 'corruption' is not a term used in science.
> there is no 'corruption' meter in science.
>
> and you're certainly in no position to lecture me on science...being
> a creationist.
>

Right. Only "evolutionists" can think in terms of science. I guess
that's true since you guys have managed to define "science" as "Only
that which embraces the theory of evolution".


>>> It's
>>>
>>>>The problem with this is that evolutionists tend to concentrate on the
>>>>*similarities* between creatures and imply common descent, whereas I'm
>>>>concentrating on the *differences* and saying "Show me that these
>>>>bridges can realistically be crossed by natural means."\\\
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>we, we can do it in the lab. what else you got in mind?
>>>
>>
>>What can you do in the lab? Give me specifics here about how you have
>>"in the lab" shown that mutations can build complex functions that
>>previously didn't exist.
>
>
> bacterial resistance is development of a complex function that
> previously did not exist.
>
> QED
>

Bacterial resistance is generally achieved through a *loss* of
specificity. The antibiotic is designed to attach to a specific place
within the bacteria. That place becomes damaged due to a genetic
corruption, and the antibiotic can no longer attach there. It's a gain
of function through a loss of specificity. One cannot build complex
functions this way. In the words of Dr. Lee Spetner "It's like the
businessman who lost money on every transaction, but though he could
make it up on volume.".


>>
>>>>It's my contention that most of the differences between supposed
>>>>relatives are actually uncrossable chasms if examined closely.\\
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>you guys keep saying this but have never proved it.
>>>
>>
>>You want "us" to prove a negative? Isn't it the one who proposes the
>>mechanism who must prove that it's up to the task?
>
>
> yes. so prove there's an uncrossable chasm.
>
> you've violated most of the rules of logic so you're in a poor
> position to lecture others.
>

So you can't prove mutations are capable of the grand scale of evolution
I take it?


>
>>>except we can SEE animals with eyespots at different stages of
>>>development so we KNOW evolution can produce them
>>>
>>
>>No, you *ASSUME* evolution produced them.
>
>
> uh, no. it's a prediction that various forms of a feature CAN exist.
> that's how evolution would work IF it were true. you're kind of
> forgetting how evolution is supposed to work...by accumulation.
>

Yeah, only the mechanism has yet to be shown to be up to the task. It's
like the businessman...


>
>
>>>it doesn't. it simply has no mechanism
>>>t
>>>
>>
>>I've already proposed a mechanism. A genetic programmer
>
>
> meaningless. handwaving isn't a mechanism. as a physical scientist, i
> want to know how this 'programmer' interacts with the genes.
>
> evolution has mutations...which we KNOW exist. how does your magical,
> mystical programmer work?
>
> oh. you can't say. it's top secret.
>

We already have devices that are capable of programming animated life.
Given the similarities between computer code and genetic code, is it so
hard to imagine a device that could do the same thing in the hands of a
genetic programmer?


>
>>>uh...there's plenty of evidence of evolution of
>>>
>>>the horse
>>>the ear
>>>humans
>>>
>>>what else you need? all it takes is proof of ONE case and evolutionr
>>>is demonstrated
>>>
>>
>>There is no evidence that these things evolved from anything that wasn't
>>a horse, an ear or a human. What exactly are you saying here?
>
>
> really? our ears are reptilian? because that's where ears evolved and
> got passed to us via evolution.
>

So you say. Yet strangely, reptilian ears still exist today. Hmm... Are
they still developing? Did some not "make it"?



>>
>>>>Once again, evolutionists see the similarities and imply descent (often
>>>>ignoring or dismissing the differences), whereas I see the differences
>>>>and can't see random corruption producing them.
>>>
>>>
>>>whatever 'corruption' is. you seem to have a corruption meter that is
>>>unique and unknown to the scientiific community.
>>>
>>
>>A mutation either inserts or changes existing code. It is a corruption
>>of it in every sense of the word. Now sometimes (rarely) a corruption
>>can be beneficial, but it's still a corruption nonetheless.
>
>
> a change is not corruption. again, corruption is not a scientific term
> since there is no 'corruption' meter to measure degrees of corruption.
> so, no, it's not in 'every sense of the word'.
>

On the contrary there is indeed a "corruption meter". An unplanned
"change" to a working system *is* a corruption of that system and the
degree of change *is* the degree of corruption.

[snip of degenerative discussion]

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... That would only work if the designers acted by modifying a pre-existing ... evolution of the human genome. ... How would you tell if a gene is ... Random corruption of existing data. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... >>>I never said evolution doesn't happen. ... >>>mutation is a corruption of existing data. ... whiich involve development of new, complex functions, as i pointed out ... A genetic programmer ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... >lifeforms' genetic codes back in time will lead to dead ends. ... yet organisms are used to regulate the enviroment for their survival. ... Random corruption of existing data (or undesigned evolution) ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions)
    ... > evolution of humans from a primate ancestor, why CANT it do an eye? ... >>>there is no 'corruption' meter in science. ... development of a pump that pumps out the antibiotic from the ... >>>want to know how this 'programmer' interacts with the genes. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Speculative Design Hypothesis (with predictions) 2nd draft
    ... on producing a single cell and the genome for the organism would be the ... That would only work if the designers acted by modifying a pre-existing ... limited scope of evolution as well. ... Random corruption of existing data. ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading