Evolution And Bricks

[cdowis]

Each gene mutation is new intelligent information. 

 

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

 

Yes, there are "packets" of information in each mutation similar to a brick supporting the Empire State building, but there is more to a building than just bricks.

 

I would be very interested in a the link between a proven link between cause and effect, which is the crux of the issue here, where mutations build upon each other to create multiple co-dependent, complex systems.  In many cases this co-dependency spans multiple organisms which, presumably, evolved independently.  

 

Now that is "intelligent information" -- much more than individual bricks.   Can I assume that this issue is "still under investigation"?

[Coreyb]

Empire State isn't made of bricks, it's steel

[Rob Osborn]

Yes, there are "packets" of information in each mutation similar to a brick supporting the Empire State building, but there is more to a building than just bricks.

 

I would be very interested in a the link between a proven link between cause and effect, which is the crux of the issue here, where mutations build upon each other to create multiple co-dependent, complex systems.  In many cases this co-dependency spans multiple organisms which, presumably, evolved independently.  

 

Now that is "intelligent information" -- much more than individual bricks.   Can I assume that this issue is "still under investigation"?

You are asking for the same thing as a monkey typing out Shakespeares works randomly on a typewriter. Thats the basic equivalent.

[The Nehor]

You are asking for the same thing as a monkey typing out Shakespeares works randomly on a typewriter. Thats the basic equivalent.

No, a million monkeys on a million typewriters over a million years. Which is in the order of magnitude evolution deals with.

[cdowis]

This monkey analogy is not applicable -- it's too simplistic.  

 

It is not an issue of probability of one monkey, but of synergy among a group of monkeys.  Much more complex.

 

Let's suppose that you have a group on monkeys, each one typing a page of Shakespeare's works with no knowledge of what the others have typed.  This independent collaboration of a group of monkeys (thousands of them in a group to represent the number of total single pages), completing the entire works of Shakespeare.

 

Then we have millions of these groups, over millions of years, producing Shakespeare.  This is the complex systems that evolution is attempting to explain the  organisms we find today -- each mutation building upon another mutation.  Not just a single characteristic, black vs a white moth, but the entire moth itself with the ability to fly, to reproduce, etc etc.

 

But even this analogy is too simplistic.  The monkeys have fleas, and the fleas somehow communicate their portion of Shakespeare -- perhaps one word per flea.  Synergy among disparate organisms.

 

This whole "million monkeys over a million years" is totally irrelevant to the reality of what exists in the world today.  It is now replaced by "millions of groups of monkeys and fleas" collabrating one word, one page at a time.

Edited April 8, 2014 by cdowis

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is based on 5 simple ideas.

 

1. All living things die.

 

2. All living organisms must reproduce before they die, or the species dies out.

 

3. All living things produce more offspring than can reproduce before they die.

 

4. All living things that produce offspring through sexual reproduction reproduce slightly different than themselves.

 

5. Only those offspring that live long enough to reproduce pass on those differences before they die.

[cdowis]

Evolution is based on 5 simple ideas.

 

1. All living things die.

 

2. All living organisms must reproduce before they die, or the species dies out.

 

3. All living things produce more offspring than can reproduce before they die.

 

4. All living things that produce offspring through sexual reproduction reproduce slightly different than themselves.

 

5. Only those offspring that live long enough to reproduce pass on those differences before they die.

 

You have now resolved the whole debate, and advocates of creationism, ID and evolution have shook hands and reconciled their differences.

 

Congrats!

 

But wait.... I think something is missing.....

[thesometimesaint]

You have now resolved the whole debate, and advocates of creationism, ID and evolution have shook hands and reconciled their differences.

 

Congrats!

 

But wait.... I think something is missing.....

 

I have no problem ID, but it is not science, and I have no problem with science but it is not ID. I thoroughly expect that someday the whole debate will be reconciled to everyone's complete satisfaction, but today probably isn't going to be that day.

[ERayR]

I have no problem ID, but it is not science, and I have no problem with science but it is not ID. I thoroughly expect that someday the whole debate will be reconciled to everyone's complete satisfaction, but today probably isn't going to be that day.

 

Not if the complete picture is not taken into consideration.  As long as you refuse to recognize and consider the effects each has on the other nothing will be resolved.

[thesometimesaint]

Not if the complete picture is not taken into consideration.  As long as you refuse to recognize and consider the effects each has on the other nothing will be resolved.

 

I'm sure that God knows how he did it, and am reasonably sure that he hasn't told us yet.

[BCSpace]

You are asking for the same thing as a monkey typing out Shakespeares works randomly on a typewriter. Thats the basic equivalent.

 

This argument shows a complete lack of understanding of randomness and chaos in science which are actually governed by laws and neither of which precludes God's hand.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, a million monkeys on a million typewriters over a million years. Which is in the order of magnitude evolution deals with.

It is even more than that. It is that they type it all in order word for word. Nothing is random other than the actual act of the monkey's banging away on key boards. Everything else has to be in order. And though there is a mathematical possibility to it there is also a mathematical improbability. I would say lets try it and see if it works actually put it to test.

 

I get the math behind chance but the reality is that you cannot predict chance esp if you have a million variables. it just doesn't translate into the real world. I mean, that if you say, "Hey, here is a coin. If you flip it 3 times it has to land heads up all 3 times". You can predict chance fairly well when there are few variables . But when you put those variables on a 3D graph and you have a million plots there is just no way to really predict that with any certainty.

 

 

It always brings me back to the guitar center game. If you spelled "Drum Roll" you could win a million dollars. Of course you only get 3 chances. And you have to roll all 8 dice every time. You can predict chance but you could roll it 3 times and get it all 3 times. Or you could roll it 10 times the predicted chance amount and never roll it. I mean chance is not a guarantee and that is what some people seem to think it means that.

 

Anyway interesting conversation.

Edited April 8, 2014 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Empire State isn't made of bricks, it's steel

Rofl.

[Rob Osborn]

They have done simulations on cumputers to see if it could write intelligent commands through a random selective process. So far they have shown that only very small sequences can be written out randomly and that when those sequences are combined they have no truly useful intelligent information- the type that actually writes a new program. When one look at the whole DNA operation it is an actual program- a complete program. Evolution would demand that this was not always the case- that at some point early on it was a very incomplete program. It thus really begs the question of how the program itself was able to assemble itself into intelligent information while it was still in the early stages where many of the missing pieces would haveprevented it from existing. Of other importance to note, there is no documentation anywhere in nature where we have seen the early stages of chemical evolution taking place creating intelligent information. What we do have is either- basic chemicals producing no intelligence at all or fully functioning programs like DNA.

[Ahab]

Evolution is based on 5 simple ideas.

1. All living things die.

2. All living organisms must reproduce before they die, or the species dies out.

3. All living things produce more offspring than can reproduce before they die.

4. All living things that produce offspring through sexual reproduction reproduce slightly different than themselves.

5. Only those offspring that live long enough to reproduce pass on those differences before they die.

And that's why evolution is not in harmony with what God has revealed about how various kinds of life first appeared on this planet.

Life is eternal, and if Adam and Eve had not fallen they and all of the other kinds of life would have never experienced death.

What we see now is a fallen world, not an example of the way life is in its natural state.

[katherine the great]

Evolution is a fact.  We don't have to believe in something for it to be true.

[Ahab]

Evolution is a fact. We don't have to believe in something for it to be true.

I think this is one of those whirlwind issues somebody was talking about during conference.

It's amazing how many people will believe in something that isn't true.

[cdowis]

I have no problem ID, but it is not science

 

OK, it is meta science.  Think of life and organisms as an orchestra, with many different instruments.  

 

But what instrument does the conductor or the composer play. Should we be upset, should we demand that the conductor play some instrument and discount what he does?

[Wanderer7]

And that's why evolution is not in harmony with what God has revealed about how various kinds of life first appeared on this planet.

Life is eternal, and if Adam and Eve had not fallen they and all of the other kinds of life would have never experienced death.

What we see now is a fallen world, not an example of the way life is in its natural state.

Evolution is not in harmony of a particular reading of the text that includes some things that aren't there. Of course, we're all welcome to our own interpretations of what IS there. I'm not aware of anywhere in the text that says before Adam and Eve there was no death--only during. And that we only know for sure was what was found in the garden at that time. To say there was no death before Adam and Eve is to say that everything that was ever created for the millions of years preceding Adam and Eve was still alive up until a few thousand years ago.

[katherine the great]

I think this is one of those whirlwind issues somebody was talking about during conference.

It's amazing how many people will believe in something that isn't true.

I believe in something when the evidence for it is overwhelming and evidence against it is sparse.  For me, this includes evolution as well as the existence of God.

[bu11fr0g]

Many genes have the same function in humans and fruit flies. The dna spelling is even similar.

[thesometimesaint]

And that's why evolution is not in harmony with what God has revealed about how various kinds of life first appeared on this planet.

Life is eternal, and if Adam and Eve had not fallen they and all of the other kinds of life would have never experienced death.

What we see now is a fallen world, not an example of the way life is in its natural state.

 

God in the Bible died on a cross some 2000 years ago,

[thesometimesaint]

OK, it is meta science.  Think of life and organisms as an orchestra, with many different instruments.  

 

But what instrument does the conductor or the composer play. Should we be upset, should we demand that the conductor play some instrument and discount what he does?

 

No one seriously doubts that music conductors are intelligent, or at least somewhat so. That is just a variation on the watchmakers fallacy.

[Ahab]

Evolution is not in harmony of a particular reading of the text that includes some things that aren't there. Of course, we're all welcome to our own interpretations of what IS there. I'm not aware of anywhere in the text that says before Adam and Eve there was no death--only during. And that we only know for sure was what was found in the garden at that time. To say there was no death before Adam and Eve is to say that everything that was ever created for the millions of years preceding Adam and Eve was still alive up until a few thousand years ago.

2 Nephi 2:22

Now you can't say nobody ever gave you a scripture reference stating there was no death (on this planet) before the fall of Adam and Eve.

You can still choose to not believe it, though.

[Ahab]

God in the Bible died on a cross some 2000 years ago,

Yes, but the theory of men supposing God or any other kind of being evolved from a lower kind of life is still false.

Micro- evolution (and its opposite, which we can refer to as a fall) is possible for each kind of being, but no kind of being can ever become another kind of being.

And yes you can choose to not believe that if you don't want to.