Originally posted by NemesioHow many times do I have to repeat myself, yes they are not the
Do you have a reason for believing that this is apples and oranges?
I say it's apples and apples. Here's my reason. The eyes are physiologically
very similar: they use a camera-style processing, with light entering in the pupil,
going through a lens and landing on a retina. Whale and dolphin eyes are
like ours, with good longevity in the water. So ...[text shortened]... equally good longevity.
So, what reason do you have to disbelieve this?
Nemesio
same! One lives in the water the other does not, you could compare
it to sharks, gold fish, whales, and those too would be apples and
oranges because they live in the water and we do not. You may as
well compare them to flies if all you want to do is say one is better
than another.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseHere is the deal; DNA has been around since life started, okay so what?
Here is the deal with DNA: It has been around since life started and has bits and pieces of everything that has evolved. The amount of information stored is immense. There are hidden resources inside DNA that enables a lifeform to change in response to the environment, like cold or hot. These kind of stresses activate hidden treasures inside DNA that previo ...[text shortened]... the lifeform in question is stress somehow, less food, dry conditions, heat, cold, whatever.
That just means one thing, DNA has been around since life started, it
could just as easily mean it is the design process of choice nothing more.
The amount of information is indeed immense, so much so that I fail to
see how any intelligent person can think all of that code was not written
on purpose, that it all just coded itself through time without any intent at
all. The more we understand about DNA like your hidden treasure the
more pause it should give you on how could that just mutate into existence
without anyone or thing giving thought to the many subtle nuances within
the code.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…The amount of information is indeed immense, so much so that I fail to
Here is the deal; DNA has been around since life started, okay so what?
That just means one thing, DNA has been around since life started, it
could just as easily mean it is the design process of choice nothing more.
The amount of information is indeed immense, so much so that I fail to
see how any intelligent person can think all of that code was not w ...[text shortened]... nce
without anyone or thing giving thought to the many subtle nuances within
the code.
Kelly
see how any intelligent person can think all of that code was not written
on purpose
..…
How does it logically follow from:
1, “The amount of information is indeed immense”
that:
2, “the information was written on purpose”
?
The amount of information that represents the current state of the worlds weather with all those complex air vortices and air and sea currents and temperature gradients and air velocity and pressure gradients etc is “immense”; -so does that mean that the current weather was made on purpose?
Also, what about junk DNA? Why would a “god” write junk DNA into our genome? What is the “purpose” of writing junk DNA when it would make more sense to just write functional DNA?
And what about genetic parasites? ( http://www.sciencentral.com/articles/view.php3?type=article&article_id=218393012 ) what is the “purpose” of segments of such DNA that give no survival benefit to the host but just do nothing but self-replicate within the genome and look after themselves? -any “intelligent” person would think all of that code was NOT written on purpose.
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonThe amount of information that represents the worlds weather is coded
[b]…The amount of information is indeed immense, so much so that I fail to
see how any intelligent person can think all of that code was not written
on purpose
..…
How does it logically follow from:
1, “The amount of information is indeed immense”
that:
2, “the information was written on purpose”
?
The amount of information ...[text shortened]... r themselves? -any “intelligent” person would think all of that code was NOT written on purpose.[/b]
some where? Junk DNA, simply because we don't know why it is there
does not mean it isn't there for a reason.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJay…The amount of information that represents the worlds weather is coded
The amount of information that represents the worlds weather is coded
some where? Junk DNA, simply because we don't know why it is there
does not mean it isn't there for a reason.
Kelly
some where?…
Yes; it is coded in the actual current physical state of the weather -i.e. the precise physical position of the air currents, vortices, the precise position of air molecules etc. there is a lot of information there -just not in a form that we can conveniently access.
-so does this information have a “purpose”?
…Junk DNA, simply because we don't know why it is there
does not mean it isn't there for a reason. ..…
It is only rational to assume that the simplest hypotheses that explains the known facts is the most probable:
We don’t know of any “purpose” for MOST of the junk DNA (although it does help to speedup evolution -something you disbelieve, and some junk DNA is partially functional although, as far as we know, most of it is useless): the simplest hypotheses that explains this known fact that we don’t know of any “purpose” for MOST of the junk DNA is simply that there is no “purpose” to know!
Have you got any premise for the belief that MOST of the junk DNA has a “purpose”? -can you rationally justify such a belief?
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYea, right.
[b]…The amount of information that represents the worlds weather is coded
some where?…
Yes; it is coded in the actual current physical state of the weather -i.e. the precise physical position of the air currents, vortices, the precise position of air molecules etc. there is a lot of information there -just not in a form that we can convenien ...[text shortened]... e belief that MOST of the junk DNA has a “purpose”? -can you rationally justify such a belief?[/b]
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou asked for systems that appear to be designed, but aren't. "Old Faithful" is so named because of the regularity and predictability of its eruptions, kind of like a watch.
You are telling me that you believe Old Faithful is a system actually
on par with a living system, any living system, or any of these other
examples?
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJaySo "we can look at what is require to work it all out, it does follow we can duplicate the feats." Does that mean we can create a living thing, such as a giraffe, out of non-living matter?
There are a lot of things in this life that are designed, from ant hills,
birds nests, bee hives, alarm clocks and depending upon the level
of complexity we can look at what is required to work it all out, it does
follow we can duplicate the feats.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayI can see where your blindness occurs, it is because you think the world only 6-7 K years old. In the reality WE live in, the world is actually billions of years old and the first DNA appeared on earth literally more than a billion years ago. I doubt you even WANT to contemplate that amount of time but continents pull apart and crash together 5 times in that amount of time and DNA has had a lot of experiments to pull all the information together, no designer needed, just time spilling out forever, nearly. So a lot of stuff can be built into DNA in a billion years. Of course I have no illusions of any of this getting through your religion blinded skull.
Here is the deal; DNA has been around since life started, okay so what?
That just means one thing, DNA has been around since life started, it
could just as easily mean it is the design process of choice nothing more.
The amount of information is indeed immense, so much so that I fail to
see how any intelligent person can think all of that code was not w ...[text shortened]... nce
without anyone or thing giving thought to the many subtle nuances within
the code.
Kelly
Originally posted by PBE6Point that out to me, I didn't see it other than it stated the belief
They explain why we know which direction evolution occurred in. 😕
that things closely related looked closely related. The direction of the
evolution was then assumed to be moving toward complexity neither
post show why it was believed to true over the other.
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseDid you see me use the dates 6-7K anywhere in my post at all?
I can see where your blindness occurs, it is because you think the world only 6-7 K years old. In the reality WE live in, the world is actually billions of years old and the first DNA appeared on earth literally more than a billion years ago. I doubt you even WANT to contemplate that amount of time but continents pull apart and crash together 5 times in tha ...[text shortened]... years. Of course I have no illusions of any of this getting through your religion blinded skull.
I don't know how old the universe is, my arguments about this stuff
has nothing to do with dates, you can have billions of years and still
not be able to do an impossible task. If you have to try to avoid
talking about this stuff by attempting to throw my religion into this
discussion you really must have a weak set if beliefs you cannot
defend in their own right.
Kelly