Originally posted by PBE6I have to give this one to you, timing is very important. Does this one
You 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.
replicate itself over time?
Kelly
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou really don't understand the term coding if that is what your
[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]
answer is.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayYou are the one who said the universe or the Earth is 8000 years old, you wrote it out in this thread weeks ago. You have changed you mind on this now?
Did you see me use the dates 6-7K anywhere in my post at all?
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
Originally posted by KellyJayIntelligent design is a made up story. sonhouse asked a question in the form of a thought experiment. Can you really not see the difference? Honestly. Is the difference between those two things opaque to you?
Like any explanation we give to all our questions, correct.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayThe timing aspect of Old Faithful is what gives it the appearance of a designed system (possibly designed to tell time!). However, it is a consequence of the geologic conditions in the immediate area and nothing more. You didn't ask for an example of a non-designed system that appears designed and also replicates itself.
I have to give this one to you, timing is very important. Does this one
replicate itself over time?
Kelly
However, if you're looking for something like that, look no further than the common cold. Viruses are not alive, but they are complex and they do replicate themselves.
Originally posted by KellyJayYou failed to see my point (surprise!).
How many times do I have to repeat myself, yes they are not the
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
You've already agreed that, if all other things are equal, it's better not to have
a blind spot. So, if no other mitigating liabilities exist, the blind-spotless eye
is better than one with a blind spot.
So the question is, what mitigating factors would make an octopus' camera
eye less desirable for a human to have?
Or, if you prefer, what mitigating factors would make an octopus' eye less
desirable for a whale to have?
You'll notice that a blind-spot eye can be found in both whales and humans.
They are physiologically identical. So, what intelligent reasons can you
offer for giving whales blind spots?
Nemesio
Originally posted by sonhouseAgain, why are you bringing up something that isn't part of the subject,
You are the one who said the universe or the Earth is 8000 years old, you wrote it out in this thread weeks ago. You have changed you mind on this now?
did you find you needed to changed the subject? Time has nothing to
do with the subject under discussion, you can have as much time to
as you want, it doesn't matter.
Kelly
Originally posted by NemesioI said several things about the blind spot, and one of them was I do
You failed to see my point (surprise!).
You've already agreed that, if all other things are equal, it's better not to have
a blind spot. So, if no other mitigating liabilities exist, the blind-spotless eye
is better than one with a blind spot.
So the question is, what mitigating factors would make an octopus' camera
eye less desirable for a human t ...[text shortened]... al. So, what intelligent reasons can you
offer for giving whales blind spots?
Nemesio
not know what would occur over time if we did not have one there.
That alone can be a topic of discussion, comparisions to any life form
that does not share the same exposures as our eyes do is apples and
oranges.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOne thing I was talking about was 'gene jumping', genes jumping the species barrier and here is a link to exactly that:
Again, why are you bringing up something that isn't part of the subject,
did you find you needed to changed the subject? Time has nothing to
do with the subject under discussion, you can have as much time to
as you want, it doesn't matter.
Kelly
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16124-solarpowered-sea-slug-harnesses-stolen-plant-genes-.html
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI am using a non-standard meaning of the word “coding” -there is nothing wrong with using non-standard meanings.
You really don't understand the term coding if that is what your
answer is.
Kelly
Here is a better example; the annual layers of sedimentary rock can be read a bit like a book -the analysis of each layer can reveal what the weather was like then and give a mass of other information such as what plants where growing then (from fossilised pollen etc). Thus a maintain consisting of just such sedimentary rock acts as a natural physical store of vast amounts of information that can be read by us (just like our genome acts as a natural physical store of vast amounts of information that can be read by us although, providing it isn’t junk DNA, it is also “read“ by an enzyme that makes RNA but that is not “read“ in the same sense for there is no consciousness involved)
Does that mean such annual layers in a mountain have a “purpose”? (note that I didn’t use the word “encoded” here)
Also, I repeat my question:
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 HamiltonSorry; spelling error:
I am using a non-standard meaning of the word “coding” -there is nothing wrong with using non-standard meanings.
Here is a better example; the annual layers of sedimentary rock can be read a bit like a book -the analysis of each layer can reveal what the weather was like then and give a mass of other information such as what plants where growing t ...[text shortened]... the belief that MOST of the junk DNA has a “purpose”? -can you rationally justify such a belief?
“….Thus a maintain consisting of just such sedimentary rock…”
Should have been:
“….Thus a mountain consisting of just such sedimentary rock…”
Originally posted by KellyJay
I said several things about the blind spot, and one of them was I do
not know what would occur over time if we did not have one there.
Listen, Kelly. You say you do not know, but then you an express an opinion.
You don't know how probable that opinion is; you can't even weigh the likelihood
of that opinion's strength. You can't defend it, you can't argue for it, you
can't even provide a good reason for having the opinion.
But you continue to argue as if that opinion, simply because you were able
to conceive it, had some merit.
This is why you are unable to think scientifically. All opinions have equal
weight (which is to say that no opinion has any weight), which means
nothing has any meaning. You don't actually live this way, of course,
because you make decisions all the time on the evidence you receive.
That alone can be a topic of discussion, comparisions to any life form
that does not share the same exposures as our eyes do is apples and
oranges.
You selectively ignored my whales/dolphins and octopodes question, of
course. Given that the camera eyes that we have are identical to those of
whales, there is no reason to believe that 'exposure' has anything to do
with function. But, indulging your (unweighted) opinion, what reason would
a designer have to give whales or dolphins blind spots?
Nemesio
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay… I said several things about the blind spot, and one of them was I do
I said several things about the blind spot, and one of them was I do
not know what would occur over time if we did not have one there.
That alone can be a topic of discussion, comparisions to any life form
that does not share the same exposures as our eyes do is apples and
oranges.
Kelly
not know what would occur over time if we did not have one there. .…
So, as you say you “don’t know”, how do you know that something harmful would happen over time if we did not have one there? (-if that is what you are implying?).
In an earlier post, you said you “don’t know the reason why we have a blind spot” -so how do you know there is a “reason” for it? (using the very narrow meaning of the word “reason” here that implies intent)
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonAnother non-standard word useage okay.
I am using a non-standard meaning of the word “coding” -there is nothing wrong with using non-standard meanings.
Here is a better example; the annual layers of sedimentary rock can be read a bit like a book -the analysis of each layer can reveal what the weather was like then and give a mass of other information such as what plants where growing t ...[text shortened]... the belief that MOST of the junk DNA has a “purpose”? -can you rationally justify such a belief?
Kelly