Evolution vs Creationism/I.D. consolidation thread.

Originally posted by quackquack
Well, if you can't explain where god came from you are not explaining anything evolution doesn't.

I never said that belief in evolution can't have the same answers as belief in a Created universe. Both beliefs require one to accept certain things that can't be demonstrated as fact and require a leap of faith.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]What do I personally think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has got to do with evolution?

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory of everything and an equation to represent it would never be able to do it, because there would be something they would have to assume that they could not prove and this applies to every true or false. I believe evilution is based on many false assumptions.

The Instructor[/b]

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory of everything and an equation to represent it would never be able to do it

That is simply not true. You have just exposed your total ignorance on what the theorem is about. Putting it a bit simplistically (I think a more thorough and accurate explanation would be totally wasted on you ), Godel's Incompleteness theorem basically only shows that:

1, there must be statements in mathematics that are unprovable but which are nevertheless true.

2, any language sophisticated enough to contain and include mathematics as an inseparable part of it cannot be proven either mathematically or via some other form of pure deductive logic to be totally logically self-consistent.

As I say, that's putting it a bit simplistically, but, nevertheless, that's basically it! A “theory of everything” would not even relate to this because a “theory of everything” would mean a theory that explains the whole of PHYSICS and NOT mathematics!!! The fact that a theory of everything may be expressed with an equation is totally irrelevant to this because nothing in Godel's Incompleteness theorem would imply that such an equation could not be expressed and also it isn't itself a 'language' even though it is expressed using a language.

because there would be something they would have to assume that they could not prove and this applies to every system.

you just made two false statements there: the “something” would have to be mathematics, NOT physics, to be relevant to Godel's theory. It is perfectly possible to prove an assumption made in physicals via observation and there is nothing in Godel's theory that implies you cannot make a theory of everything (in physics ) with no unprovable assumptions.

Also, Godel's theory does NOT apply to “every system” and, since a theory of everything would not even be a 'language', rule 2 above means Godel's theory would NOT apply to a theory of everything.

Evolution can't be proved.

It already has been proven.

So since evolution is a system of belief about how the biological system of life works, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also applies to it.

False; Godel's theory applies to LANGUAGES only (which are not in any sense physical but constructed by us and generally only those that include mathematics ) and therefore NOT theorems about “biological system” because a “biological system” is NOT a language!

You can't prove that you know everything about evolution that can be known.

Straw man; Who claims this? -answer, nobody. And this has nothing to do with Godel's theory anyway.

all of your proofs about evolution are based on at least one assumption.

firstly, there is no unproven “assumption” here because evolution has been proven by the physical evidence.
Secondly, since those “proofs” are not mathematical languages nor mathematical theorems, Godel's theory has NOTHING to say about them.

Well?

Originally posted by humy

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory of everything and an equation to represent it would never be able to do it

That is simply not true. You have just exposed your total ignorance on what the theorem is about. Putting it a bit simplistically (I think a more thorough and accurate explanation would be t ...[text shortened]... thematical theorems, Godel's theory has NOTHING to say about them.

Well?

DNA stores a language code that programs for life.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
DNA stores a language code that programs for life.

The Instructor

That makes no sense. It's like you saying I want a hamburger and I say go squash it with a rocking chair.

Originally posted by sonhouse
That makes no sense. It's like you saying I want a hamburger and I say go squash it with a rocking chair.

Maybe you just don't have the intelligence to make sense of it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
DNA stores a language code that programs for life.

The Instructor

When we talk about the "language" of DNA or the genetic code, we are attaching a non-standard meaning and an analogous meaning to the word "language" which doesn't imply a true language but rather implies it is 'language-like'.
For something to be a true language, at least the type Godel was talking about, one of the minimal requirements is that it must be possible to express a HYPOTHESIS with it. Clearly, no 'hypothesis' would be expressed in the genetic code.

The genetic code and the way it works is PHYSICAL and is NOT a true language let alone a true language that has mathematics as an inseparable part of it! Therefore, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has absolutely nothing to say about it.

Remember what I said Godel's theorum actually says:
“....

Godel's Incompleteness theorem basically only shows that:

1, there must be statements in mathematics that are unprovable but which are nevertheless true.

2, any language sophisticated enough to contain and include mathematics as an inseparable part of it cannot be proven either mathematically or via some other form of pure deductive logic to be totally logically self-consistent.

...”

for the genetic code and the way it works to be a TRUE LANGUAGE and one that Godel's theory applies to, 1, and 2, above would have to apply to it. But that would be pure nonsense because, for 1 to apply, there would somehow have to be “statements” in the generic code that actually express a hypothesis!!! else it would be nonsensical to say such a “statement” could not be “unprovable”. How can something that is NOT a hypothesis be either 'provable' or 'unprovable'? Can a single gene be either 'provable' or 'unprovable' and, if so, in what sense? This is nonsensical.
For 2 above to apply, the genetic code and the way it works would have to have to be a language that “contain and include mathematics as an inseparable part of it”. But the genetic code and the way it works is not even a true language let alone one that defines mathematics.

So what you imply here is just simply totally nonsensical.

So you have done nothing here to answer my original question I put to you which was:

IN YOUR OWN WORDS ONLY, what on earth do YOU personally think Godel's incompleteness theorem has got to do with evolution?

well?

Originally posted by humy
When we talk about the "language" of DNA or the genetic code, we are attaching a non-standard meaning and an analogous meaning to the word "language" which doesn't imply a true language but rather implies it is 'language-like'.
For something to be a true language, at least the type Godel was talking about, one of the minimal requirements is that it must be po ...[text shortened]... Godel's incompleteness theorem has got to do with evolution?

well?[/b]

Yes indeed, it is a language. Even though it is not a spoken language,
it is called a language, because it is a language that can be read and understood.

What do I personally think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has got to do with evolution?

For the second time:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory of everything and an equation to represent it would never be able to do it, because there would be something they would have to assume that they could not prove and this applies to every system.

So since evilution is a system of belief about how the biological system of life works, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also applies to it. Evilution can't be proved. You can't prove that you know everything about evilution that can be known. There is always some knowledge about the cause of evilution you don't know, so all of your proofs about evilution are based on at least one assumption. That assumption is either true or false. I believe evilution is based on many false assumptions.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes indeed, it is a language. Even though it is not a spoken language,
it is called a language, because it is a language that can be read and understood.

[b]What do I personally think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has got to do with evolution?

For the second time:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory o true or false. I believe evilution is based on many false assumptions.

The Instructor[/b]

it is called a language, because it is a language that can be read and understood.

Its not a TRUE language. The fossil record can be “read and understood”, so the fossil record is a “true language? 😛 Tree rings can also be “read and understood”. So tree rings are a “true language” ? 😛

OK, TRY and get this through your thick skull once and for all: as I have already explained:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem only applies to languages which expresses HYPOTHESES.

Firstly, are you so STUPID as to not understand the above?
If not, do you DENY the above? -if so, please demonstrate to us HOW the above is NOT true and explain in your own words what Godel's Incompleteness Theorem says and how that contradicts the above assertion..... -if not, then give us ANY example of any piece of generic code that expresses a HYPOTHESIS -and, if you cannot do that, explain how Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be relevant here when it only applies to languages which expresses HYPOTHESES.

What do I personally think Godel's Incompleteness Theorem has got to do with evolution?

For the second time: ….

….and then you repeat the same total CRAP I have already debunked in the previous post. So, for the second time, Reminder:

"....

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem showed that those looking to prove a theory of everything and an equation to represent it would never be able to do it

That is simply not true. You have just exposed your total ignorance on what the theorem is about. Putting it a bit simplistically (I think a more thorough and accurate explanation would be totally wasted on you ), Godel's Incompleteness theorem basically only shows that:

1, there must be statements in mathematics that are unprovable but which are nevertheless true.

2, any language sophisticated enough to contain and include mathematics as an inseparable part of it cannot be proven either mathematically or via some other form of pure deductive logic to be totally logically self-consistent.

As I say, that's putting it a bit simplistically, but, nevertheless, that's basically it! A “theory of everything” would not even relate to this because a “theory of everything” would mean a theory that explains the whole of PHYSICS and NOT mathematics!!! The fact that a theory of everything may be expressed with an equation is totally irrelevant to this because nothing in Godel's Incompleteness theorem would imply that such an equation could not be expressed and also it isn't itself a 'language' even though it is expressed using a language.

because there would be something they would have to assume that they could not prove and this applies to every system.

you just made two false statements there: the “something” would have to be mathematics, NOT physics, to be relevant to Godel's theory. It is perfectly possible to prove an assumption made in physics via observation and there is nothing in Godel's theory that implies you cannot make a theory of everything (in physics ) with no unprovable assumptions.

Also, Godel's theory does NOT apply to “every system” and, since a theory of everything would not even be a 'language', rule 2 above means Godel's theory would NOT apply to a theory of everything.

Evolution can't be proved.

It has already has been proven.

So since evolution is a system of belief about how the biological system of life works, Godel's Incompleteness Theorem also applies to it.

False; Godel's theory applies to LANGUAGES only (which are not in any sense physical but constructed by us and generally only those that include mathematics ) and therefore NOT theorems about “biological system” because a “biological system” is NOT a language!

You can't prove that you know everything about evolution that can be known.

Straw man; Who claims this? -answer, nobody. And this has nothing to do with Godel's theory anyway.

all of your proofs about evolution are based on at least one assumption.

firstly, there is no unproven “assumption” here because evolution has been proven by the physical evidence.
Secondly, since those “proofs” are not mathematical languages nor mathematical theorems, Godel's theory has NOTHING to say about them.

Well?

..."

You have done nothing to counter-argue the above but merely repeated the same crap rather than making an argument against its debunk as if somehow endlessly repeating the same debunked crap would demonstrate it not being debunked 😛

Originally posted by humy

it is called a language, because it is a language that can be read and understood.

Its not a TRUE language. The fossil record can be “read and understood”, so the fossil record is a “true language? 😛 Tree rings can also be “read and understood”. So tree rings are a “true language” ? 😛

OK, TRY and get this through your thick skull onc ...[text shortened]... ting the same debunked crap would demonstrate it not being debunked 😛

The fossil record can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. Tree rings also can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. These things are not called languages because they are NOT languages and contain no information. A true language must contain information that can be read and understood. The DNA molecule contains a computer program language with information that can be read and understood.

You are not going to accept anything I say in my own words, so I will point out the following Wikipedia article that specifically mentions computer programs as included in Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

Gödel's incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert's program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert's second problem.

The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an "effective procedure" (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fossil record can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. Tree rings also can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. These things are not called languages because they are NOT languages and contain no information. A true language must contain information that can be read and understood. The DNA molecule contains a co ...[text shortened]... y.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

The Instructor

Where do you go from DNA being a code to being a language? Are you implying we can perhaps read stories into it? Mary had a little lamb.....

Originally posted by RJHinds
The fossil record can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. Tree rings also can NOT be “read and understood”, but only speculated about. These things are not called languages because they are NOT languages and contain no information. A true language must contain information that can be read and understood. The DNA molecule contains a co y.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_incompleteness_theorems

The Instructor

so I will point out the following Wikipedia article that specifically mentions computer programs as included in Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

...and the quotes that you quote next only confirms what I have been saying. Obviously, you don't understand any of that from Wikipedia else you wouldn't score an own goal by quoting it as if it somehow contradicts what I had said. I guess you must be just too stupid to understand any of it but are so dishonest as to just pretend you understand all of it.

I repeat, for the reasons I have already painstakingly explained in previous posts:

Godel's Incompleteness Theorem only applies to languages which expresses HYPOTHESES.

This above is not contradicted by anything you can quote from Wikipedia including your chosen quotes and you haven't even denied the above after I painstakingly explained why this must be so in previous posts.
Since the genetic code obviously does not express any hypotheses (because that would be totally nonsensical ), it obviously logically follows that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem doesn't apply to the genetic code. And the theorem certainly does not apply to evolution which, regardless of whether you are talking about the theory of evolution or the process of evolution, is not even a language.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Where do you go from DNA being a code to being a language? Are you implying we can perhaps read stories into it? Mary had a little lamb.....

Scientist have already determined that they can store their own information in DNA and to write their own programs in it. Have you forget this? I believe you were the one that posted a link to it.

The Instructor

Originally posted by humy

so I will point out the following Wikipedia article that specifically mentions computer programs as included in Gödel's incompleteness theorems:

...and the quotes that you quote next only confirms what I have been saying. Obviously, you don't understand any of that from Wikipedia else you wouldn't score an own goal by quoting it as if it ...[text shortened]... about the theory of evolution or the process of evolution, is not even a language.

You gave no reference for your assertion. I gave reference to mine and it says it includes computer programs. Bill Gates of Microsoft has already stated, "DNA is like a software program, only much more complex than anything we've ever devised."

Scientists have already detemined that the DNA molecule carries the genetic language, but the language itself is independent of its carrier. The same genetic information can be written in a book, stored in a compact disk or sent over the Internet, and yet the quality or content of the information is not changed by changing the means of conveying it.

So you need to get educated on what is happening in science instead of remaining in ignorance to new discoveries.

The Instructor

Originally posted by RJHinds
Scientist have already determined that they can store their own information in DNA and to write their own programs in it. Have you forget this? I believe you were the one that posted a link to it.

The Instructor

Scientist have already determined that they can store their own information in DNA and to write their own programs in it.

How does this change the fact that the genetic code in nature is not used to store hypotheses and therefore the genetic code in nature doesn't store the kind of true 'language' that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be applied to?

whether we can artificially represent a computer program or any other information not represented by the natural function of DNA in the DNA itself is irrelevant here because computer programs and information not related to the natural function of DNA is NOT represented in DNA in nature and it is in nature where evolution occurs. In nature, there are NO computer programs represented in the genetic code because our computers don't come from nature therefore being able to arbitrarily represent a computer program in DNA would have nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by humy

Scientist have already determined that they can store their own information in DNA and to write their own programs in it.

How does this change the fact that the genetic code in nature is not used to store hypotheses and therefore the genetic code in nature doesn't store the kind of true 'language' that Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can b ...[text shortened]... programs represented in the genetic code because our computers don't even exist in nature.

Trying to explain something to you is like trying to explain something to Ali G.

The Instructor