Hardware software random

Originally posted by Great King Rat
I will write it in bold and caps so that you can't miss it:

[b]HAVE YOU READ TWHITEHEAD'S POST - THE SECOND POST OF THIS THREAD - CONCERNING THIS VERY QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING??[/b]

. A later innovation is the parallel circulation to the lungs, followed by the appearance of septa and the four-chambered heart in reptiles, birds, and mammals.

Similarity of design could account for this "innovation."

You propose a system which "knows" nothing and has no goal. How then can it "innovate" ?

Wiki Innovation

Innovation is a new idea, device or process.[1] Innovation can be viewed as the application of better solutions that meet new requirements, inarticulated needs, or existing market needs.[2] This is accomplished through more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments and society. The term innovation can be defined as something original and more effective and, as a consequence, new, that "breaks into" the market or society.[3]

Originally posted by sonship
Twice.
Want me to read it again ?

I didn't understand all of it and I don't think you do either.

You don’t understand it and yet you feel quite sure in saying most of it is probably wrong?

What’s your level of education with regards to genetics, sonship? How much do you actually know about how DNA works?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
You don’t understand it and yet you feel quite sure in saying most of it is probably wrong?

What’s your level of education with regards to genetics, sonship? How much do you actually know about how DNA works?

You don’t understand it and yet you feel quite sure in saying most of it is probably wrong?

I highlighted the part that I do understand clearly and raise an objection. That is not to say there may not be some other things valid in the sample of a lengthy technical discussion.

This goes back to handwaving on minute matters and failing to grasp problems with the overall scheme.

What "innovation" ?

Now with ID I could imagine the result of "innovation" because you have a designing intelligence.

What’s your level of education with regards to genetics, sonship? How much do you actually know about how DNA works?

I am no professional geneticist is that is what you are asking.
But as I was reading something at the time it was on the probability problems with the proper optimal folding of the DNA molecule.

You might as well give up the launch of attack that "He who is educated believes in evolution. He who is not educated has doubt."

The generalization is weak. And I think it is going to become weaker in the next 20 years, severely.

Originally posted by sonship
In discussions on biology with evolutionists I find often they are credentialists.

That is not the case with me. In fact I have many times tried to discourage you from posting long winded quotes from people simply because they had nice credentials to their name. If anything I would say you are more of a credentialist than I am.

The big picture is grasped by me ...
No, it clearly isn't.

The third thing I have noticed is that evolutionists evade the origin of life as if that is not a problem to the theory. "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" is an excuse that I have grown tired of. You cannot dismiss the origin problem to some other discipline if evolution at large took place.
Which discipline do you believe it is being dismissed from? What is your actual claim here? That evolution could be disproved if abiogenesis never took place? In what way do you feel the origin of life is a 'problem to the theory'?

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] It's been explained to you many times now. I guess the most important thing to remember is that there is no forethought involved in evolutionary development, so when those first few cells for what would evolve into a heart formed, they were either useful to the organism in some other way, or they got to piggy ride with other traits that made the orga ...[text shortened]... Do you realize how much faith that calls for to believe that with - "no direction, no end goal"?

Ask yourself why a heart beats, and then rethink your question, because as it stands it makes no sense whatsoever.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] It's been explained to you many times now. I guess the most important thing to remember is that there is no forethought involved in evolutionary development, so when those first few cells for what would evolve into a heart formed, they were either useful to the organism in some other way, or they got to piggy ride with other traits that made the orga ...[text shortened]... Do you realize how much faith that calls for to believe that with - "no direction, no end goal"?

Notice that King Rat misquoted me. And if a paraphrase it was not representative of what I wrote.

rt ("A mutation caused the first heart to beat once, a second mutation caused the heart to beat twice..." )

Originally posted by sonship

You don’t understand it and yet you feel quite sure in saying most of it is probably wrong?

I highlighted the part that I do understand clearly and raise an objection. That is not to say there may not be some other things valid in the sample of a lengthy technical discussion.

This goes back to handwaving on minute matters and failing ...[text shortened]... generalization is weak. And I think it is going to become weaker in the next 20 years severely.

This goes back to handwaving on minute matters and failing to grasp problems with the overall scheme.

You, instead, pick-and-choose one particular phrase, say “that sounds like ID”, and then cling to that idea. Conversely, when you are confronted with countless examples of terrible design, such as how the very thing that makes life possible – namely the replication of DNA – is also responsible for the deaths of countless organisms – namely cancer, you not only don’t see that as arguments against ID, no, you actually come up with farfetched excuses as to why that would happen (sin blablabla).

Now with ID I could imagine the result of "innovation" because you have a designing intelligence.

Yes, you shoot down occurrence of various life forms by means of luck because you “can’t believe it”, and instead come up with an intelligent designer, yet don’t care one bit that there is actually no evidence for the existence of such a being whatsoever. Funny how that works.

I am no professional geneticist is that is what you are asking.

That isn’t what I am asking, however if I am right in thinking that you really know virtually nothing about the very basics of DNA and DNA replication, then it stands to reason you certainly don’t know anything about much more complex questions concerning developments of organs and organisms. Your arrogance is quite mindblowing.

Originally posted by sonship
This goes back to handwaving on minute matters and failing to grasp problems with the overall scheme.

You claim there is a problem with the overall scheme. To demonstrate your claim, you mention a specific issue. When we try to discuss the specific issue, you claim that is just handwaving on minute matters and you are not interested in discussing it. What are you interested in discussing, if anything?

Please state clearly what problems you see with the over all scheme, and how we are supposed to address your concerns without referring to specific examples.

It is my opinion that once you understand a specific example, you will see that the overall scheme is valid, after all, if it works for hearts it should work for livers, lungs, eyes, and other organs too surely?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is not the case with me. In fact I have many times tried to discourage you from posting long winded quotes from people simply because they had nice credentials to their name. If anything I would say you are more of a credentialist than I am.

[b]The big picture is grasped by me ...
No, it clearly isn't.

The third thing I have noticed is ...[text shortened]... nesis never took place? In what way do you feel the origin of life is a 'problem to the theory'?

That is not the case with me. In fact I have many times tried to discourage you from posting long winded quotes from people simply because they had nice credentials to their name. If anything I would say you are more of a credentialist than I am.

I have posted some interesting quotations not merely because they had nice credentials but because the observations were significant.

Their backrounds just save some people time from going to find out who so-and-so is. And it is a good id to give a source for a quote on the forum.

The big picture is grasped by me ...
No, it clearly isn't.

The overall scheme grasped by me but not believed.

I don't believe in your "no goal" and "no knowing" program.

I believe that you can argue forever. That I believe, that you have exhaustless rationales to make this evolution belief plausible sounding.

The third thing I have noticed is that evolutionists evade the origin of life as if that is not a problem to the theory. "Evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life" is an excuse that I have grown tired of. You cannot dismiss the origin problem to some other discipline if evolution at large took place.
Which discipline do you believe it is being dismissed from?

What is your actual claim here? That evolution could be disproved if abiogenesis never took place? In what way do you feel the origin of life is a 'problem to the theory'?

Why shouldn't the theory explain the origin of all life ?
That is unless the problem is too hard that it is punted off to someone else.



This is the "Get em talking and talking until you can pounce on some little inconsistency game."

"Explain what you mean. And explain what that means. And explain what that means. " So you hunt for some inconsistency to pounce on and "prove" that you know more about evolution which no one in the right mind should question.

I don't think you yourself understood the paste you put up exhaustively.
Tell me which elements of the paragraph you did not understand.
Or were there none?

The cells around this structure express genes homologous to NKX2.5/tinman, and gradual specialization of this "gastroderm" results in the appearance of mesoderm in the phylum Bilateria, which will produce the first primitive cardiac myocytes.

Explain this in your own words now if you fully grasp it.

The appearance of Chordata and subsequently the vertebrates is accompanied by a rapid structural diversification of this primitive linear heart: looping, unidirectional circulation, an enclosed vasculature, and the conduction system.

How rapid in terms of years between diverse structures ?
Why should it have been "rapid". What's the hurry?

There is no knowledge and no goal in evolution.

Originally posted by sonship
Why shouldn't the theory explain the origin of all life ?

Because no matter how life started, the fact of evolution remains the same.

In other words, the theory of evolution is not a theory that deals with how life started. What you're asking is tantamount to asking why the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how the first germs came into existence. The answer, because it's irrelevant to the theory.

Originally posted by C Hess
Because no matter how life started, the fact of evolution remains the same.

In other words, the theory of evolution is not a theory that deals with how life started. What you're asking is tantamount to asking why the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how the first germs came into existence. The answer, because it's irrelevant to the theory.

Not true, it was started with intent nothing about it would be random.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Not true, it was started with intent nothing about it would be random.

?

Originally posted by C Hess
Because no matter how life started, the fact of evolution remains the same.

In other words, the theory of evolution is not a theory that deals with how life started. What you're asking is tantamount to asking why the germ theory of disease doesn't explain how the first germs came into existence. The answer, because it's irrelevant to the theory.

Well, I do not think it is unreasonable. You have an explanation supposedly for the change of organisms and the origination of species. And the process is not examined as to how life originated?

I don't think it is an unreasonable inquiry and I would respect the answer of "We don't have a clue" to reasoning that it doesn't have anything to do with it.

Did you ever wonder what the very first instance of biological natural selection must have been?

Originally posted by sonship
I have posted some interesting quotations not merely because they had nice credentials but because the observations were significant.

In many cases it looked like you were merely saying "look! this guy with big credentials said something similar to what I am saying!".
So if I have misunderstood you on that perhaps you have misunderstood other posters with regards to credentials.

The overall scheme grasped by me but not believed.
Belief is not required: hence I know for a fact that you do not grasp it.

This is the "Get em talking and talking until you can pounce on some little inconsistency game."
No, it isn't. You made a claim and I asked for clarification. Why do you not find that reasonable?

I don't think you yourself understood the paste you put up exhaustively.
If you are talking about my first post in the thread, then no, I did not understand it all. But I understood enough to know it should in part answer Kellys question, and lead him down the right path of research if he is really interested.

How rapid in terms of years between diverse structures ?
Probably millions of years, read the full article for estimates. Does it matter?

Why should it have been "rapid".
It shouldn't. It just was. they are talking about what happened not what should have happened.

There is no knowledge and no goal in evolution.
Correct. And nothing in that article suggests otherwise.

Originally posted by sonship
Well, I do not think it is unreasonable. You have an explanation supposedly for the change of organisms and the origination of species. And the process is not examined as to how life originated?

I don't think it is an unreasonable inquiry and I would respect the answer of "We don't have a clue" to reasoning that it doesn't have anything to do with it. ...[text shortened]... Did you ever wonder what the very first instance of biological natural selection must have been?

Of course it's a very interesting question, how life started, and we don't yet know how, but that has nothing to do with how life evolves, and how life evolves is what the evolutionary theory is all about. If my example wasn't clear, consider this:

You investigate a murder. You have DNA evidence placing your suspect at the scene of the crime, and you have a recording of the suspect walking into the building at the time of murder. You also find blood residue from the victim on the suspect's shoes. Now, considering this evidence, you present your theory (with that much evidence, it's safe to call it a theory). Then, from the back of the room someone asks: "Ah, but what about where and when the suspect was born? You didn't think of that, did you? Ha! Got ya!"

Would that be a relevant objection to the theory presented? It may be interesting to know that, for other reasons, but it is of no consequence to the fact of the murder. Similarly, how life started is of no consequence to the fact of evolution.