Hardware software random

Originally posted by twhitehead

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.

So that is what it looked like?
And if I leave out the credentials you'll probably ask.

Why not indicate that the person should know something about the subject?

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.

Oh, belief is not required.
Is belief a dirty word?

A scientific hypothesis as a tentative explanation requires one to believe something. For anyone to teach the theory of evolution he must take it to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.

You are informally asking be to believe that Evolution is true since you have been replying to anything I wrote here.

I believe organisms change. What I don't believe is a mindless, random, goaless process that has no plan or no "looking ahead" cognizance to test how close or far away the result of the process is to "success".

But that animals change - IE. finch beaks getting bigger or smaller with a new generation, sure. I can believe that.

That everything I see in the biosphere is the result of a no goal, no knowledge random "selection" mechanism, I don't believe.

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?

So I repeated the claim.
That much I recall.

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.

I don't know what else I would be referring to.

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.

Since you do not know completely what is being put forth, that is just an wishful assumption on your part that it is the "right path" in terms of whether evolution of the heart took place in fact in that manner.

How rapid in terms of years between diverse structures ?

Probably millions of years, read the full article for estimates. Does it matter?

Yes it matters. What you have is a "One Down 100,000 and other phenomenon to go." And they have to be all orchestrated together in such a way that timing and success all take place across a huge spectrum of things.

The blood in the heart, the heart, the muscles, the signals from the nervous system, the nervous system, and probably thousands of other things have to be simultaneously undergoing the same thing.

I don't know if there is enough time in the supposed 15 billion years of the universe for this to have worked without any plan or intelligence whatsoever.

Why should it have been "rapid".

It shouldn't. It just was. they are talking about what happened not what should have happened.

You don't know it happened. That is the discipline of History.
You can look at processes today you can observe and assume uniformity. As it happens now it probably happened in the past.

But you have flies changing but remaining flies.
You have finches changing but remaining finches.
You have dogs changing but remaining dogs.

That's what you observe. You have a belief that this can be extrapolated way beyond what we have observed to explain much more you cannot observe and cannot repeat in any lab. And you have no written history of it.

There is no knowledge and no goal in evolution.

Correct.
And nothing in that article suggests otherwise.

I didn't say the article expressed otherwise.

Originally posted by sonship
I don't believe is a mindless, random, goaless process that has no plan or no "looking ahead" cognizance to test how close or far away the result of the process is to "success".

Success is immediate. If a mutation doesn't kill the organism before it reproduces, that's success. There's no need to look ahead and see what the end result will be five thousand successful mutations later.

Originally posted by C Hess
Success is immediate. If a mutation doesn't kill the organism before it reproduces, that's success. There's no need to look ahead and see what the end result will be five thousand successful mutations later.

Success is immediate. If a mutation doesn't kill the organism before it reproduces, that's success. There's no need to look ahead and see what the end result will be five thousand successful mutations later.

There are problems with this viewpoint.

1.) What is determining that LIFE should be preserved and continued in the first place ?

The vast majority of things in the universe are not living. So why is there not a process to kill life as the prevailing development.

2.) There had to be some looking ahead. Somethings had to be held in place - static until other aspects formed. I think all the genetic algorithms that supposedly have a computer mimic this selection process, hold a positive result in place until all other changing features, one by one come into place.

This is the input of information telling the process that it is on the right track of not to arrive at a functioning part.

I cannot believe total improvisation as it goes resulted in the biosphere as I see it.

Originally posted by sonship
What is determining that LIFE should be preserved and continued in the first place ?

The vast majority of things in the universe are not living. So why is there not a process to kill life as the prevailing development.

Environmental conditions on planet earth are conducive to life.

Originally posted by sonship
There had to be some looking ahead. Somethings had to be held in place - static until other aspects formed.

Things are "held in place" by the fact that they are in the genes and not bad enough to kill the organism before it reproduces.

Originally posted by C Hess
Environmental conditions on planet earth are conducive to life.

Enviromental conditions of the planet earth are in flux and changing. Over millions of years the conditions have not remain static but have been in flux.

I don't believe the coordination between the continuous changing of the environment and adopting species could be done successfully with absolutely no intelligent design.

Originally posted by sonship
Enviromental conditions of the planet earth are in flux and changing. Over millions of years the conditions have not remain static but have been in flux.

I don't believe the coordination between the continuous changing of the environment and adopting species could be done successfully with absolutely no intelligent design.

It isn't that successful, hence why we field vast numbers of long extinct animals in the fossil record.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'd like someone to talk about physical changes in a life form through DNA.
Explain the details that would allow both a physical change to be built so
that it would give rise to a new body part, and how would that new body
part know to function correctly?

For example why would a heart not only form, but know to beat? Why
would any new part of a life ...[text shortened]... d, and have them do what is
required as well.

What makes this new something in DNA possible?

It works through a process called "mutation."

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Originally posted by Proper Knob
It isn't that successful, hence why we field vast numbers of long extinct animals in the fossil record.

The leaning of science seems to be that these extinctions were sudden and do to catastrophe.

This is a latter opinion from what I learn as a youngster. It was more the gradual dying out. Now catastrophe theories abound to be held responsible for extinctions of past species.

Killer comet,.
Killer asteroids,
Killer meteors,
Killer gas from beneath the ocean,
Killer lava flows in Siberia,
Killer volcanism

More people subscribe to something catastrophic wiping out previous life.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It works through a process called "mutation."

Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

No, you see, that would be what sonship refers to as "a minute detail". You shouldn't focus on that.

It's the big picture that's what matters - which is understood by sonship perfectly well. If you just look at the big picture, you'll see that the only explanation is "Goddunnit". Get it?

Originally posted by Great King Rat
No, you see, that would be what sonship refers to as "a minute detail". You shouldn't focus on that.

It's the big picture that's what matters - which is understood by sonship perfectly well. If you just look at the big picture, you'll see that the only explanation is "Goddunnit". Get it?

Okay, let's talk a bit about "God dunnit ... he...he...he"

God done it didn't discourage Galileo or Newton.
Why do you think believing God dunnit it will spoil your fun in trying to figure out HOW He dunnit ?

You can still spend a happy life time like Newton to discover HOW God dunnit.
Of course if your PRIDE is involved, WELL, THAT'S different !!

Originally posted by sonship
Okay, let's talk a bit about "God dunnit ... he...he...he"

God done it didn't discourage Galileo or Newton.
Why do you think believing God dunnit it will spoil your fun in trying to figure out HOW He dunnit ?

You can still spend a happy life time like Newton to discover HOW God dunnit.
Of course if your PRIDE is involved, WELL, THAT'S different !!

Are you talking to yourself or what? You're the one wanting to know how the heart came to be. You're the who's obviously oblivious to "minute details". What's stopping you from learning how "God" dunnit? Read any good science books lately? Picked up a nice study book about genetics lately?

Btw, if I didn't know any better I'd think you were being a huge "credentialist" just now... but nah, you wouldn't do that, would you?

Originally posted by sonship
Enviromental conditions of the planet earth are in flux and changing. Over millions of years the conditions have not remain static but have been in flux.

I don't believe the coordination between the continuous changing of the environment and adopting species could be done successfully with absolutely no intelligent design.

There's a point below which no life as we know it is possible, and there's a point above which no life as we know it is possible. These points are quite far apart. For instance, we know that tardigrades can survive in the vacuum of space for up to ten days (correction: for at least ten days). While certainly some forms of life are very sensitive to changes in the environment, life as a whole is very sturdy and forgiving to changes in earth's environment (within limits). In short:

Environmental conditions on planet earth are conducive to life.

Originally posted by sonship
The leaning of science seems to be that these extinctions were sudden and do to catastrophe.

This is a latter opinion from what I learn as a youngster. It was more the gradual dying out. Now catastrophe theories abound to be held responsible for extinctions of past species.

Killer comet,.
Killer asteroids,
Killer meteors,
Killer gas from ben ...[text shortened]... Killer volcanism

More people subscribe to something catastrophic wiping out previous life.

With mass extinctions it's always due to catastrophic changes in the environment, but luckily for us environmental conditions on planet earth is conducive to life. It recovers.

Originally posted by sonship
So that is what it looked like?

Yes.

And if I leave out the credentials you'll probably ask.
You could simply try not to give totally unnecessary quotes. They rarely add anything to the discussion.

Oh, belief is not required.
Is belief a dirty word?
No, its just not required. If you learnt calculus or quantum physics you wouldn't be saying 'I can't believe that'. You would simply say 'I don't understand that' or 'I do understand that'.

A scientific hypothesis as a tentative explanation requires one to believe something.
No, it doesn't.

For anyone to teach the theory of evolution he must take it to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation.
No, he doesn't.

You are informally asking be to believe that Evolution is true since you have been replying to anything I wrote here.
No, I am telling you it is true, and asking you to understand why it is true. I do not require your belief in anything.
If I was teaching you what the square root of 2 was, would I need you to believe the answer? What if I was teaching you about matrices or complex numbers, would your belief be required? What if I was telling you how ox-bow lakes are formed from river currents? Would belief be required?

But that animals change - IE. finch beaks getting bigger or smaller with a new generation, sure. I can believe that.
Do you accept that it can happen via random mutations? Or do you believe God or some other intelligent agent is making changes to the DNA necessary for these beak changes?

Yes it matters. What you have is a "One Down 100,000 and [b]other phenomenon to go." And they have to be all orchestrated together in such a way that timing and success all take place across a huge spectrum of things.[/b]
Except I am under no obligation whatsoever to know or explain any of these 100,000 phenomena. The claim is that they cannot arise. The burden of proof lies squarely at your feet and that of Kellys feet. All I did was point him in the right direction to answer his question.

The blood in the heart, the heart, the muscles, the signals from the nervous system, the nervous system, and probably thousands of other things have to be simultaneously undergoing the same thing.
Except there are animals alive today that do not have all those things simultaneously. There are animals alive today that demonstrate that not all those things are required at once.

I don't know if there is enough time in the supposed 15 billion years of the universe for this to have worked without any plan or intelligence whatsoever.
I agree that you do not know. You also do not know that there is not enough time. You are just guessing in the dark whilst ignoring all the evidence. I know that there is enough time because the evidence is right there before me that it happened in that time. There is simply no denying it unless you are blinded by religion.

But you have flies changing but remaining flies.
You have finches changing but remaining finches.
You have dogs changing but remaining dogs.
The age old human made category mistake. Who gets to decide that they 'remain flies' or 'remain dogs'? Are you really sure that both a great dane and a chihuahua are both still dogs? Who gets to decide and why? Based on what do you call a dog a dog?

That's what you observe.
What I observe is very dramatic changes to any life form that is selectively bread by man in very short spans of time. I observe that new feature and previously imagined changes take place remarkably quickly in selectively bred life forms and they do not all die as Kelly would have us believe.

You have a belief that this can be extrapolated way beyond what we have observed to explain much more you cannot observe and cannot repeat in any lab. And you have no written history of it.
What is special about written history? Is geography also all wrong when there is no written history? What about astronomy? Observation doesn't require written history.
The fossil record, DNA, the various forms of life etc all can be observed and all demonstrate evolution both ongoing and in the past. It is observable and understandable, and if you take the time to study it for yourself, you will not need faith, you will see for yourself that it is true.