| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Art Bulla" |
| Date: |
05 Jun 2007 08:57:04 PM |
| Object: |
Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment. Pictures show how boiled broth left in an open container
developed the contamination of bacterial life, while boiled broth in a flask
sealed from microbes in the air did not--thereby proving that only life
gives rise to life. And to be sure that the impressionable young reader
understands that superstitious theories cannot account for life, the author
is likely to close with the cell theory. This theory has three tenets:
1. The cell is the basic unit of life.
2. All organisms are made of cells.
3. All cells come from other cells.
The heart of the cell theory is the third statement, which says a new cell
can only come from a preexisting cell.
Life from Nonlife?
This poses a dilemma for the theory of natural evolution: to first say
spontaneously generated cells are a medieval myth, but then to say inorganic
(nonliving material) went to organic (living material) at least once in
Earth's history. To escape the dilemma, Darwinists need a powerful
explanation for unintended life, and a really good one, or they are back on
"maggots just appear on dead meat" footing. Of course they have one to
offer. It bears careful examination because if it is believable, Design must
take a giant step backward, so to speak. If it is unbelievable, then Design
wins, even if only by default. The following will give you a taste of the
complex processes said to be necessary if life is to evolve from nonlife.
(To fully comprehend the various theories would take a lifetime of study.)
In brief you are about to read of a string of random events that begin with
our Earth as a raging and inhospitable planet full of intense heat, toxic
gases, and violent storms.
Following the big bang, the first cell evolved on Earth when-after about 1.1
billion years-conditions on our violent lent and inhospitable planet finally
settled sufficiently for chemical complexity to move forward. By about 3.5
billion years ago, a powerful reconfiguring force, probably the sun's
ultraviolet rays, had eventually fractured enough simple inorganic molecules
like carbon dioxide and methane to release their atomic carbon contents.
These then reassembled into the carbon-chain configurations that are the
backbones of organic molecules in our carbon-based life-forms. As water,
hydrogen gas, ammonia, and nitrogen gas were also fractured by UV rays, all
four atoms that make up 99 percent of organic tissue-hydrogen, oxygen,
nitrogen, and additional carbon-were able to begin attachment to the
existing carbon chains. Though this may have taken many millions of years,
the simplest organic carbohydrates finally appeared in the primordial soup.
Now the oceans-or perhaps freshwater ponds which were not subject to harsh
salinity-contained organic molecules like simple alcohols (ethanol), weak
organic acids (acetic acid), and monosaccharides (glucose, and later
deoxyribose and ribose). At this point, perhaps it was
Lightning, another powerful reconfiguring force, that fractured sulfuric and
phosphoric acids to free necessary sulfate and phosphate radicals. These
ionized groups, perhaps further catalyzed by superheated iron and nickel
sulfides, then interacted with the present carbohydrates to produce at least
some of the "alphabet" of 20 amino acids. And now that these amino-acid
building blocks were appearing, they polymerized into the all-essential
proteins necessary for any type of future cell structure. Besides UV rays
and lightning, there were other reconfiguring forces present on ancient
Earth to aid in molecular advancement. X-rays, volcanoes, earthquakes,
tornadoes, and meteor strikes may have also played a role in the assembly of
larger organic molecules such as additional amino acids, vitamins, ATPs, and
simple enzymes. The appearance of enzymes would be particularly important in
that they would accelerate molecular development. At this juncture, critical
components made their appearance. Certain amino acids were somewhat altered
to produce the nitrogenous bases of cytosine, adenine, guanine, and uracil,
which combined with sugars and phosphates to produce nucleotides that served
as the building blocks for the first nucleic acid, RNA. (The template for
assembling such a macromolecule could have been the intricate lattice
arrangement of inorganic crystals.) With RNA now present, acting as both a
coder of additional nitrogenous base sequences and a ligase-type catalyst,
it began to self-replicate. Portions of the RNA molecule were now able to
construct longer proteins, such as those needed for protective cell
membranes, and were also able to code for a unique molecule called
chlorophyll. The chlorophyll in developing chloroplasts would then take over
carbon-chain construction through the extremely reliable process of
photosynthesis. With RNA and photosynthesis both producing further organic
molecular complexity and abundance, these large particles began adhering to
each other, eventually forming
well-known prebiotic coctcervates-subcellular particles bringing us to the
verge of a living cell. Other portions of mutating RNA molecules could now
begin to code for proteins necessary for the eventual appearance of
organelles such as mitochondria, ribosomes, and plastids. Meanwhile, another
nitrogenous base, thymine, had already been added to the soup. It was now
only a short step to transform RNA into the double-helix marvel of DNA, the
ultimate holder of all future genetic codes. This freed RNA to adopt its
present role of messenger in the production of subsequent proteins and
allowed DNA to assume full "blueprint duties" for all other cell structures.
Then in short order, the first asexual prokaryotic cell appeared in the form
of a single bacterium, and life was born. As proliferating prokaryotic cells
continued nucleic acid. production, individual strands of DNA eventually
traveled in twos, leading to the homologous chromosome pairs that are basic
to all of today's organisms. Then, as these evolving cells engulfed other
less complex bacteria through endosyrnhiosis, they were transformed. into
organelles for added capabilities rather than being digested. This produced
the first true eukaryotic cell, and the world now had an organism capable of
going beyond simple asexual reproduction to utilize a sexual mating process
allowing for great variations among offspring. It did not take long for
these advanced cells to clump together in multicellularity for protection
and division of labor, producing perhaps worms and primitive fish. Though
this entire process may have taken 3.5 billion years to complete, the forces
of natural selection were now coming into play through survival of the
fittest, which would drive organisms to improve or die. For this reason, one
might say that in the next billion years or so, the appearance of the
complex plant and animal species of the twenty-first century was a foregone
conclusion. Obviously, research for more specifics on the actual mechanisms
above continues. On other fronts, the search on Earth for structurally
related but unusable molecules has
been inconclusive, as have attempts to generate molecular complexity in
substantive quantities under laboratory conditions. But nature continues to
divulge her secrets, albeit reluctantly, and the work goes on, This highly
detailed explanation stops at the appearance of the ancient
chordares-s-fish-c-which Darwinists believe went on to eventually become
species like the North American wood duck (which I use as an example in the
next chapter). And if that could happen, then I guess mammals could appear
and become monkeys, and so on.
Get Out the Magic Wand On the surface, the entire package appears to
constitute a powerful argument. Darwinists I know fully believe in this and
think nothing more needs to be said. At first glance, how could anyone argue
with this explanation? How could you challenge the details unless you were
as highly trained as the researchers? The rapid bombardment of high-powered
vocabulary, and the dizzying mosaic the terms paint, surely cannot be the
product of a vivid imagination, can it? And what about the explanation's
obvious lack of need for an Unseen Hand? How can "In the beginning, God..."
compete with this? Is natural evolution the truth and Design the fraud? Does
Darwinism still have every right to monopolize science, rendering the title
of this book meaningless? We can see why, to Darwinists, theological
explanations for the origin of life must seem like magic-wand waving and
smoke and mirrors. I'm sure this is the reason evolutionists have told me to
my face that I've forsaken cognitive facts and the left-brained reasoning of
science, and instead am now drawing on the emotionalism of the right-brained
superstitions of religion-not too far from voodoo and witchcraft.
(Flattering, isn't it?)
Another Accidental Marvel However, before we pursue the issue further, I
would like to present an explanation that parallels the one above: an
explanation of the unintended processes that produced another first-the
first television.
The television came into use when conditions in the civilized world finally
made electronic communications a possibility. It began long ago on a
deserted tropical island. Violent volcanic activity due to tectonic plate
movement crystallized sand into glass in the shape of a cathode-ray tube.
This tube fell into a phosphorescent "soup" composed of the remains of
millions of ancient fireflies, and the oozing liquid coated the glass.
Though natural erosion eventually wore away the outside phosphor coating,
the inside coating dried and remained. later, a random lightning strike
placed two lumps of iron at each end of the tube. These lumps became
magnetized, one positively and one negatively, by the heat dissipation of
the ancient cooling Earth, and simultaneously began to function as an anode
and a cathode, collecting and repelling electrons. Random
oxidation-reduction reactions driven by intense heat from a thermal vent
separated and refined sufficient copper from available ore to shape several
strands of wire, which were belched ashore by an underwater earthquake and
subsequent tidal wave. Hurricane-force winds attached these wires to the
magnets in the glass tube in the exact required position. Suction from these
same winds produced a vacuum in the tube, which was sealed in by cork
insulators blown into place from destroyed trees. Finally, a burst of
ultraviolet radiation from an uncommonly intense solar flare energized the
two electrodes, and they began to fire electrons at the phosphor coating at
the precise angle that would cause it to glow. The very first operational
cathode-ray tube was now a reality. As all this was taking place, over the
same lengthy time period the same reconfiguring forces had shaped the less
complex components of tubes; circuit boards, dials, and wood cabinetry.
These lay scattered all over the island where the cathode ray tube lay
glowing. The light and the other strange-looking objects attracted the
curious monkeys on the island, and they began to randomly manipulate the
pieces.
34 PART I- A SURVEY OF THE LANDSCAPE
As luck would have it, the primates somehow managed to assemble the
components, and before they could disassemble them, a man walking the
deserted island found the device and named it the "tele-vision." This man
was an entrepreneurial sort who realized its potential to display specified
electronic signals, perhaps for profit. He brought the "TV" back to
civilization, where he applied for and was granted a patent. Now it has been
many years since that first simple glowing cathode-ray tube was discovered.
and through serendipitous results of the random actions of bungling
repairmen, it has evolved into such sophisticated devices as plasma screens
and HDTV. However, much of the original accidental technology is still being
duplicated, and even the name "television" is still used today. Electronic
engineers around the world still marvel at the luck of the original patent
owner. This is because no similar "pre-television" components have ever been
found anywhere else on Earth, either nonfunctional or near-functional, which
could corroborate the bizarre tale told by the man who once walked that
tropical island. Also, attempts to piece together the natural processes
thought to have taken place, and then recreate them under tightly controlled
simulated conditions, have met with unsatisfactory results. And yet faith in
the truth of the process causes the work to go on.
Well-there you have it. The product has changed from cell to television, but
the reliance on potentially lucky processes is basically the same. Perhaps
the only other difference is that the vocabulary in the TV scenario isn't as
intimidating and doesn't produce the hoodwinking element of mystery due to
the unfamiliar.
Choose Your Smoke and Mirrors Is it perhaps possible that evolutionary
science also employs its fair share of magic-wand waving and smoke and
mirrors? When you under stand what natural evolution is really trying to
sell, do you get the feeling someone should tell the king sporting his new
clothes that he is really naked? The story is told of a consortium of
scientists who bet God they too could make a living cell from scratch. The
challenge was accepted, and the group proceeded to gather the most renowned
molecular biologists, cytologists, and geneticists from around the world. As
word spread, funds began pouring in from all over. The team built an
impressive research facility and equipped it with powerful supercomputers,
high-tech Constructing a vital microscopes, state-of-the-art electronic
machinery, and all the best tools and
glassware. When all was in place, the team prepared to go out and collect
the necessary chemical compounds to begin their experiments. At this point,
unimaginable magnitude. God stepped in and said, 'Hey. not so fast-get your
own raw materials.
Even if organic components-in this case, prelife molecules already assembled
by living cells-were available, I wonder if lab experiments have shown that
we are anywhere near making a living cell. Consider the following: "
Cutting-edge laboratory work can barely identify and safely alter organic
molecules from those already present in nature. Even constructing a vital
organelle within a cell, such as a mitochondrion, is unthinkable due to
complexity of an unimaginable magnitude. Therefore, the correct answer as to
whether we can make a living cell in a test tube is not "inevitable,"
"likely," "probably," or "maybe"-or even "remote"-but most definitely
"impossible." However, the incongruity is, many of those same reputable
scientists believe that without our Story's state-of-the-art research
facility with supercomputers, microscopes, random chance can produce such a
result! (Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe)
--
Website: http://www.artbulla.com
5 And it speaketh harshly against sin, according to the plainness of the
truth; wherefore, no man will be angry at the words which I have written
save he shall be of the spirit of the devil.
6 I glory in plainness; I glory in truth; I glory in my Jesus, for he hath
redeemed my soul from hell.
(2 Nephi 33:5 - 6)
26 And ye have murmured because he hath been plain unto you. Ye say that
he hath used sharpness; ye say that he hath been angry with you; but behold,
his sharpness was the sharpness of the power of the word of God, which was
in him; and that which ye call anger was the truth, according to that which
is in God, which he could not restrain, manifesting boldly concerning your
iniquities.
27 And it must needs be that the power of God must be with him, even unto
his commanding you that ye must obey. But behold, it was not he, but it was
the Spirit of the Lord which was in him, which opened his mouth to utterance
that he could not shut it.
(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 1:26 - 27)
"What Joseph meant by being damned was that people will go into the spirit
world without the Priesthood, and consequently they are under the power of
Satan, and will have to be redeemed, or else they will be forever under his
power. That is all there is about that."
(Journal of Discourses, 26 vols., 17:, p.159)
"I am like a huge rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the
only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in
contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against
religious bigotry, priestcraft, lawyer-craft, doctor-craft, lying editors,
suborned judges and jurors, and the authority of perjured executives, backed
by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women, all hell
knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus will I become a smooth
and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty." (Teachings of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 304.)
"I just tell em the truth, and they think it's hell." Harry Truman
THE GOLDEN RULE OF DISINFORMERS:
Always accuse your adversary of whatever is true about yourself.
"Nothing has more retarded the advancement of learning than the disposition
of vulgar minds to ridicule and vilify what they do not understand."
Dr.Samuel Johnson.
The Revelations of Jesus Christ:
<http://www.iuniverse.com/bookstore/book_detail.asp?isbn=0-595-28287-3>
Discourses of Brigham Young, Pg.68
As it has always been, and will be yet for some time, when the sons
of God assemble together Satan will be on hand as an accuser of the
brethren, to find fault with those who are trying to do good.
"But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call
down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are
indebted
to the faith of another people...does it remain for them to say how much God
has
spoken and how much He has not spoken?" Joseph Smith
"Every generation has flattered itself that it is a little better than the
one that preceded it. Every generation has prided itself in its knowledge
and great advancement in the arts and sciences and its superiority over
preceding generations; yet the power of the adversary and his hatred of
righteousness and truth are as great to-day as they ever were since the
creation of the earth." Journal of Discourses, Vol.11, Pg.228 - Pg.229,
George Q. Cannon, May 6, 1866
"Some men are natural born saints; whenever a principle is advanced they
understand it, and drink it in; * * * while there are others who do not
understand and oppose every principle that is not clear to their mind. This
can be accounted for, that we are not all pure blooded, for Ephraim became
foolish and mixed up with the gentiles. When we find the pure blood of
Ephraim, we find a natural born child of God and there is nothing in the
gospel that is objectionable to them, but the others have to exercise faith
in God and humble themselves before Him and live for it." (Deseret Weekly,
50:250-251)
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 05:47:50 PM |
|
|
In article <e22h63tb1ts1m6a2iqhjoemjfvmv714lmb@4ax.com> raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> writes:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:13:03 -0700, "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Nope, that is not what is taught. You are in denial as the dough-headed
liberal nitwit from the left you are.
From Wikepedia:
Now *there's* a reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
The Wikipaedia article is correct. It just has nothing to
do with what Artie is trying to prove.
It's also a very uncommon usage. I've read dozens of books
and articles on this very topic, and the usual term,
by far, is "abiogenesis", not "chemical evolution".
And when you DO see "chemical evolution" employed, it generally
refers to cosmology, not biology.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 12:41:15 PM |
|
|
1 WHY do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?
2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel
together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, [saying],
3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.
4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in
derision.
5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore
displeasure.
6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.
7 I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me, Thou [art] my
Son; this day have I begotten thee.
8 Ask of me, and I shall give [thee] the heathen [for] thine inheritance,
and the uttermost parts of the earth [for] thy possession.
9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces
like a potter's vessel.
10 Be wise now therefore, O ye kings: be instructed, ye judges of the
earth.
11 Serve the LORD with fear, and rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish [from] the way, when his
wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed [are] all they that put their trust
in him.
(Ps 2:1-12)
"Cary Kittrell" <cary@afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:f4a1um$edl$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu...
In article <e22h63tb1ts1m6a2iqhjoemjfvmv714lmb@4ax.com> raven1
<quoththeraven@nevermore.com> writes:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:13:03 -0700, "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Nope, that is not what is taught. You are in denial as the dough-headed
liberal nitwit from the left you are.
From Wikepedia:
Now *there's* a reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
The Wikipaedia article is correct. It just has nothing to
do with what Artie is trying to prove.
It's also a very uncommon usage. I've read dozens of books
and articles on this very topic, and the usual term,
by far, is "abiogenesis", not "chemical evolution".
And when you DO see "chemical evolution" employed, it generally
refers to cosmology, not biology.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Norris" |
|
| Title: Design for a Conscious Mechanoid |
30 Jun 2007 09:27:10 AM |
|
|
On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
Design for a Conscious Mechanoid
[Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious'
posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is
conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a
problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a
dictionary.]
Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots.
Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at
random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and
incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original
component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact
with the environment, and watch what happens.
Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course.
They might replace one of their vital components (the computer
program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately
stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a
while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original
structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed
mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore
robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which
was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are
interested in.
The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all
their constituent components, including their original computer
hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like
ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so
they might be conscious, as we are.
A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this
could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought.
For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is
the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters
producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left
them long enough, they would eventually do it!
Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of
determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the
design above, the construction allows the possibility that
consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non-
conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a
wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands
held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality
contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged
elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment
apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up.
Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now
conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than
it was to begin with.
James Norris
I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist
"reasoning"?
No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor
computer-based.
I especially liked the bit:
"A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and
this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought."
You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on
which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether
one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the
experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could
anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave.
The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how
the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism.
I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human
beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my
suggestion is so laughable.
Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective
experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything
or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist
perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether
something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a
few of them here are having problems coming to terms with.
I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a
problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but
anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't.
Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and
an absolute nutter.
An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that
they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose.
The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical
example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being
might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in
reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million
typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare
would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the
salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it
amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and
memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool.
The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something
was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it
was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was
the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour
expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have
been influenced by their existance).
You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts.
The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about
consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces
behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding
of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness,
which you should look into as they might help you express your
argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The
'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in
the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various
other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed
behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries
to satisfy.
Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes
played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar
thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as
I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the
concept, or have you got competition?
No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the
example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity
is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in
the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary
complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic
bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the
theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from
millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you
think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth
considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever
- perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting
in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to
provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be
rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious
awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you
suggest?
Discuss.
Jim
On Jun 7, 11:47?pm, (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <e22h63tb1ts1m6a2iqhjoemjfvmv714...@4ax.com> raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> writes:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:13:03 -0700, "Art Bulla" <a...@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Nope, that is not what is taught. You are in denial as the dough-headed
liberal nitwit from the left you are.
From Wikepedia:
Now *there's* a reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
The Wikipaedia article is correct. It just has nothing to
do with what Artie is trying to prove.
It's also a very uncommon usage. I've read dozens of books
and articles on this very topic, and the usual term,
by far, is "abiogenesis", not "chemical evolution".
And when you DO see "chemical evolution" employed, it generally
refers to cosmology, not biology.
-- cary
On Jun 30, 4:26 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 3:25?am, someone2 <glenn.spig...@btinternet.com> wrote:
On Jun 30, 1:55 am, James Norris <JimNorri...@aol.com> wrote:
Design for a Conscious Mechanoid
[Just to deter the predictable 'define what you mean by conscious'
posting: 'Conscious' means 'aware of reality' - a human being is
conscious, but a piece of paper is not conscious. If there is still a
problem with understanding the word 'conscious', try using a
dictionary.]
Start off with millions of identical ordinary (non-conscious) robots.
Each robot is pre-programmed to collect things from the environment at
random (twigs, elastic bands, teacups, wheels, orange peel etc), and
incorporate them into itself, gradually replacing all its original
component parts as it does so. Now let the robots free to interact
with the environment, and watch what happens.
Most of the robots would cease to function quite rapidly, of course.
They might replace one of their vital components (the computer
program, for example), with a piece of orange peel and immediately
stop working permanently. Some might continue to function for quite a
while, making meaningless minor alterations to their original
structure, without affecting their basic operation as a programmed
mechanical device, which we knew to be non-conscious. We can ignore
robots which have replaced themselves with biological material which
was already conscious, because that is obviously not what we are
interested in.
The robots we are interested in are those which manage to replace all
their constituent components, including their original computer
hardware and software, but are still functioning. They, like
ourselves, have been created out of material from the environment, so
they might be conscious, as we are.
A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and this
could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought.
For that to happen by chance is extremely unlikely of course, as is
the likelihood of millions of monkeys randomly operating typewriters
producing the occasional Shakespeare sonnet by chance, but if you left
them long enough, they would eventually do it!
Consciousness is a subjective experience, so there is no way of
determining whether or not anything or anybody is conscious. In the
design above, the construction allows the possibility that
consciousness might occur in a device which was originally non-
conscious. The random self-modifying behaviour may have led to a
wheeled mechanism made out of orange peel, teacups and elastic bands
held together with bits of wood, with its understanding of reality
contained in the vibrational processes occurring in the twig-twanged
elastic bands, which wanders around in the natural environment
apparently decorating itself with the bits of garbage it picks up.
Perhaps the device has improved on its original design and is now
conscious? At any rate, it certainly wouldn't be less conscious than
it was to begin with.
James Norris
I read your thread. Was it a satirical portrayal of atheist
"reasoning"?
No, it was a design for a conscious entity, neither biological nor
computer-based.
I especially liked the bit:
"A certain amount of complexity is required for consciousness, and
this could be provided, for example, by using the twigs to twang the
elastic bands - the vibrational properties of the elastic bands could
easily carry any complexity necessary for the occurrence of thought."
You could imagine atheists setting themselves up as authorities on
which tunes played on a guitar gave rise to consciousness, and whether
one string, or all the strings, or the whole guitar had the
experiences. They could debate on to what extent they could
anthropomorphise the conscious experience a certain song gave.
The notion of vibrations carrying information was an example of how
the necessary complexity for 'thoughts' might arise in the mechanism.
I understand from your earlier postings that you believe that human
beings have a non-physical 'soul', so I'm not sure why you think my
suggestion is so laughable.
Though the part where you said, "consciousness is a subjective
experience, so there is no way of determining whether or not anything
or anybody is conscious", did illustrate that from an atheist
perspective there would be no experimental difference expected whether
something was or wasn't consciously experiencing, which is something a
few of them here are having problems coming to terms with.
I don't know why you pick on atheists in particular as having a
problem with the unverifiability of subjective experiences, but
anyway, perhaps many of us do - I personally don't.
Still, very amusing, assuming of course you weren't being serious, and
an absolute nutter.
An absolute nutter in your opinion might be someone who believed that
they had four souls, rather than just the one, I suppose.
The Design for a Conscious Mechanoid is quite serious - a hypothetical
example of how a constructed 'mechanical' (ie non-biological) being
might be conscious. I'm not suggesting that it would ever work in
reality, any more than that a million monkeys typing on a million
typewriters for a million years to produce the works of Shakespeare
would ever work in reality. The example draws attention to the
salient aspects of an interesting question. I'm glad you found it
amusing though. I always try to make my postings interesting and
memorable, and humour is a well-known didactic tool.
The problem with no experimental difference expected whether something
was or wasn't consciously experiencing, is that it means whether it
was or wasn't, couldn't be thought to influence behaviour. If that was
the case, it would have to be a coincidence that our behaviour
expressed the conscious experiences we actually have (it couldn't have
been influenced by their existance).
You are trying to discuss consciousness using behavioural concepts.
The behavioural understanding of the psyche has little to say about
consciousness - the brain reacts to external stimuli and produces
behaviour in the organism, which is studied to give an understanding
of the workings of the brain. Cognitive models of consciousness,
which you should look into as they might help you express your
argument, are inside-out compared to the behavioural viewpoint. The
'mind' (which is believed to exist because of processes occurring in
the brain) is considered as an Ego, with Superego, Id and various
other paraphernalia, and these all contribute to goal-directed
behaviour caused by subjective 'needs' which the conscious being tries
to satisfy.
Anyway, interesting post. So have you any thoughts on which tunes
played on a guitar might be give rise to, the string(s) or the guitar
thinking? Any thoughts on what those thoughts might be? I ask you, as
I guess you would be the closest thing to a world authority on the
concept, or have you got competition?
No, you haven't really grasped the point about the vibrations in the
example. I was just pointing out that a certain amount of complexity
is required for consciousness, so complexity is needed somewhere in
the mechanoid. Vibrating systems can contain information of arbitrary
complexity - they don't have to be made out of physical elastic
bands. Vibrations occur in strings in general, these could be the
theoretical strings of string-theory, or hair-like cilia made from
millions of tiny pinheads all oscillating in a plasma field, if you
think elastic bands are too primitive a device to be worth
considering. Some people think that Mobius strips are weirdly clever
- perhaps if millions of elastic bands were Mobius strips interacting
in a complex 3-d lattice, with carefully placed twigs and twiglets to
provide the necessary resonance and feedback effects, it would be
rather more likely to have the necessary complexity for conscious
awareness of reality, than using just the one guitar string that you
suggest?
Discuss.
Jim
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kelsey Bjarnason" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
07 Jun 2007 08:43:28 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 22:47:50 +0000, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <e22h63tb1ts1m6a2iqhjoemjfvmv714lmb@4ax.com> raven1 <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> writes:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:13:03 -0700, "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Nope, that is not what is taught. You are in denial as the dough-headed
liberal nitwit from the left you are.
From Wikepedia:
Now *there's* a reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
The Wikipaedia article is correct. It just has nothing to
do with what Artie is trying to prove.
It's also a very uncommon usage. I've read dozens of books
and articles on this very topic, and the usual term,
by far, is "abiogenesis", not "chemical evolution".
And when you DO see "chemical evolution" employed, it generally
refers to cosmology, not biology.
It is also, as I noted elsewhere, a conflation of terms - i.e. a
fallacious argument.
'Course, that's the best they've got, so not surprising that's what we get
from them.
--
“...the Bible has always been proven correct in the long run, while
there is not a shred of evidence to support it.”
-- Raoul Arthur Raymond Newt
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing the Fairy Tale for Grownups |
08 Jun 2007 12:08:32 PM |
|
|
With you nitwits, it is not what is said, but who says it. Thus Orville and
Wilbur Wright beat the great big scientists of the day, chief of whom was
Langley, because his (Langley's) huge Smithsonian funded claptrap machine
fell into the Potomac River, while Orville and Wilbur Wright, mere bicycle
mechanics, flew. YOU are also hoodwinked nitwits. The consensus of "peers"
is wrong. They are full of *****, you are full of *****. You are wrong, and
they are wrong. Modern Phds a la Ward Churchill (Darwinist archetype) are
brain-washing an entire generation into lassitude and moral turpitude
regarding their eternities. Mortality is the time to prepare for the final
exam. Now you have been warned.
10 And because of the intercession for all, all men come unto God;
wherefore, they stand in the presence of him, to be judged of him according
to the truth and holiness which is in him. Wherefore, the ends of the law
which the Holy One hath given, unto the inflicting of the punishment which
is affixed, which punishment that is affixed is in opposition to that of the
happiness which is affixed, to answer the ends of the atonement--
(2 Ne 2:10)
44 O, my beloved brethren, remember my words. Behold, I take off my
garments, and I shake them before you; I pray the God of my salvation that
he view me with his all-searching eye; wherefore, ye shall know at the last
day, when all men shall be judged of their works, that the God of Israel did
witness that I shook your iniquities from my soul, and that I stand with
brightness before him, and am rid of your blood.
(2 Ne 9:44)
31 Yea, every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess before him. Yea,
even at the last day, when all men shall stand to be judged of him, then
shall they confess that he is God; then shall they confess, who live without
God in the world, that the judgment of an everlasting punishment is just
upon them; and they shall quake, and tremble, and shrink beneath the glance
of his all-searching eye.
(Mosiah 27:31)
3 And it is requisite with the justice of God that men should be judged
according to their works; and if their works were good in this life, and the
desires of their hearts were good, that they should also, at the last day,
be restored unto that which is good.
(Alma 41:3)
23 But God ceaseth not to be God, and mercy claimeth the penitent, and
mercy cometh because of the atonement; and the atonement bringeth to pass
the resurrection of the dead; and the resurrection of the dead bringeth back
men into the presence of God; and thus they are restored into his presence,
to be judged according to their works, according to the law and justice.
(Alma 42:23)
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and
after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men
unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted
up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether
they be good or whether they be evil--
15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the
power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged
according to their works.
25 For behold, out of the books which have been written, and which shall be
written, shall this people be judged, for by them shall their works be known
unto men.
(3 Ne 27:14-15,25)
"raven1" <quoththeraven@nevermore.com> wrote in message
news:e22h63tb1ts1m6a2iqhjoemjfvmv714lmb@4ax.com...
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 14:13:03 -0700, "Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com>
wrote:
Nope, that is not what is taught. You are in denial as the dough-headed
liberal nitwit from the left you are.
From Wikepedia:
Now *there's* a reliable, peer-reviewed scientific journal...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
05 Jun 2007 11:12:19 PM |
|
|
In article <5cmijjF2uicuvU1@mid.individual.net>, says...
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment.
Pasteur did not attempt and could not attempt to study abiogenesis over
extended periods of time. He proved that life does not arise in a matter
of days or weeks from non-life, but this does not prove that no self-
replicating molecules could emerge over billions of years. Note that
this has nothing to do with evolution or "darwinism", since
evolution starts with the premise that self-replicating systems already
exist and describes how they are modified. Abiogenesis describes
possible chemical and physical route by which molecular systems might
self-organize and become capable of autonomous self-replication. So, yet
another chestnut of creationist stupidity has been shot down in flames.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
07 Jun 2007 03:14:27 PM |
|
|
Nobody said that he (Pasteur) did or could, fool. But time is irrelevant.
This is evident to everyone but brain-washed fools on the left.
"quibbler" <quibbler247@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.20cfe20d2f5d797f989f93@news.readfreenews.net...
In article <5cmijjF2uicuvU1@mid.individual.net>, says...
(Reclaiming Science from Darwinism; Kenneth Poppe):
These blind alleys dismissed, the book (textbook) usually gives the
correct
view for the origin of cellular life, using Pasteur's famous "soup in a
flask" experiment.
Pasteur did not attempt and could not attempt to study abiogenesis over
extended periods of time. He proved that life does not arise in a matter
of days or weeks from non-life, but this does not prove that no self-
replicating molecules could emerge over billions of years. Note that
this has nothing to do with evolution or "darwinism", since
evolution starts with the premise that self-replicating systems already
exist and describes how they are modified. Abiogenesis describes
possible chemical and physical route by which molecular systems might
self-organize and become capable of autonomous self-replication. So, yet
another chestnut of creationist stupidity has been shot down in flames.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
07 Jun 2007 05:05:10 PM |
|
|
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cr797F31gi5vU1@mid.individual.net...
Nobody said that he (Pasteur) did or could, fool. But time is irrelevant.
This is evident to everyone but brain-washed fools on the left.
Your first sentence is meaningless.
Time IS relevant - no matter what ignorance you bellow.
The only thing evident is your ignorance.
And showing it only three sentences is NOT a record! Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Art Bulla" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
08 Jun 2007 11:23:22 AM |
|
|
making the same mistake over and over and over again, even over billions of
years and expecting a different result is insanity, nitwit. Niagra falls
will never flow backward even over billions of years (everything else
remaining the same, of course, hypothetically speaking). Water always flows
downhill, even over billions of years, fool. Organic molecules disorganize
not build up into more complex molecules, nitwit. Life does not form from
non-life, even over billions of years, atheist moron. Go back to smoking pot
and watching MTV.
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@onehandclapping.com> wrote in message
news:qi%9i.6085$Mg.879@trnddc01...
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cr797F31gi5vU1@mid.individual.net...
Nobody said that he (Pasteur) did or could, fool. But time is
irrelevant. This is evident to everyone but brain-washed fools on the
left.
Your first sentence is meaningless.
Time IS relevant - no matter what ignorance you bellow.
The only thing evident is your ignorance.
And showing it only three sentences is NOT a record! Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 12:38:15 AM |
|
|
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cte3uF32a7f5U1@mid.individual.net...
making the same mistake over and over and over again, even over billions
of years and expecting a different result is insanity, nitwit. Niagra
falls will never flow backward even over billions of years (everything
else remaining the same, of course, hypothetically speaking). Water
always flows downhill, even over billions of years, fool. Organic
molecules disorganize not build up into more complex molecules, nitwit.
Life does not form from non-life, even over billions of years, atheist
moron. Go back to smoking pot and watching MTV.
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he stole
from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add new
information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore eyes where
they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in information but only
corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a very misleading argument
that the Darwinists like to make to fool the unsuspecting. You have to be
brainwashed to believe that random mutations could result to the complicated
life forms we see around us today. Even if mutation could lead to new growth
of information which it doesn't but for argument sake if it did, it would be
done in such an erratic and unpredictable way, that it could not result in
the complex systems that exist. Head up their ***** atheists are the only ones
who could possibly fathom evolution to be true.
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@onehandclapping.com> wrote in message
news:qi%9i.6085$Mg.879@trnddc01...
"Art Bulla" <art@artbulla.com> wrote in message
news:5cr797F31gi5vU1@mid.individual.net...
Nobody said that he (Pasteur) did or could, fool. But time is
irrelevant. This is evident to everyone but brain-washed fools on the
left.
Your first sentence is meaningless.
Time IS relevant - no matter what ignorance you bellow.
The only thing evident is your ignorance.
And showing it only three sentences is NOT a record! Sorry.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 01:15:41 PM |
|
|
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up the
Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason why
e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been observed,
described and currently science is trying to find a way to stop these
mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
18 Jun 2007 11:24:33 PM |
|
|
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:h7Cai.13343$5j1.1549@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up the
Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason why
e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been observed,
described and currently science is trying to find a way to stop these
mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
Antibiotic resistance
Some antibiotic resistance was already present in the bacterial population,
as shown by specimens frozen before the development of antibiotics. So
natural selection only selected from pre-existing variation. But nothing new
was produced. Similarly, myxomatosis-resistant rabbits were already present
in the population. When myxomatosis was introduced to Australia,
non-resistant rabbits were selected against. But this processes caused the
loss of information from the bacteria and rabbit population due to the loss
of genetic diversity.
Also, a loss of information can cause bacterial antibiotic resistance, e.g.
penicillin resistance in Staphylococcus can be due to a mutation causing a
regulatory gene's loss of control of production of penicillinase (an enzyme
which destroys penicillin). The resulting overproduction of penicillinase
increases resistance to penicillin. But in the wild (away from artificial
environments swamped with penicillin), the Staphylococcus would be less
'fit'
because it wastes resources producing heaps of unnecessary protein.
Another common cause of antibiotic resistance is mutational defects which
hinder the bacterium's ability to transport substances through its cell
membrane. Such a defect means that the antibiotic is less readily absorbed,
so it is less likely to kill the bacterium. But in the wild, it would be
unable to compete with bacteria with properly working cell membrane pumps
which take up nutrients into the cell.
Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied, none have involved the
production of new functionally complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found. Sometimes
bacteria have acquired resistance genes from other species via viruses or by
direct transfer through tiny tubes, but this is not the addition of new
information to the biosphere as a whole. Bacteria only produce bacteria
'after their kind', not a different type of creature.
See also Superbugs not super after all.
Viruses are sometimes said to 'evolve', but what really happens is that
mutations cause the changes to their protein coats. There is no increase in
complexity, but sometimes the changes mean that antibodies do not recognise
them. So the viruses are 'fitter', but there is still no increase in
information.
A similar case is a recent discovery that some antibiotic-resistant bacteria
have abnormally high mutation rates. This is caused by a mutation in the
genes for the sophisticated genetic proof-reading mechanisms present in all
life. This means there is more chance of errors not being corrected.
Sometimes one of these defects happens to result in antibiotic resistance,
as explained above.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
.
|
|
|
| User: "RetroProphet" |
|
| Title: Aaron has just lost the debate definitively |
19 Jun 2007 01:04:57 AM |
|
|
Of the many cases of antibiotic resistance studied,
none have involved the production of new functionally
complex information, such as a new enzyme.
This would be real evolution, but such has not been found.
Oh, this is sweet. You just shot yourself in the foot.
If you had actually studied the "Nylon bug" material
we have discussed before, you would know that the
frame-shift mutation that enabled it to digest nylon
was PRECISELY a mutation that that resulted in it
producing a brand new enzyme.
By your definition above, this is "the production of
a new functionality" -- and also by your definition
is "real evolution."
You have just lost the debate definitively.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
19 Jun 2007 11:51:09 PM |
|
|
Aaron Kim wrote:
"Mike Painter" <mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:h7Cai.13343$5j1.1549@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up
the Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason
why e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been
observed, described and currently science is trying to find a way to
stop these mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
<snip>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp
You quote a relifios site which demands that science be ignored if it
disagrees with the bible.
I suggest an article that explains what actually happens based on
observation.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 08:18:24 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:15:41 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <h7Cai.13343$5j1.1549@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up the
Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason why
e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been observed,
described and currently science is trying to find a way to stop these
mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
How can we stop Aaron from mutating?
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 11:12:53 PM |
|
|
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:15:41 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <h7Cai.13343$5j1.1549@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up
the Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason
why e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been
observed, described and currently science is trying to find a way to
stop these mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
How can we stop Aaron from mutating?
Why? Science shows it can be beneficial. If he's right, he's gone, but if
science is right he may learn to think.
Win/win
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 11:37:00 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 9 Jun 2007 21:12:53 -0700, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <uRKai.17027$C96.20@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net>
Michael Gray wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:15:41 GMT, "Mike Painter"
<mddotpainter@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
- Refer: <h7Cai.13343$5j1.1549@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net>
Aaron Kim wrote:
<snip>
Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral.
The next time you or someone you know gets sick from e-coli, look up
the Scientific American article from April(?) 2006 on the subject.
Your statement is false and such mutation are precisely the reason
why e-coli (among other) survives and gets stronger. It has been
observed, described and currently science is trying to find a way to
stop these mutations.
If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it.
How can we stop Aaron from mutating?
Why? Science shows it can be beneficial. If he's right, he's gone, but if
science is right he may learn to think.
Win/win
You said it all:
"If we can stop it from mutating we can eradicate it"
--
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
09 Jun 2007 02:38:38 AM |
|
|
Aaron Kim wrote:
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he
stole from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add new
information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore eyes
where they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a
very misleading argument that the Darwinists like to make to fool the
unsuspecting. You have to be brainwashed to believe that random
mutations could result to the complicated life forms we see around us
today.
Well, at least you actually define "informatio" most creationists avoid
doing so as then it becomes easy to disprove them. Other than pure
faith, do you have any evidence that mutations can't add new features?
Are you aware that features are under genetic control?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aaron Kim" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
10 Jun 2007 02:18:43 AM |
|
|
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2Osai.17926$qD.1317@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he
stole from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add new
information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore eyes where
they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in information but
only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a very misleading
argument that the Darwinists like to make to fool the unsuspecting. You
have to be brainwashed to believe that random mutations could result to
the complicated life forms we see around us today.
Well, at least you actually define "informatio" most creationists avoid
doing so as then it becomes easy to disprove them. Other than pure faith,
do you have any evidence that mutations can't add new features? Are you
aware that features are under genetic control?
All cases of mutation are always shown without doubt in organisms to be
damages or losses if there is any effect at all of genetic information. The
belief that mutation could create new features is like science fiction like
the Marvel comic book characters, the X-Men. Mutation says somehow, "Behold,
look at this fish! Once it didn't have legs and now it does!" Mutation adds
deformities like in the case of a cat with 4 ears with 2 functioning but
this is not an example of new genetic growth which is what evolution
requires because it just doubled the information it already has. There has
to be a completely new beneficial information. These mutations would have to
happen in an organized systematic manner Mutations if it really could add
new information would happen sporadically and so unpredictably, it could
hardly lead to building of such a complex life form as the human being. You
think by random mutation, it could lead to a body that has 5 fingers on each
hand and 5 toes on each foot? That by mutation that hearts could come to
rise where it didn't before? How did an unintelligent random process of
mutation lead to such perfection in human bodies, like it just continued to
grow every necessary part? Now that sounds like some intelligent input is
necessary not the random trial and error process of evolution.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ash" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
10 Jun 2007 02:48:21 AM |
|
|
Aaron Kim wrote:
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2Osai.17926$qD.1317@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he
stole from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add
new information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore
eyes where they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in
information but only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a
very misleading argument that the Darwinists like to make to fool the
unsuspecting. You have to be brainwashed to believe that random
mutations could result to the complicated life forms we see around us
today.
Well, at least you actually define "information" most creationists
avoid doing so as then it becomes easy to disprove them. Other than
pure faith, do you have any evidence that mutations can't add new
features? Are you aware that features are under genetic control?
All cases of mutation are always shown without doubt in organisms to be
damages or losses if there is any effect at all of genetic information.
Apart from those that create new functions, or improve others, but I
suppose they are coo inconvenient so you don't include those
The belief that mutation could create new features is like science
fiction like the Marvel comic book characters, the X-Men. Mutation says
somehow, "Behold, look at this fish! Once it didn't have legs and now it
does!"
Af, "faith" is the reason why you insist it can't happen
Mutation adds deformities like in the case of a cat with 4 ears
with 2 functioning but this is not an example of new genetic growth
which is what evolution requires because it just doubled the information
it already has. There has to be a completely new beneficial information.
yes, this comes from mutation, unless you are also arguing that it is
impossible for a second mutation to correct one that "loses information"
How did an unintelligent random process of mutation
lead to such perfection in human bodies, like it just continued to grow
every necessary part?
Well, that would be via natural selection. Which is why we see such a
lack of perfection in human bodies
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
10 Jun 2007 05:28:01 AM |
|
|
On Jun 10, 5:18 pm, "Aaron Kim" <a...@artbulla.com> wrote:
"Ash" <ash.ama...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2Osai.17926$qD.1317@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he
stole from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add new
information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore eyes where
they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in information but
only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a very misleading
argument that the Darwinists like to make to fool the unsuspecting. You
have to be brainwashed to believe that random mutations could result to
the complicated life forms we see around us today.
Well, at least you actually define "informatio" most creationists avoid
doing so as then it becomes easy to disprove them. Other than pure faith,
do you have any evidence that mutations can't add new features? Are you
aware that features are under genetic control?
All cases of mutation are always shown without doubt in organisms to be
damages or losses if there is any effect at all of genetic information. The
belief that mutation could create new features is like science fiction like
the Marvel comic book characters, the X-Men. Mutation says somehow, "Behold,
look at this fish! Once it didn't have legs and now it does!" Mutation adds
deformities like in the case of a cat with 4 ears with 2 functioning but
this is not an example of new genetic growth which is what evolution
requires because it just doubled the information it already has. There has
to be a completely new beneficial information. These mutations would have to
happen in an organized systematic manner Mutations if it really could add
new information would happen sporadically and so unpredictably, it could
hardly lead to building of such a complex life form as the human being. You
think by random mutation, it could lead to a body that has 5 fingers on each
hand and 5 toes on each foot? That by mutation that hearts could come to
rise where it didn't before? How did an unintelligent random process of
mutation lead to such perfection in human bodies, like it just continued to
grow every necessary part? Now that sounds like some intelligent input is
necessary not the random trial and error process of evolution.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Define what 'information' means in regards to DNA.
Explain why the mutation of chloroquine resistance in malaria is not
benefitial.
Explain why sickle cell mutation is not benefitial in malaria-ridden
areas.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Exposing Creationist ***** About Pasteur |
10 Jun 2007 10:33:24 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 00:18:43 -0700, "Aaron Kim" <aaron@artbulla.com>
wrote:
"Ash" <ash.amanic@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:2Osai.17926$qD.1317@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
Aaron Kim wrote:
I might also add that natural selection as Darwin stated, an idea he
stole from creationist/chemist/zoologist Edward Blythe, does not add new
information. It does not add new features like arms, legs, ore eyes where
they did not exist before. Mutations do not increase in information but
only corrupts it or loses it or is neutral. That is a very misleading
argument that the Darwinists like to make to fool the unsuspecting. You
have to be brainwashed to believe that random mutations could result to
the complicated life forms we see around us today.
Well, at least you actually define "informatio" most creationists avoid
doing so as then it becomes easy to disprove them. Other than pure faith,
do you have any evidence that mutations can't add new features? Are you
aware that features are under genetic control?
All cases of mutation are always shown without doubt in organisms to be
damages or losses if there is any effect at all of genetic information.
You are wrong, but just supposing that you were correct, we have
examples of creatures which have lost features.
There are creatures living in deep caves, which have lost all colour.
Many have lost their sight; The eyes still exist, but they no longer
function.
Then there are snakes.
Once they had legs, now, they do not.
Then there is a whole Family, the Pygopodidae, lizards that have lost
their legs.
You see, losses, are not necessarily bad.
The
belief that mutation could create new features is like science fiction like
the Marvel comic book characters, the X-Men.
Why?
Mutation simply means "change".
You are a mutation.
If you were to compare all of your parents genes, then compare them to
your own, you would find factors in your own genes, which do not exist
in the genes of either of your parents.
Those tiny differences, are called "mutations".
Here is what the dictionary says.
mutation
n noun
1 the action or process of changing in form or nature. a
change.
2 a change in the structure of a gene resulting in a variant
form which may be transmitted to subsequent generations. a distinct
form resulting from genetic mutation.
3 Linguistics (in Celtic languages) change of an initial
consonant in a word caused by the preceding word. (in Germanic
languages) the umlaut process.
No mention of good or bad.
No mention of adding or subtracting.
Only *changing*.
Mutation says somehow, "Behold,
look at this fish!
No it doesn't.
If one in ten million mutations were immediately noticeable, we would
be snowed under by the daily crop of new strains, and species,
appearing.
Once it didn't have legs and now it does!
There are creatures today, exhibiting just such a process.
It will be a few million years, and probably a serious climatic
upheaval, before they finally make the move from fish, to
amphibian/amphibian-like.
OTOH, they might never make it.
No one can say for sure.
But the potential is there.
" Mutation adds
deformities like in the case of a cat with 4 ears
Sometimes, yes.
But they are extreme cases.
However, by the same count, identical twins, mirror image twins,
Siamese twins, and all the other forms that human twins take, are also
the product of that same mutation process.
with 2 functioning but
this is not an example of new genetic growth which is what evolution
requires because it just doubled the information it already has.
No. There is no need.
This is a bad analogy, but the best I can come up with at such short
notice.
Consider, as theists often do, that genetic code, is someway akin to
computer code.
You can write a hundred mega bytes of code, to produce an "ear"
effect.
That is analogous to the genetic code required to produce the actual
ear.
Not the hearing mechanism, just the gristle, skin, and fur.
Now in your program, when you want that "effect" to happen, you have a
call routine, and as you want two ears, one, the mirror image of the
other, you have a sub routine of a few bytes, to run your ear code,
twice, the second time with one bit changed.
In machine code, it can be done in a few bytes, perhaps no more than
fifty.
Simply written, it would be-
Run the ear routine twice, the second time with this "bit" switched
on.
Of course, we are not using such a high level language, so a tiny
error creeps in, and you add a command, "Do twice".
It could be a typo, or even a momentary glitch in your storage media.
In machine code, depending on the processor, that command can be less
than one byte, that is, less than eight bits, and as little as one.
And there it is, poor puss cat, has got four ears.
OTOH, the glitch could as easily set a different bit, and say, "Jump
to next routine", and poor puss, has got no ears.
A similar effect has been observed in cats.
The Manx cat, has been bread to highlight a gene, normal Lynx.
The ultra short tail.
It is a mutation.
The same is true for every domesticated animal, be it cat, dog, goat,
pig, hens, turkeys, whatever.
All mutations.
All beneficial to us, but of little or no benefit to the animal
concerned.
There has
to be a completely new beneficial information.
No. All that is required is that it does not kill the creature.
These mutations would have to
happen in an organized systematic manner Mutations if it really could add
new information would happen sporadically and so unpredictably,
More like "constantly" but yes, quite unpredictably.
it could
hardly lead to building of such a complex life form as the human being.
Why not?
We have a thing called an immune system.
It isn't a system, it is just bits of genetic code, that cause certain
parts of out bodies to react in a particular way, to certain foreign
bodies.
Farther, Women have genes which shut down parts of their immune
system.
If they didn't, they would never conceive.
All those bits of code, are mutations.
They do nothing.
They could be passed down from the earliest algae, and only exist in
one in ten of the population.
You would never know they were there.
Then one day, a pandemic strikes, and the 90% of the population, who
do not have the mutation, die.
All the survivors have the mutation, only now, it is not a mutation,
it is the norm.
And evolution takes another step, with the species.
You
think by random mutation,
Yes.
But there is a little more to it than just random mutation.
However, had the mutation that gave one of our forebears the potential
to five fingers, given instead, the potential to six, or four fingers,
then that is what we would have.
When nature gets vicious, it is what works, that counts.
Farther, there are some people with rudimentary sixth fingers, and
toes, so the potential for the species to develop six fingers and
toes, is already there.
it could lead to a body that has 5 fingers on each
hand and 5 toes on each foot?
Five fingers appears to work well enough
More that five is unnecessary.
That by mutation that hearts could come to
rise where it didn't before?
Pardon?
How did an unintelligent random process of
mutation lead to such perfection in human bodies,
You have a strange sense of what perfection is.
like it just continued to
grow every necessary part? Now that sounds like some intelligent input
You have an equally strange sense of what intelligence is.
is
necessary not the random trial and error process of evolution.
There is no trial and error, at least, not from evolution.
Evolution does not exist as a thing, the way that so many religious
fanatics seem to think.
It is merely a process, and a passive one at that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
| | | | | | | | |
