Evolution of humans solved by Shane Warne
- Thread starter zooterkin
- Start date
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Can your cat understand how doorknobs work? I don't mean, can it use a doorknob (some cats can), I mean can it understand the mechanisms?
No, it cannot.
Does that lack of understanding mean that doorknobs are magic? They might look that way to a cat, but they most certainly are not. It is not logical to interpret our present inability to understand how something happens as an indication that it cannot happen. Maybe, like a cat pondering a doorknob, we're just too stupid to figure it out.
I'll give you another example, from actual science. What powers the sun? Well, now we know what it is: fusion. But for a very long time, we didn't. It was a complete mystery. Every known mechanism (chemical reactions, electricity, gravitational heating of collapse) was too small, by orders of magnitude. We knew enough about these other energy sources to conclusively prove that it couldn't be any of them, or even all of them together. Nobody could figure it out. Did that mean it was magic? No, it did not. It just meant we were missing a piece of the puzzle.
So why are you convinced that we aren't just missing a piece of the puzzle now?
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
Argumemnon was discussing DNA. The paper you cite is discussing genes (and exons and intergenic regions). I'm sure you can appreciate that your failure to compare like with like makes your "Factually Incorrect" claim unproven.
You also don't seem to understand the difference between evidence of common ancestry of organisms and immediate genetic ancestry in relation to genes. The paper explains it quite nicely, so you could always try reading it.
1. Your position is an Argument from Ignorance and Appeal to the Future, for one.
2. Dr. Orgel was being "Kind". He's merely talking about The Hardware "Physical Molecules"... which is tantamount to climbing Mount Everest blind without any arms and legs to get them "Naturally" from their respective Building Blocks.
The Wholly Mammoth is...
"INFORMATION": which is neither Matter or Energy; a teaspoon of DNA has enough of it to stack a pile of books from here to the moon 500 times and back!!
"Information" is only ever ever ever sourced by Intelligent Agency.
This is without speaking to Quantum Mechanics, where you have to explain the "Natural" formation of matter i.e., without a "A Knower".
regards
Kid Eager
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 7,296
All,
Rather than waste time forming considered responses to the quote-mining and incorrect use of logical fallacy dismissals, why not just copy an appropriate answer from this thread here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=700929
which is, ironically, a copypasta from here:
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=510213&thread_page=23
That would create a most pleasing symmetry, no? A copypasta response to a copypasta post and you can stop chewing up clock cycles on reasonable responses for an unreasonable person.
Rather than waste time forming considered responses to the quote-mining and incorrect use of logical fallacy dismissals, why not just copy an appropriate answer from this thread here:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=700929
which is, ironically, a copypasta from here:
http://corner.bigblueinteractive.com/index.php?mode=2&thread=510213&thread_page=23
That would create a most pleasing symmetry, no? A copypasta response to a copypasta post and you can stop chewing up clock cycles on reasonable responses for an unreasonable person.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
About 10k.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
You have that backwards. Your argument is one from ignorance: you don't know how life could have evolved, so you conclude it couldn't have. You are using your ignorance as a justification for your beliefs.
Your idiosyncratic definition of "information" is not relevant to anything. In fact, I doubt you could even state your definition coherently.
Slowvehicle
Membership Drive , Co-Ordinator,, Russell's Antin
How so...?
1. That's not My Argument. You must be reading another thread and posting here.
2. I don't know what "evolved" means yet, so how could I make any conclusions? You could help me out though...
Please post the Scientific Theory of evolution...?
How so...?
Information--- that which Informs or Instructs; it's Semiotic, neither Matter/Energy. The foundation of all communication.
regards
The air instructs the water vapor to condense, the ground instructs the drop to fall.
sphenisc
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2004
- Messages
- 6,233
No I'm not kidding you. If you don't know what genes are made of then you may want to take a couple of steps back before reading the paper.
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Because it's the tissue-thin underbelly of young earth creationism and it strains minds to believe it. Best not to think about it.
It's been available in libraries for about 150 years. If you've failed to educate yourself about it, it's hardly our fault.
arthwollipot
Limerick Purist Pronouns: He/Him
Only because you have steadfastly refused to find out, despite several posters willingly and eagerly showing you exactly where and how to find out, and even explaining it several ways several times in the thread. You have ignored every attempt to show you what "evolved" means and then you have tried to claim that because you don't know what it means it can't be real.
Honestly, this is the least sophisticated creationist argument I've ever come across. Even Ken Ham is better at arguing than you. You need to try a lot harder.
You have nothing, your cohorts have nothing. All you/they have are ad hominems, name calling, color commentaries, appeals to ridicule, and baseless assertions.
It's plainly obvious from just a mere cursory review of these threads, the participants wouldn't know what ACTUAL "Science" was if it landed on their heads, spun around, and whistled dixie.
Sure, and Anna Nicole married for Love and Pol Pot was her florist.
regards
For what, the 5th time?? ...
I don't know, and neither does anyone else. It's outside the Purview of The Scientific Method.
A Better Question: Given the Immutable Fact that it is OUTSIDE the Scientific Method and can never be VALIDATED, why on Earth are these "Long Ages" PUSHED ad nauseam, mainly by Pseudo-Scientists..."Then Stage 5 Clung" to and Blindly Parroted by the masses as Fact and all challengers ridiculed endlessly for even bringing the topic up, Pray Tell.... ???
Sounds like "Propaganda" to me, you? It's mind numbing.
regards
The Greater Fool
Illuminator
e-volve
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1. to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2. to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3. to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4. Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.
ev-o-lu-tion
noun
1. any process of formation or growth; development:
the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane.
2. a product of such development; something evolved :
The exploration of space is the evolution of decades of research.
3. Biology. change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift.
4. a process of gradual, peaceful, progressive change or development, as in social or economic structure or institutions.
5. a motion incomplete in itself, but combining with coordinated motions to produce a single action, as in a machine.
6. a pattern formed by or as if by a series of movements:
the evolutions of a figure skater.
7. an evolving or giving off of gas, heat, etc.
This information is from an on-line dictionary (at dictionary.com). Dictionaries are books that people used to learn the definitions of new words encountered while studying other subjects. Like many people, I learned to use the dictionary in grade school. School is a place where students are educated about different subjects that may interest them.
As it is apparent by your constant demands for word meanings, a dictionary might be a good tool for you to learn to use. Perhaps you could start by finding "science" in the dictionary. If you encounter any other words you are unfamiliar with, you may also find them in the dictionary. There are literally thousands of words in dictionaries, so you will often be rewarded for your effort.
Glad to help.
