How does Evolution explain Male and Female - Why are there two sexes Creating Genetic Variations ?

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

And here we have yet another one that doesn't have an argument.

And yes. Experts. The conversation would go quite well, because I would be asking questions, and most likely actually getting answers rather than an attitude in return.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

And here we have yet another one that doesn't have an argument.

And yes. Experts. The conversation would go quite well, because I would be asking questions, and most likely actually getting answers rather than an attitude in return.

Then you should absolutely go do that and get those real answers instead of knowingly wasting your time here. I'll be very interested to see you successfully replace evolution with a working model of creationism. Maybe then you can answer all of our questions the way evolution never could.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

And here we have yet another one that doesn't have an argument.

And yes. Experts. The conversation would go quite well, because I would be asking questions, and most likely actually getting answers rather than an attitude in return.

Then you should absolutely go do that and get those real answers instead of knowingly wasting your time here. I'll be very interested to see you successfully replace evolution with a working model of creationism. Maybe then you can answer all of our questions the way evolution never could.

Oh you think THAT is my goal? Funny.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: vasaga
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

How is that vague?

That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague.

originally posted by: Barcs
It explains how evolution works.

No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

originally posted by: Barcs
At it's core evolution is the change in frequency of alleles in a population group determined by genetic mutations, natural selection and myriad of other mechanisms. Your comparison was completely invalid and I already explained why.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

originally posted by: Barcs
Genetic code directly affects the morphology of an organism. Copy errors on a computer do not alter the physical computer, while genetic mutations in DNA CAN do that. It's invalid.

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

originally posted by: Barcs
LMAO! Really? They are not biological organisms. I can't believe you needed to ask.

Ok so there IS a difference between a biological organism and a purely mechanistic machine.

originally posted by: Barcs

So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place.

Nice straw man. I said your comparison was invalid and outlined why.

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man. It is an implication of your answer, unintended I'm sure, because you really don't like those implications, and you love to pretend they don't exist. And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

originally posted by: Barcs

I'll stop being condescending when you guys stop the arrogance, lies

Oh the irony...

originally posted by: Barcs
and blatant misrepresentations of evolution or my position.

Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

And here we have yet another one that doesn't have an argument.

And yes. Experts. The conversation would go quite well, because I would be asking questions, and most likely actually getting answers rather than an attitude in return.

Then you should absolutely go do that and get those real answers instead of knowingly wasting your time here. I'll be very interested to see you successfully replace evolution with a working model of creationism. Maybe then you can answer all of our questions the way evolution never could.

Oh you think THAT is my goal? Funny.

I didn't realize you had a goal. But I did realize that you probably don't understand evolution or you would already know there is no intelligent design involved in the reproductive process.

a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga Oh you think THAT is my goal?

Funny. I didn't realize you had a goal. But I did realize that you probably don't understand evolution or you would already know there is no intelligent design involved in the reproductive process.

GREAT! - Made this post worthwhile after all - Answered an important question.

Why I had a lousy sex life - Must have been too intelligent as any dumb bunnies can breed as long as they don't know
what they are doing - Become aware and you pay the consequences.

Stupidity and random chance will triumph over intelligence and design time and time again, right?

I think not - In the long run the poker players who go with the odds will win
Intelligence and the design patterns it produces will define Evolution.

'Survival of the fittest' is a pattern of design that requires an intelligent mind to perceive and define it
- Regardless of where that 'mind of observation' originates - It must be there - or nothing is there
- And I can't perceive or accurately define nothing - And neither can you

originally posted by: vasaga
No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

Well, you are a liar then, because those are the primary mechanisms. Sorry you hate that, but until you refute the evidence you don't have an argument.

So that implies that all the information is already there, and the frequency change eliminates certain alleles.

You are having major trouble with reading comprehension. Genetic mutations create new information, it's not already there, and this has been proved. LMAO!

Except that doesn't disprove anything. I specifically said games. Games have a visual output. The game code directly affects the visual output. It doesn't have to change the computer itself, anymore than life needs to change the general physical workings of molecules.

Dude, just stop already. Your comparison is blatantly wrong and I already proved that. Copy errors in games CAN NOT increase the graphics capabilities of the physical machine or alter the physical machine in any way whatsoever. You don't know PCs, you don't know logic, you don't know evolution or science. What do you know besides that you hate any science that conflicts with old myths?

Do you even know what a strawman is? That is not a straw man.

A straw man is when you create a false explanation for something to easily tear it down or purposely misrepresent a person's argument in order to claim you refuted it.

"So you are actually saying that you need something more than simply a mechanistic deterministic process for evolution to take place" is a straw man because I never actually argued that. The sure sign of a straw man is a phrase that starts with "So what you are saying is." What I am saying is what I actually said.

And yet it comes back again and again. You can't keep running forever.

Says the guy that won't even refute a single piece of evidence on the list of 30+ I gave you, and just like Coop you run away the second the evidence is brought up and immediately divert to straw mans and other fallacies.

]Maybe if you were actually capable of clarifying evolution or your position, you wouldn't need to be condescending and there wouldn't be any misrepresentations.

My job is not to educate the ignorant. I've clarified evolution and posted supporting evidence so many times I've lost count. If you are unwilling to even learn what it means, or how it works, then that is on YOU.

originally posted by: cooperton
So often "evolution did it" is used in place of actual science, because the actual science regarding the mechanism is totally unfounded.

That's a complete lie. I've posted the evidence and demonstrations of the mechanisms many times and you are unable to even refute a single one. You don't know anything about science outside of what preachers tell you. Genetic mutations are not unfounded.

exactly. "Natural selection" (i.e. changing population allele frequencies) only works if there are pre-existent alleles to select from! Again, this is further evidence that these pieces were always present to allow populations and individuals to adapt to extremes, but never in a lab setting has an organism changed into another type of organism.

LOL! You have no idea what the word "evidence" means. Genetic mutations change the genes. Not sure why this is so complicated. It's been slam dunk proved, to say all of the information was already there is flat out laughable. And there you go with creationist jargon like "type" of organism. If you don't grasp biology and want to believe in god that's fine, but stop intentionally misrepresenting it.

Computers fail in comparison to biological organisms because biological organisms are much, much more complex than computers. If it requires intelligent humans to make computers, which are far less complex than biological organisms, then it is obvious that biological organisms were also designed by a greater intelligence than we currently possess. Both have code though, and it works as a comparison that randomly changing the code on a computer would never work to increase function, it would only destroy it.

And you just repeat the blind watchmaker fallacy. Gotta love it. Computers fail in comparison because they don't change the physical computer with copy errors.

Nobody has answered the infinite regression problem yet either. If a designer is required for anything containing information, then the designer himself would need to be designed since information is required to create anything, so you have to get to a point where there is either no info or no designer.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Maybe you should take a class on biology and evolution and come back when you have mastered the basics. I'd be interested to hear how your conversation goes in a professional environment with certified experts.

It would be like a comedy show if that happened. It would be like a young child that just learned basic addition and subtraction trying to argue against calculus.

originally posted by: AlienView
Stupidity and random chance will triumph over intelligence and design time and time again, right?

Look who the president is. Yeah stupidity triumphs over intelligence all the time, but not in science. Science doesn't have popular votes based on how charismatic somebody is and it's not about popular opinion, it's about testable evidence.

I think not - In the long run the poker players who go with the odds will win

Actually poker is something like 30% skill and 70% luck. You can play a hand perfectly and still lose to a donk that doesn't even know the odds. Trust me, you need way more than going with the odds in order to consistently win. You need to read your opponents, know when to bluff and understand the pot odds and even many that do, can't win consistently.

'Survival of the fittest' is a pattern of design that requires an intelligent mind to perceive and define it
- Regardless of where that 'mind of observation' originates - It must be there - or nothing is there
- And I can't perceive or accurately define nothing - And neither can you

What do you mean by "or nothing is there?" Natural selection is just how certain organisms are favored over others based on the adaptability. Not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there.

a reply to: Barcs

What do you mean by "or nothing is there?" Natural selection is just how certain organisms are favored over others based on the adaptability. Not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there.

Modern physics has come to accept 'the 'Observer effect' - The simple act of observation in some ways changes what is
being observed - Some are now proposing that all that exists requires observation to exist - How would you know all of
your so-called evolved lifeforms ever existed at all if your [Human] mind could not observe and define them

"Natural selection [what's natural?] is just how certain organisms are favored over others based on adaptability
[adaptability to survive?" - for what purpose? - just to survive? - Why survive?, why want to survive? - Are you saying there
is a pre-programmed will to survival? - WHY? - What agency or force is generating a will to survival?

Does Evolution tell you how [besides dumb chance] a biological cell came to exist in an otherwise inorganic [as far as
known] universe ? - Why there is life at all? - Why life continues to multiply and appear in a multitude of forms, shapes
and sizes? - The reason, direction or purpose of this ongoing procession? No it doesn't.

Evolution and its measurement are observational in nature and proves nothing.
Intelligent design [even without religious prejudice] may not prove anything either
- But its willing to speculate - And even science requires speculation to advance.......The next stage in Evolution
may come from outside of what Evolution is observing.

Keep the faith Barcs - You may find, as you said:
"Not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there"

originally posted by: AlienView
a reply to: TzarChasm

originally posted by: vasaga Oh you think THAT is my goal?

Funny. I didn't realize you had a goal. But I did realize that you probably don't understand evolution or you would already know there is no intelligent design involved in the reproductive process.

GREAT! - Made this post worthwhile after all - Answered an important question.

Why I had a lousy sex life - Must have been too intelligent as any dumb bunnies can breed as long as they don't know
what they are doing - Become aware and you pay the consequences.

Stupidity and random chance will triumph over intelligence and design time and time again, right?

I think not - In the long run the poker players who go with the odds will win
Intelligence and the design patterns it produces will define Evolution.

'Survival of the fittest' is a pattern of design that requires an intelligent mind to perceive and define it
- Regardless of where that 'mind of observation' originates - It must be there - or nothing is there
- And I can't perceive or accurately define nothing - And neither can you

Well: at least one person thinks your post is worthwhile.

Don't understand at all your reference to intelligent-design equaling intelligent people having sex.
Wanna try to explain it, or would you prefer to continue to ignore the questions and challenges to your claims?

Even putting that aside: your claim that you had a lousy sex-life because you ..."...Must have been too intelligent..."..., is disproven by any 'intelligent' person having a great sex-life.
Beware of illogical ego-traps!
This is a 101 level in understanding what is going-on around us, and not blaming our perceived bad luck on whatever.

'Survival of the fittest' is a pattern of design that requires an intelligent mind to perceive and define it

Or: create it, maybe?

- Regardless of where that 'mind of observation' originates - It must be there - or nothing is there - And I can't perceive or accurately define nothing - And neither can you

Maybe when too much is thought to be known: the mind is too busy and self-important, and can't/won't contemplate nothing?

Regarding this thread: folks don't argue against truth. Folks argue about opinions,beliefs, concepts, and interpretations.
21 pages of arguments...

Just because somebody keeps shouting something: doesn't make it any more true.


(Don't 'know' these things. They are merely opinion/belief/temporary ideas/observations).

Just to put things in perspective... I'll simply sequence this out.

Me:
I wonder how many times I have to copy my computer games for the code to get enough errors to magically give me better graphics. Maybe we'll even get a distinction between male and female games so that the graphics can improve faster when they both run at the same time.

Barcs:
Nice straw man. Well done!

Me:
How is that a straw man?

Barcs:
Can you not even read your own response??? You dishonestly compared evolution to copying computer games and magically improving the graphics capability. Not even close to how genetic mutation works.

Me:
Really? How does it work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

Barcs:
Genetic mutations and natural selection.

Me:
That's a completely vague answer that doesn't say anything about how it works. That's like if someone asks how a car works, and someone replies, gasoline and engine.

Barcs:
How is that vague? It explains how evolution works

Me:
That's why discussing with you is impossible. I already answered that, one sentence after I said your supposed answer was vague. No, it doesn't explain how evolution works any more than the words wings and air explains how a plane flies.

Barcs:
Well, you are a liar then, because those are the primary mechanisms. Sorry you hate that, but until you refute the evidence you don't have an argument.


To highlight the issue here, for the ones that are too blind to see it.... Let me put them again...

Barcs:
Can you not even read your own response??? You dishonestly compared evolution to copying computer games and magically improving the graphics capability. Not even close to how genetic mutation works.

Me:
Really? How does [genetic mutation] work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

Barcs:
Genetic mutations and natural selection.

Even funnier;

Barcs:
I've clarified evolution and posted supporting evidence so many times I've lost count.

And I am the liar?
Waste of time trying to talk to this guy. Always making a whole list of demands, but can't explain a simple question. The irony is extremely strong here.

How is a computer game code getting damaged after being copied a bunch of times any different to a genetic mutation being produced by faults in copying the DNA sequence? STILL no answer for that.

a reply to: AlienView

That is completely wrong about the observer effect. The observer effect is an electron microscope taking measurements and affecting what it measures by doing it. It has nothing to do with a person looking at something. It's hard to measure something that small, because you rely on reflected light to see them. It doesn't mean that looking away from something makes it not exist. The effect happens every time a measurement is taken irrelevant to whether somebody is looking at it or not.

You ask what is natural about natural selection? The environment.

for what purpose? - just to survive? - Why survive?, why want to survive? - Are you saying there
is a pre-programmed will to survival? - WHY? - What agency or force is generating a will to survival?

Why does there need to be a purpose? It's literally just organisms getting lucky with random mutations that aid them in surviving and spread to the population. The reason creatures have will to survive is because they DID survive. If any organisms lacked that "will" they would have died off long ago.

Does Evolution tell you how [besides dumb chance] a biological cell came to exist in an otherwise inorganic [as far as known] universe ?

No, that is covered by the many abiogenesis hypotheses. How can chance be dumb? What is dumb about probability? There is no need to romanticize it. Chemical reactions are not random. Just because things might not be designed, does not mean everything is absolute randomness. That's the opposite of reality.

Evolution and its measurement are observational in nature and proves nothing.

Did I just read that correctly? You are saying that observing evolution doesn't prove evolution exists?

Keep the faith Barcs - You may find, as you said:
"Not seeing something doesn't mean it's not there"

That was in reference to the observer effect which you claimed meant things don't exist unless you look at them. And I never claimed ID or a creator is impossible or wrong. I just find the arguments people are using to support them are very flawed.

Really? How does [genetic mutation] work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

LMAO! I love how you insert something into your post that wasn't originally there. You don't understand specifically how genetic mutations work? How can you say that when we already established that most genetic mutations are caused by copy errors and that was the primary theme in your invalid analogy to video games???

I clearly already explained that genetic mutations are caused mostly by copy errors. They can also arise from environmental factors like radiation. If there is something specific you don't understand about evolution or genetic mutations, then ask me instead of vague one lines like "How does it work?" We have the entire field of genetics to explain that.

Barcs:
I've clarified evolution and posted supporting evidence so many times I've lost count.

And I am the liar?
Waste of time trying to talk to this guy. Always making a whole list of demands, but can't explain a simple question. The irony is extremely strong here.

Are you kidding me?

My very first post in this thread:

Barcs

Then I posted it again here:

Barcs

I've posted it so many times I have lost count. That isn't a lie. I have explained evolution so many times to scientific illiterates and everything is completely dismissed out of hand.

How is a computer game code getting damaged after being copied a bunch of times any different to a genetic mutation being produced by faults in copying the DNA sequence? STILL no answer for that.

I answered it several times! Copy errors in a game do not change the physical computer, while genetic mutations CAN change the morphology of an organism! Is that REALLY that hard to understand? Accusing me of giving no answer and no evidence when I have provided such many many times is extremely dishonest. Not sure what the problem is here, you are completely unwilling to even consider what I am (or the scientific research is) saying. I didn't lie about anything. I didn't intentionally misrepresent you like Coop did to me. You are just ignorant when it comes to evolution.

a reply to: Barcs

Barcs wrote:

a reply to: AlienView That is completely wrong about the observer effect. The observer effect is an electron microscope taking measurements and affecting what it measures by doing it. It has nothing to do with a person looking at something. It's hard to measure something that small, because you rely on reflected light to see them. It doesn't mean that looking away from something makes it not exist. The effect happens every time a measurement is taken irrelevant to whether somebody is looking at it or not.

Let's clarify this - it is relevant to this discussion/debate

Quantum Theory Demonstrated: Observation Affects Reality

"REHOVOT, Israel, February 26, 1998--One of the most bizarre premises of quantum theory, which has long fascinated philosophers and physicists alike, states that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality.

In a study reported in the February 26 issue of Nature (Vol. 391, pp. 871-874), researchers at the Weizmann Institute of Science have now conducted a highly controlled experiment demonstrating how a beam of electrons is affected by the act of being observed. The experiment revealed that the greater the amount of "watching," the greater the observer's influence on what actually takes place".............

"Strange as it may sound, interference can only occur when no one is watching. Once an observer begins to watch the particles going through the openings, the picture changes dramatically: if a particle can be seen going through one opening, then it's clear it didn't go through another.In other words, when under observation, electrons are being "forced" to behave like particles and not like waves. Thus the mere act of observation affects the experimental findings..............
Quote source:
www.sciencedaily.com...

You see the potential significance here, here in the macro world? - Can Evolution be occuting without observation? You would probably say yes, and Man is a current product of it, right?

But what I'm questioning is 1. How do you know this? and 2. To what extent is the Human observation of Evolution
affecting its current direction? and even further 3. How accurate is the past natural history of species when it is
only based on the supposedly unbiased, but still only Human observation?

I suppose what I'm looking for might be called 'scientific intelligent design' [the science and intelligence that backs the science] - necessitating the search for the root meanings behind events - If you want to believe in Evolution, fine, but it must be seen as occurring somewhere'
in place and time - Evolution itself still does not really answer for itself.

- AlienView

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: AlienView

That is completely wrong about the observer effect. The observer effect is an electron microscope taking measurements and affecting what it measures by doing it.

That's the opposite of what physicists believe. The most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation, which insists:

"a quantum particle doesn't exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It's only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and that's the state that we observe."


I really don't think you understand what you're saying. You just blindly refute any empirical science that disagree with your material reductionist mindset.

originally posted by: AlienView


You see the potential significance here, here in the macro world? - Can Evolution be occuting without observation? You would probably say yes, and Man is a current product of it, right?

But what I'm questioning is 1. How do you know this?

To put it as simply as possible, matter did not come before consciousness, consciousness came before matter. The Copenhagen interpretation insists that matter exists in a probabilistic waveform until observed by a conscious observer or an extension of that observer (i.e. a machine).

originally posted by: Barcs

Really? How does [genetic mutation] work? And spare me the "go read a book or a scientific paper" comments.

LMAO! I love how you insert something into your post that wasn't originally there.

I didn't insert anything new. I clarified what exactly I was asking. That's how the [] brackets are used everywhere.

originally posted by: Barcs
You don't understand specifically how genetic mutations work? How can you say that when we already established that most genetic mutations are caused by copy errors and that was the primary theme in your invalid analogy to video games???

I clearly already explained that genetic mutations are caused mostly by copy errors. They can also arise from environmental factors like radiation. If there is something specific you don't understand about evolution or genetic mutations, then ask me instead of vague one lines like "How does it work?" We have the entire field of genetics to explain that.

LOL now you're trying to say that my question was vague? HAHAHAHA

originally posted by: Barcs

Barcs:
I've clarified evolution and posted supporting evidence so many times I've lost count.

Right. By answering a new question with the same old irrelevant answer like above, right?

originally posted by: Barcs
And I am the liar?
Waste of time trying to talk to this guy. Always making a whole list of demands, but can't explain a simple question. The irony is extremely strong here.

Are you kidding me?

My very first post in this thread:

Barcs

Then I posted it again here:

Barcs

I've posted it so many times I have lost count. That isn't a lie. I have explained evolution so many times to scientific illiterates and everything is completely dismissed out of hand.

How is a computer game code getting damaged after being copied a bunch of times any different to a genetic mutation being produced by faults in copying the DNA sequence? STILL no answer for that.

I answered it several times! Copy errors in a game do not change the physical computer, while genetic mutations CAN change the morphology of an organism! Is that REALLY that hard to understand?

I explained why that's not relevant. Changing the computer is the equivalent of changing physics. Changing of graphics is the equivalent of changing the organism.

But I guess you're simply extremely bad at analogies.

originally posted by: Barcs
Accusing me of giving no answer and no evidence when I have provided such many many times is extremely dishonest. Not sure what the problem is here, you are completely unwilling to even consider what I am (or the scientific research is) saying. I didn't lie about anything. I didn't intentionally misrepresent you like Coop did to me. You are just ignorant when it comes to evolution.

That's why I am in here asking a bunch of questions, but instead of answers I get repetition, attitudes, platitudes, impatience and scorn in return. Acting like the one asking is stupid, well, maybe it simply reflects your inability to explain things. According to you, you explained everything, but obviously you didn't.

a reply to: AlienView

Again, you completely misinterpret the double slit experiment. The observer is an electron microscope, not a conscious person. The effect ONLY happens when measurements are taken, it has nothing to do with consciousness or looking at something. Consciousness has never been shown to change reality. That's just the woowoo interpretation.

originally posted by: cooperton
That's the opposite of what physicists believe. The most widely held interpretation of quantum mechanics is the Copenhagen interpretation, which insists:

"a quantum particle doesn't exist in one state or another, but in all of its possible states at once. It's only when we observe its state that a quantum particle is essentially forced to choose one probability, and that's the state that we observe."


I really don't think you understand what you're saying. You just blindly refute any empirical science that disagree with your material reductionist mindset.

What you are saying is not falsifiable.It is not WE who observes, it is a microscope. It doesn't mean that looking away from something makes it not exist. Much is not understood about QM, but of course you latch onto it and take it as absolute unwavering fact simply because you try to make it support your claims when they actually don't.

To put it as simply as possible, matter did not come before consciousness, consciousness came before matter. The Copenhagen interpretation insists that matter exists in a probabilistic waveform until observed by a conscious observer or an extension of that observer (i.e. a machine).

Yeah, now prove that your interpretation is the right one. Oh wait you can't. You understand that there are 17 other interpretations, right? It's absolutely hilarious how you blindly support this one interpretation of a HYPOTHESIS, while blindly rejecting all abiogenesis hypotheses without even looking at them. The double standards are hilarious. Anything that supports your religion is automatic absolute truth why anything that conflicts is speculative conjecture.