Can you really say Evolution has no Meaning ?

a reply to: rnaa

I am certainly not trolling you. Have you read the article I posted? I hoped you would see what I try to explain to you. There are deterministic and stochastic processes going on.

Deterministic is something that we can pin down all causes for. Repeatable things. Stochastic is something that does not have a determined outcome. Like your sand grain example.

Sometimes it happens, sometimes not, sometimes something else happens. Stochastic and the term "random" is closely related, while stochastic is about the modelling approach to find the patters and causes, random describes the observation we experience because we do not have all information to model the approach pattern that led to the stochastic outcome.

In your example, you introduce a lot of stochastic parameters but just because you layer and link them, doesn't make it random. You just blew up the information needed to come to an approach that would turn the stochastic event into something determinable.

Not all things can become determinable but even then if something stays stochastic, it does only feed our observation of randomness, it doesn't make it true random. You using a lot of red color doesn't make it random either.

Me asking you for a correct physical example isn't trolling. In fact if you knew what we are talking about, you wouldn't make such claims. Because you would know that yet there is nothing we know of that is true random, yet. If there was something, a lot of science fields would benefit from it. That does not say there is nothing, but if you claim there is something, you need to provide evidence for your claum

You would surely own the nobel prize for science, if you had the answer. So by all means, dig further.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Interesting phenomenon regarding those who use the word "random" and similar descriptions in the evolution vs creation debate:

a reply to: whereislogic

I see what you are hinting at. Okay let's dive even deeper, DNA has a set of rules, you can not add Adenin and Cytosin together, physics prevents this.

Let's simplify
Suppose you have a box of all the ingredients needed for a strand of DNA. If you shake this box long enough, you eventually will end up with every possible physical combination of DNA. That might be a long time and lot's of do-overs (separating everything again), though.

If we knew all positions and orientations of the single bricks, the initial state of what's inside the box, and the input, the shaking, we could simulate the outcome. This is what simulations do, take input, process it according to the laws set for the simulation and iterate through the laws.

Nothing of it is random in the sense of, we couldn't predict it if we had a complete knowledge of everything going on. That is the paradox of simulating our universe here on earth, we can not, since the simulation itself is part of the environment we want to simulate (ADD: plus other reasons).

There are physical processes that prevent us from measuring something, without influencing it. We can not precisely measure voltage AND amperage at the same exact time. It's either this or that. The photon that hit's our eyes, even if it would reach us instantly after bouncing off something, still put a tiny amount of momentum into the object and thus changed it's internal strain or position in space-time.

This keeps a lot of things stochastic for us, since we can not determine. It's far from random in the true sense. I repeat, if we knew a process for generating real randomness, something we can not reproduce even when we have all the input parameters, something true stochastic, cryptography and other fields would take off.

Maybe there is something out there, maybe it was discovered and kept secret. But officially, and repeatable (the irony) process to create random results, is not known in science. I initially wrote that we can have both evolution and creationism at the same time, the one does not exclude the other.

And seriously, my personal opinion is that there can be a lot of examples found for creationism. That is, if these examples are not subject to some hidden processes we have not found yet.

For example look at the Fibonacci sequence and how it closes in on the golden ratio. This golden ratio can be found in us humans, in nature, too.
www.whydontyoutrythis.com...

The "problem" (more of a non sequitur than what you might call damaging revelation) is when society tries to conflate evolution with destiny. There's an ultimate function that serves a specific job within a specific agenda. Evolution is not an agenda nor does it answer to politics or metaphysical pursuits. It is a genetic lottery that plays the odds and sometimes the odds pay off.

originally posted by: ThatDamnDuckAgain
a reply to: whereislogic

...
Let's simplify
Suppose you have a box of all the ingredients needed for a strand of DNA. If you shake this box long enough, you eventually will end up with every possible physical combination of DNA. That might be a long time and lot's of do-overs (separating everything again), though.
...

Well, I'm not going to debate the meaning of randomness with you (I tend to use the term 'by chance" anyway to avoid any confusion or distracting debate about 'randomness'), but I did want to point out something regarding DNA. For the ingredients of DNA to form a DNA strand in a box you'll need more than merely the ingredients and some cause or agent shaking the box. You'll need the biomolecular machinery that links nucleotides together, as well as the system of biomolecular machinery that keeps whatever resulting strand from breaking apart again (cell membrane and the machinery that keeps everything running at the right equilibrium within a cell). Unprotected DNA strands, or even just the ingredients will degrade and break apart in a natural environment or simply a box (not a petri dish or test tube where the scientist conducting the experiment will take every step they know of to preserve the DNA strand intact), and DNA strands will not form from just the ingredients under those conditions (not to mention that in a natural environment you cannot isolate only the DNA ingredients, other stuff will be around, such as water as in the hydrothermal vent hypothesis or scenario for the origin of life, which accelerates the degradation or breaking apart of DNA strands, it does not bring the ingredients together to form a DNA strand).

So no, putting the ingredients of DNA in a box and then shaking it, will not get you "every possible physical combination of DNA" (thinking about DNA strands, or polymers). Eventually, even the ingredients themselves, assuming you are thinking of nucleotides, will break apart and lose their cohesion. They will also not form strands of DNA on their own under those conditions or any realistic natural environmental conditions for that matter (see footnote at the end).

Perhaps it helps to understand if you know a little more about what it takes to turn individual nucleotides into a DNA strand that is also meaningful in terms of it coding for something that is actually used as part of the processes of life (rather than a strand of DNA that does nothing in this regards, doesn't code for any of the machinery that a living cell uses to survive and reproduce):

You'll need these machines to produce the 'fuel' to power the whole process:

So then these machines can get to work and do something useful in terms of the preservation and continuation of life:

And then without the folding machinery, those proteins would be useless as well in terms of the processes of life (misfolded proteins generally cause diseases and death, it screws up the works so to speak, or as the narrator puts it, "we do know that accurate folding is essential in order for the protein to accomplish its intended function"):

You need all of it together for it to work and a DNA strand to form and actually be useful in terms of the processes of life, and one more important subject:

Context of those videos and some more things you'll need that falls under my description of what "links nucleotides together, as well as the system of biomolecular machinery that keeps whatever resulting strand from breaking apart again (cell membrane and the machinery that keeps everything running at the right equilibrium within a cell)":

Molecular Machinery of Life (playlist)

I probably need to add a few videos about the cell membrane to that playlist now, cause that's kinda important in terms of the preservation of strands of DNA, preventing degradation or these strands from breaking apart again.*

*: or as explained below regarding amino acids, which also counts for nucleotides and strands of nucleotides or strands of DNA (pay close attention to the bolded parts when comparing with the evolutionary storyline referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis"):

Would an “Organic Soup” Form?

11. (a) Why is it unlikely that an “organic soup” would accumulate in the ocean? (b) How was Miller able to save the few amino acids he did get?

11 How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

12. What would happen to amino acids even if some reached the oceans?

12 However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”(⁠8)

13. What must amino acids in water do if they are to form proteins, but then what other danger do they face?

13 So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”(⁠9)

14. So, what is one of the most stubborn problems facing evolutionists?

14 Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠(10) Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠(11)

...

Source: Could Life Originate by Chance? (Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?)

References (the numbers behind the quotations there):

7. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

11. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Context of those videos and some more things you'll need that falls under my description of what "links nucleotides together, as well as the system of biomolecular machinery that keeps whatever resulting strand from breaking apart again (cell membrane and the machinery that keeps everything running at the right equilibrium within a cell)":

With the bolded part I'm referring to what the man in the video below describes regarding the subject of "homeostasis" (he also gives a nice definition as to what constitutes as life); maybe I should have just used "homeostasis" instead of "running at the right equilibrium" as well, but I wanted to use some expression that reminded one of things 'running smoothly', as in a system of machinery, automated assembly lines in a factory, 'running smoothly':

It's in the playlist I linked earlier but it's a bit late (video 31), so you might miss it.

The whole idea of shaking a box with nucleotides in them to get them to stick together to form a single strand of nucleotides to then eventually form double-stranded DNA (regardless of whether or not this strand is functional in terms of the processes of life) can be somewhat compared to putting individual lego pieces into a box and expecting that by shaking the box the individual pieces will actually stick together without forming a big blob. Except that individual pieces of lego, and pieces of lego that have been deliberately attached to one another by human intelligent intervention fitting them together in the manner that all of us who played with lego know that they will remain stuck, is nowhere near as fragile as individual nucleotides or a strand of nucleotides or double-stranded nucleic acid known as DNA (in increasing levels of fragility in that order, i.e. DNA breaks apart or loses cohesion more quickly than a single strand of nucleotides, and a strand of nucleotides breaks apart more quickly than individual nucleotides; shaking the box accelerates this destructive or degrading entropic process, as does water, especially high temperature volatile water such as near a hydrothermal vent, just the way a cube of sugar dissolves quicker in hot water than in cold water, but dissolve it will, the bonds between the sugar molecules will be broken leaving individual sugar crystals, which will eventually disappear to the naked eye as well, indicating that they dissolved or degraded even further into smaller parts). If you're hoping for things to stay stuck together once fitted together by design and engineering, you're better off with lego or not shaking the box at all.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

I see the point you're trying to make and ill say you couldn't determine all the factors involved physics won't allow it. Problem becomes the interactions on the photon level by their very nature become unpredictable. In quantum physics, a particle can be in multiple states at the same time have and have fundamentally unpredictable results.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well given enough time anything is possible. Nucleotides were easy enough to make on the early earth, They would naturally create chains it's what they do. And I guess it's possible that eventually, they learned to reproduce and you could get a cell. But that doesn't mean that's what happened because we replicated it in a lab. Aliens could have come down and created life it's possible. Though it's easier to explain through self-replication.

If you don't like the word, try natural adaptation. Life will find a way to survive and prosper with the path of least resistance for remaining alive and for reproduction. The Creators design, which is brilliant.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Well given enough time anything is possible.

No, just no. An utterly baseless statement. There is no evidence to support this fantasy. However, there is lots of evidence that refutes said claim. It's usually used as some agnostic mantra, the proponents of this notion don't even bother to provide evidence supporting this view other than some lame philosophical argumentation and utter nonsense or sophisticated nonsense (as in well hidden that it is nonsensical by means of sophisticated language and elaborately constructed arguments to distract from the real issues with their reasoning and to confuse the listener). Common sense should tell a person that not just "anything is possible", no matter how much time you give it to happen (which you are limited with anyway, the universe is only so old; please spare me the fantasies and baseless speculation about pre-existing universes or the multiverse).

Nucleotides were easy enough to make on the early earth,

Nope. Not easy at all. And...:

Shapiro says that “no nucleotides of any kind have been reported as products of spark-discharge experiments or in studies of meteorites.”(3) He further states that the probability of a self-replicating RNA molecule randomly assembling from a pool of chemical building blocks “is so vanishingly small that its happening even once anywhere in the visible universe would count as a piece of exceptional good luck.”(4)

Source: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life—Five Questions Worth Asking)

If he were completely honest, he would not have said "so vanishingly small" but "nonexistent", but these people like to believe this is what happened, so they will not often admit that. They're hoping some people will not understand what this means for the plausibility of their storyline, so they pretend the chance of it happening is very small rather than non-existent, so they can pretend it happened anyway because it supposedly can happen, so if given enough time, yada yada (your argument, conveniently ignoring that you do not have enough time to give to fill the requirements of the proposed chance of this happening to claim that it's even possible in the time allotted, no more than 15 billion years for the universe and no more than 5 billion years for the earth and no more than a couple of billion years from the time earth was formed to the time abiogenesis is said to have occured or the time where we see evidence for the first unicellular life; that's not enough time, and of course, no amount of time can make the impossible happen anyway), in spite of the supposed extremely low plausibility of their storyline being correct, which is actually a non-existent plausibility.

They would naturally create chains it's what they do.

Again no, that's not what they naturally do, i.e. what happens in a natural environment. I already explained what really happens in a natural environment, degradation or entropy, or in the words of Chemist Richard Dickerson as quoted before: “depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”

And I guess it's possible that eventually, they learned to reproduce and you could get a cell.

But that doesn't mean that's what happened because we replicated it in a lab.

We didn't, not what you just described ("they learned to reproduce and you could get a cell", nor "They would naturally create chains" for that matter, nothing natural about the creation and engineering of strands of RNA in a laboratory, using already existing biomolecular machinery and components extracted from living organisms, such as ribozymes and nucleotides; if I take a wheel of a car, and build a wheelbarrow out of it, I can't describe the wheelbarrow, nor the wheel as having been 'naturally created'*, and I certainly can't use it as evidence for my storyline that the car was formed naturally without any intelligent intervention). *: "self-replication" is a similarly dubious term depending on the situation, more on that later regarding Stephen Meyer's video. But think about this, if a ribozyme (biomolecular machine) is used to assist in linking the nucleotides that you as a scientist have added to your petri dish containing a pre-engineered and specifically sequenced strain of RNA and everything it needs to prevent depolymerization before the experiment is finished, is it the strain of RNA that you've already engineered and added to the petri dish earlier that is "self-replicating"? Is the term "self-replicating" in any way applicable? How about "self-assembly"? The ribozyme machine (a.k.a. enzyme) has been specifically designed to do this linking function.

Aliens could have come down and created life it's possible. Though it's easier to explain through self-replication.

No it isn't, it doesn't explain anything, it's just wishful thinking, a fantasy and misnomer of observed automated assembly processes regulated and guided by a pre-programmed code specifically programmed and designed for the purpose of automated assembly, replication and reproduction. And meaningless strands of DNA do not self-replicate, they do not replicate at all, they just eventually break apart (so time is working against you in a natural environment, if given enough time, they will always break apart, depolymerize). See the video with Stephen Meyer about genetic information for details about the designed pieces of RNA that according to him also have a "limited replicase capacity" (mind you, nature or the forces of nature did not produce these specifically sequenced pieces of RNA, intelligent agency was involved, these pieces of RNA have to be engineered for them to get that "limited replicase capacity"; providing us with a 'proof of concept' regarding this particular design, an engineering term, but still it doesn't even come close to the sophisticated design of life and its replcating abilities, including error-checking and repair systems of machinery*).

*:

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

Nucleotides were easy enough to make on the early earth, They would naturally create chains it's what they do. And I guess it's possible that eventually, they learned to reproduce and you could get a cell.

If anyone else is also under the impression that these sort of evolutionary steps (which claims this happened by chance, i.e. by accident, spontaneously) are "easy", you should probably hear out a synthetic organic chemist how hard it is to make the required molecular machinery or components spoken of by dragonridr and preserve them long enough in a realistic natural prebiotic environment that fits into the overarching evolutionary storyline that is referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" on the wikipedia page for "abiogenesis" (i.e. no engineering allowed).

Pay close attention to what he mentions at 1:46 (nucleotides or "nucleic acids" are included in the "4 classes of molecules that are needed for it"), 2:20, 3:00, 5:39 - 6:53, at 7:28 dragonridr's claim and argument about "Well given enough time anything is possible", is responded to, he gives a nice summary of some of the things I tried to explain in my previous comment, and a little more relevant to nucleotides and RNA after 16:00:

A more detailed presentation on the subject, you can skip to 8:10 for the subject of the origin of life, I'm pretty sure the misleading impression described with the word "easy" is responded to and mentioned somewhere in there, probably more than once, the word "hard" is already mentioned shortly after 18:00 and shortly before 19:00 in contrast to that false impression, the point should become more clear after 22:00, summed up in the phrase at 25:06, "making molecules is hard", the specific nucleotides that are used in life's processes are even harder than the example he's discussing there, and now imagine a mindless process somehow accomplishing that feat of engineering, that's what the philosophical naturalist would have you believe when saying it's "easy enough to make on the early earth":

a reply to: whereislogic

As per usual, your long tirade is wrong again.

Well given enough time anything is possible.

No, just no. An utterly baseless statement. There is no evidence to support this fantasy

The mathematics:

The probability of an event will not be less than 0.

This is because 0 is impossible (sure that something will not happen).

The probability of an event will not be more than 1.

This is because 1 is certain that something will happen.

a reply to: Phantom423

Nothing in your comment or picture actually refutes anything I said or shows it to be wrong somehow nor did you make an argument or provide evidence for the statement: "Well given enough time anything is possible." The statement I was responding to.

Researcher Hubert P. Yockey, who supports the teaching of evolution, goes further. He says: “It is impossible that the origin of life was ‘proteins first.’”(5)

Source: QUESTION 1: How Did Life Begin? (The Origin of Life​—Five Questions Worth Asking)

Ooh, look at that, someone who supports the teaching of evolution, using the word "impossible" to describe a fact/reality of something that will never happen no matter how much time you wait for it. I guess it's OK for him to use the word and therefore admit that the statement "given enough time anything is possible" is incorrect. Similar to that other 'forbidden' word for those who would dispute the teaching of both "the chemical evolution theory of life" and so-called "biological evolution", as discussed in the earlier video about the word "random" (and other similar descriptions for evolutionary processes).

Anything that is (logically) impossible, will never happen. And 'pseudo-mathematical' (more philosophical but posing as mathematical) arguments that incorporate an infinite amount of time*, are utterly useless in discussions about reality and the realities in our universe anyway, which has been assigned an age by scientists no longer than 15 billion years. And most of the molecules one should be looking at in any sort of discussion about the origin of life and molecular or chemical evolution, have been around for a much shorter timeframe.

*: not referring to your comment, but I'm familiar with them.

a reply to: Phantom423
Thank you for jumping in and trying to explain it from a different angle.

I can't fathom I wasted so much time when I could have posted this old joke .

originally posted by: whereislogic
Anything that is (logically) impossible, will never happen. And 'semi-mathematical' (more philosophical but posing as mathematical) arguments that incorporate an infinite amount of time, are utterly useless in discussions about reality and the realities in our universe anyway, which has been assigned an age by scientists no longer than 15 billion years. And most of the molecules one should be looking at in any sort of discussion about the origin of life and molecular or chemical evolution, have been around for a much shorter timeframe.

As with so much, your assumptions are wrong. It doesn't need an infinity amount of time, there is a chance that everything could happen as fast as possible, or it could take an infinite time to get the last result.

You may have thousands of repeats. That you can not wrap your head around this concept shows you know nothing about probability, yet you speak about logic.

Where is the logic?
Answer: It's not with you.

a reply to: dragonridr

I agree, I cut into it in my post but kept it on the surface so whereislogic can understand it. See bold part I added seconds after I submitted my post.

I won't go into quantum physics if the one I argue with, doesn't even understand probabilities. I touched the subject earlier in the thread though.

Nothing of it is random in the sense of, we couldn't predict it if we had a complete knowledge of everything going on. That is the paradox of simulating our universe here on earth, we can not, since the simulation itself is part of the environment we want to simulate (ADD: plus other reasons).

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

Just like Phantom, you say I'm wrong, but you don't specify what it is I'm supposedly wrong about. Nor do you refute anything I said or show anything I said to be wrong. With your philosophical argumentation, do you mean to suggest the inverse of my statement that you quoted there at the start? That things that are (logically) impossible, can happen*, i.e. are actually possible (to happen, to occur)? Cause that's what's automatically implied (or a logical consequence if you think it through) in dragonridr's statement "Well given enough time anything is possible." Even the impossible apparently, since that's included in the concept of "anything", so that argument includes arguing that the impossible is possible and/or that there is nothing that is impossible, which implies that the word "impossible" is now obsolete, another ridiculous implication or consequence of said statement/claim (*: perhaps, 'if given enough repeats', now, instead of 'if given enough time', which is what the initial argument/claim included)

Are you actually defending this* statement/claim with your comment? (*: "Well given enough time anything is possible.") Cause that's what I was discussing.

Cause the contradiction should be fairly obvious the way I just described it (before I edited in a way out after "and/or that there is nothing that is impossible", which is more of a cop-out than a way out of acknowledging the earlier described logical consequences or implications of that statement I guess, the contradiction described with "the impossible is possible" because "the impossible" is included in "anything" in the original statement). Do you know some of the synonyms for "paradox" listed on thesaurus.com?

contradiction
error
mistake
absurdity
nonsense

a reply to: whereislogic

Hey, you post miles of lines and videos and you expect someone to read all that, while you do not even understand a bit advanced mathematics?

'if given enough repeats', now, instead of 'if given enough time', which is what the initial argument/claim included)

Given enough repeats was what I meant. For repeats, you need time. Get it? I expected you would be able to carry over the sense.

Please quote me where I wrote "anything" will happen. I wrote every possible combination will arrive, given enough iterations.

I am done arguing with you when blur what I say by using words that are not even synonyms to what I wrote. English isn't my birth language, yet I know these differences.

Why don't you? And why do you think you are correct when math & science is not lending your claims and bent logic any credit?

Let's agree to disagree and you can be happy, I have my peace.

a reply to: ThatDamnDuckAgain

You jumped in quoting me responding to the statement of dragonridr who said:

"Well given enough time anything is possible."

Then you changed it up confusing the issue I was talking about. And confusing me into thinking you were the one who made that initial statement or was defending it with your comment or actually responding to anything I said about it. I edited my previous comment to make sure that there's no confusion over who made the initial statement.

But everytime you or Phantom quote something of my response to this statement, especially something crucial, like the initial statement or that first sentence you quoted from me, and then say that I'm wrong, you are giving the impression you agree with the initial statement, or the inverse of what I'm saying, which is the initial statement or a logical consequence of it. Then both of you go on talking about something else, usually some form of a red herring.

It's a nice trick to confuse anyone who might read along, I'll give you that.

a reply to: whereislogic

dragonridr's comment was based on the comment I made, he tried to explain it in other words to you. Scroll up and read, you will see it.

It's a nice trick to confuse anyone who might read along, I'll give you that.

It's not any trick, see if you insinuate things like this to somehow justify your confusion, that's a bad trait and a no-go for me to invest any more time into explaining the world to you.


Maybe one last thing, consider quality over quantity next time? Then you do not need to make excuses people are confused.

ciao