-->
@Paul
So? The EARTH IS 6K years old, so it is macro
EVOLUTION VS CREATION IS USELESS
Posts
Total:
71
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How does that fit into what we are talking about?
Are you saying 6000 years is not enough time for evolution to take place?
-->
@Paul
Yes
-->
@Dr.Franklin
This is what I meant when I said evolution is a lot less complicated then you think it is.
We don't need six thousand years to observe evolution taking place.
-->
@Paul
We need billions!!
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The evolution of people is not evolution, it's the evolution of people.
-->
@Paul
difference
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Very good! Yes the evolution of people is not the same as saying evolution, there's a difference.
-->
@Paul
ok,so
-->
@Dr.Franklin
That’s it, you’ve seen evolution, my work here is done.
-->
@Paul
Ok bye!
-->
@Paul
Evolution is a word and it is what we say it is.
And evolution has a definition.
Nonetheless. I agree with the proposition is so much as I regard creation and evolution as being compatible hypotheses.
-->
@zedvictor4
Oh no not you again with another English lesson.
-->
@Paul
So.
Your proposition was sound, but your evidence wasn't as sound.
"The evolution of people is not evolution, it's the evolution of people"......What does this mean?
"Yes the evolution of people, is not the same as saying evolution"..... What does this mean?
-->
@zedvictor4
Evolution is a process and people are a result. You don’t need to understand the evolution of people to observe and understand evolution itself.
-->
@Paul
I would suggest that people are an integral part of the process.
Probably at the limits of organic intelligence and key facilitators of technological evolvement.
-->
@zedvictor4
Do you think you could make me some diagrams with a bunch of symbols from your keyboard to explain exactly what you wish to convey?
-->
@Paul
Ongoing evolution and our role within that process is an easy enough concept to understand.
10 days later
In the beginning there was......
from my limited understanding, perhaps someone can fill in the blanks.
From what I remember the four bases of DNA are Guanine, Cytosine, Adenine and Thymine. Depending on what order they are placed they do different things. Like a computer code, when written correctly they mean something, do something ,when they are not they don't.
DNA must be arranged in such a manner as to do something.
But how does it know what to do?
While DNA has physical properties it also has information, where does that come from in not a designer?
the computer language appears on a screen and perhaps a C.A.D. program where a "designer" uses it to create or perform a task.
If abiogenesis happened where did the information come from that tells the DNA how to replicate, what to produce etc all those things needed for "life"?
If life's only purpose is to self replicate, where did that come from, how did that come to be?
Simplests answer that I know of (until I learn otherwise) is it was designed that way.
We don't know one way or the other yet, perhaps no one ever will.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
maybe by-products of quantum fluctuations
-->
@janesix
I have no idea what that means, how does that explain how "life" got the information to create, replicate and survive?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
have you ever heard of cellular automata?
-->
@janesix
no, but I searched it up.
"Cellular automata can simulate a variety of real-world systems, including biological and chemical ones."
I don't know enough about it to see how it applies, you'll have to explain :)
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
DNA must be arranged in such a manner as to do something.
More accurately, the order of DNA determines which proteins get synthesized.Pretty much all the processes of life involve interactions between proteins.
But how does it know what to do?
It doesn't, any more than water "knows" to flow downhill or acid "knows" to dissolve metal.
While DNA has physical properties it also has information, where does that come from in not a designer
The fact that a certain combination of DNA produces proteins that assemble into function biological constructs does not imply a designer. The fact funcDNA is ordered to produce biological function is the result of those sequences that are non-functional or dysfunctional getting weeded out. You can call the remaining functional orderings "information" if you want, but they do not imply conscious intent.
If abiogenesis happened where did the information come from that tells the DNA how to replicate, what to produce etc all those things needed for "life"?
You may as well ask where the laws of physics came from.
If life's only purpose is to self replicate, where did that come from, how did that come to be?
Saying replication is its "purpose" is anthropomorphism Replication is simply what it does.
wow thgis blew up
-->
@Dr.Franklin
As far as we are able to be aware, evolution is more or less likely to be the consequence of a magical creation event. Perhaps.!
That's the second time today that I've discussed the vagueness of epistemology.
-->
@Stronn
I'm asking because I don't really know, but it seems it is generally thought the "origin" was a strand of DNA? From which everything else came?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Not necessarily DNA, but any replicating molecule. Although that isn't the "origin". There is no "origin. The big bang was the "origin". Or was it?
The origins of life are chemical. The component atoms are the most reactive. They are bound to react! Get them in a medium, like a fluid. Add some geothermal or solar heat. And watch them react. Well, watch them for several million or billion years.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
The exact details of the self-replicating molecule that led to life may never be known, but it is clear that life arose in the Earth's oceans. One hypothesis that has gained traction in recent years is the RNA world hypothsis. It says that the first self-replicating molecules were not DNA, but RNA. The oceans contained RNA mocules which possessed the only two things you need for evoltuion to proceed: self-replication and variability. We have been able to synthesize RNA in the laboratory, lending credence to the idea that it could arise naturally.