https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-design
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.--
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious >beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public >schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school >lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the >person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It >looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they
have to deny.
Ron Okimoto
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ … ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
--On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
proponentsists that's where they came from.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 19:09:27 +0100, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-03-22 17:23:11 +0000, Bob Casanova said:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
[ … ]
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious >>>> beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at >>>> this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public >>>> schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school >>>> lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to >>>> claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
If anyone has been puzzled by Jillery's references to cdesign
proponentsists that's where they came from.
It's been decades since the Kitzmiller trial, but anybody who followed
it knows full well the significance of that phrase as iconic evidence
of the incestuous relationship between ID and Creationism:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M-tk7MkHKtI>
"it's the missing link"
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is sort of >>> like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, ignorant >>> and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went down. It >>> looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they do not >>> want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what they >>> have to deny.
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer.
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from?
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only from
mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have you researched this topic?
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent >>>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how >>>>> it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher
be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless >>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks >>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that >>>>> the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch >>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any >>>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and >>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented
no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance
itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about >>>>>> what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see >>>>>> how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher >>>>>> be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach
ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is
that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten >>>>>> any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation >>>>>> and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information
to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor
the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance.
Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint;
information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
;
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the Sun
and empty space.
On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits >>>>>>> that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is >>>>>>> sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will
see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught
scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about >>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher >>>>>>> be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the >>>>>>> public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach >>>>>>> ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from
the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public >>>>>>> school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID >>>>>>> was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute
and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had
for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on
hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is
that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and
switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an
obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they >>>>>>> do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand
what they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence
that they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
abruptly, geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information
to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information
comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
nor the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record
of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks
designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to
the mind.
;
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
Sun and empty space.
More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current information that exists in extant lifeforms. Photosynthesis did not
exist in the first lifeforms. Chemotrophs existed first, and it was the entropy difference between the earth and empty space that maintained the replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at that time.
Ron Okimoto
On 31/03/2024 20:50, RonO wrote:
On 3/31/2024 11:56 AM, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 3/30/24 12:33 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by >>>>>>>> adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching
intelligent
design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the >>>>>>>> governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits >>>>>>>> that
intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is >>>>>>>> sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about
scientific
creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the
dishonest
legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt
about what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will >>>>>>>> see how
it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught >>>>>>>> scam.
They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about >>>>>>>> wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid, >>>>>>>> ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a
teacher be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going
down on
any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the >>>>>>>> public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach >>>>>>>> ID in
the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from >>>>>>>> the ID
perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public >>>>>>>> school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>> used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach >>>>>>>> the
junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to >>>>>>>> ID was
exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute >>>>>>>> and it
looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had >>>>>>>> for the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on >>>>>>>> hapless
rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left >>>>>>>> after
running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It >>>>>>>> looks
like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is >>>>>>>> that the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed >>>>>>>> someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went >>>>>>>> down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are >>>>>>>> still
creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and >>>>>>>> switch
has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever
gotten any
ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an
obfuscation and
denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because
they do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand >>>>>>>> what they
have to deny.
supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any
evidence that they can claim points to the identity of the
designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the
Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared
abruptly, geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information >>>>>> to build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the
present is key to the past. At the present time, today information >>>>>> comes only from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian. >>>>>>>>
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a
great deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has
presented no such record of accomplishment regarding this period,
nor the preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record
of accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks
designed, so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except
ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't bad, since there's an available
remedy. Hint; information doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN
to the mind.
;
the source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA.
The source of that information is the entropy difference between the
Sun and empty space.
More accurately, the the entropy difference between the Sun and empty
space is what maintains the replication and evolution of the current
information that exists in extant lifeforms. Photosynthesis did not
exist in the first lifeforms. Chemotrophs existed first, and it was
the entropy difference between the earth and empty space that
maintained the replication and evolution of the lifeforms extant at
that time.
Ron Okimoto
Note that the entropy difference between the earth and empty space is in great part maintained by the entropy difference between the sun and the earth.
jillery wrote:
On Sat, 30 Mar 2024 15:33:24 -0400, Ron Dean[snip]
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's been >>>> a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great deal
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that >>>>> they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian >>>>> explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to >>>>> build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is >>>>> key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented no
such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the preceding >>>> Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of accomplishment
regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed, so it must be"
isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance itself isn't
bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information doesn't come >>>> from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known exceptions.
You identify zero empirical evidence that supports ID. Instead,
you wave an ignorant finger at events like the Cambrian Explosion and
things like "information" and "complexity", and baldly assert them
evidence of design.
Life itself is evidence of design. Why is there life? What impelled dead matter towards life? Was it just accidental? At one time the argument
was that first life was a _simple_ cell.
Furthermore, according to what we find in the fossil record is primarily gaps.
And then you demand others prove your baseless claims false, while you
baselessly handwave away evidence for evolution via unguided natural
processes. That's one way to justify spamming mindless PRATTs while
making zero effort to identify either positive evidence for ID or
negative evidence against unguided evolution.
Once again, unguided evolution explains why there are no Cambrian
rabbits. Identify what is ID's explanation for that lack, or show
once again you have no idea what you're talking about. Pick your
poison.
--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no known exceptions.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the composition
and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Is there empirical information
concerning life on another planet within our local galaxy?
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the composition
and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it? Is there empirical information
concerning life on another planet within our local galaxy?
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
Ron Dean <rondean-noreply@gmail.com> writes:
Advocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
I.e. not abruptly, but over 10 million years.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
If you want to see how complexity can arise from simplicity, look at
John Conways Game of Life.
https://experiments.withgoogle.com/conway-game-of-life
God would seem much more intelligent if he invented evolution than if he invented various life forms which then went extinct.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the >>>>>> past.Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no
known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps
applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the
composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information in
stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified Fraunhofer lines
as being due to absorption by chemical elements in stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not possess
life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.
IOW information is non-existent.
Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as empirical
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no justification
for any claim that DNA contains information.
evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
Your current position seems to be that information is not an inherent
property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of a creator.If Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
faked and dishonest.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in the >>>>>>>> past.Information is knowledge from books, observation, communication, >>>>>>> research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are no >>>>>>> known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though perhaps >>>>>> applicable in some contents. But most people would, for example,
consider that stellar spectra convey information about the
composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information in
stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified Fraunhofer
lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements in stellar
atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not
possess life.
;
;But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.IOW information is non-existent.
;
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as readingWhy can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no
justification for any claim that DNA contains information.
empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)? >>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an inherent
property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
;
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference. The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a statement
advanced by another!
So for you, information does not
require a reader,
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but
means nothing.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notby. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered,
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes
thought or intended.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it;
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis to >>>>>>>>>> claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or >>>>>>>>>> in theInformation is knowledge from books, observation,
past.
communication, research, experience etc.. As such it requires >>>>>>>>> mind. There are no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though
perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people would, for >>>>>>>> example, consider that stellar spectra convey information about >>>>>>>> the composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces.
;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information
in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified
Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements
in stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet >>>>>>> within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not
possess life.
;
;But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't
currently knowingly possess such information.IOW information is non-existent.
;
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same asWhy can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no
justification for any claim that DNA contains information.
empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer
(God)?
Your current position seems to be that information is not an
inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer. >>>>> >
reading meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer?
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
;
The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a
statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning on my
post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, that is
that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes
information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
;So for you, information does not
require a reader,Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The
;
information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols
(information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but
means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could read it
at the time, which was the point. To be information requires sender
and receiver.
Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so if there
was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just
random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying the same
thing.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notthought or intended.
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes >>> by. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered,
erik simpson wrote:
On 3/30/24 11:11 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:You need to educate yourself about the "Cambrian Explosion". It's
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 06:51:17 -0500, the following appearedAdvocates can point to empirical evidence which they claim supports
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <rokimoto@cox.net>:
https://www.science.org/content/article/west-virginia-opens-door-teaching-intelligent-designObviously, all of those listed in the section "Monotheism"
Last year this boob tried to slip in teaching intelligent design by
adding one sentence to a decades old act to allow teaching intelligent >>>>> design in the public schools. The bill didn't make it to the
governor.
This year she took out the words "intelligent design" but admits that >>>>> intelligent design could be taught using her legislation. It is
sort of
like Louisiana not stating what they wanted to teach about scientific >>>>> creationism. The Supreme court ruled that even though the dishonest >>>>> legislators tried to slip it through, there was little doubt about
what
they wanted to teach. If the governor signs this bill we will see how >>>>> it gets interpreted.
in this article...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creator_deity
...as well as those shown in this one...
https://medium.com/@mythopia/twelve-creator-gods-abridged-article-c32c5ae26930
...will have to be included, as will multiple others, most
not part of monotheism (Creation can be a "team effort",
after all...). Inclusion and equity, y'know...
;
This again is testing the ID perp's "not required" to be taught scam. >>>>> They are not requiring ID to be taught, they are even lying about
wanting to teach it, so we will see how it goes if some stupid,
ignorant
and likely dishonest teacher wants to use it to support their
religious
beliefs in the science class. Really, how honest could a teacher
be at
this point after decades of the ID scam bait and switch going down on >>>>> any hapless rubes that have wanted to teach the lame junk in the
public
schools. No school board or legislator that has wanted to teach ID in >>>>> the public schools has ever gotten any ID science to teach from the ID >>>>> perps at the Discovery Institute. There has never been a public
school
lesson plan put out for evaluation, and the Discovery Institute
used to
claim that Of Pandas and People could be used as a text to teach the >>>>> junk, but that ended after the name change from creationism to ID was >>>>> exposed in Kitzmiller.
I went to the ID scam unit web site at the Discovery Institute and it >>>>> looks like they did not refill the staff position that they had for
the
person that was responsible for running the bait and switch on hapless >>>>> rubes that wanted to teach ID in the public schools. She left after >>>>> running the bait and switch on the Utah rubes back in 2017. It looks >>>>> like Oklahoma and West Virginia have been missed. My guess is that >>>>> the
ID perps needed to save money and didn't think that they needed
someone
to track the rubes and make sure that the bait and switch went
down. It
looks like they were wrong. As crazy as it may seem there are still >>>>> creationist rubes that want to teach the junk when the bait and switch >>>>> has been going down for over 2 decades, and no one has ever gotten any >>>>> ID science to teach. All anyone has ever gotten is an obfuscation and >>>>> denial switch scam that the creationists do not like because they
do not
want to teach their kids enough science for them to understand what
they
have to deny.
intelligent design. However, they can not point to any evidence that
they can claim points to the identity of the designer. But
in their world that's sufficient. Evidence of design is the Cambrian
explosion where a myriad of new body plans appeared abruptly,
geologically speaking.
The problem is information. How and from where did the information to
build the bodies of the Cambrian animals come from? If the present is
key to the past. At the present time, today information comes only
from mind. So, must it have been during the Cambrian.
Ron Okimoto
been a subject of great interest for many years, and there's a great
deal that's been learned about it. "Intelligent design" has presented
no such record of accomplishment regarding this period, nor the
preceding Ediacaran period. In fact, it hasn't any record of
accomplishment regarding any subsequent period. "It looks designed,
so it must be" isn't evidence of anything except ignorance. Ignorance
itself isn't bad, since there's an available remedy. Hint; information
doesn't come from the mind. It goes IN to the mind.
Really, if information goes into mind, this still does not answer the
source of information, especially the origin of highly complex
information contained in DNA. Have researched this topic?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g
Vincent Maycock wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 02:46:45 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:[...]
The first meaning has information potentially be anything and theThis is only reasonable. Like a bee that locates a flower leaves a
second limits it to what some specific information-processing system
can process, but they're really in continuity with each other. An
information-processing system can only process something as information >>>> if it's information of the first type to begin with (developing an
attraction to a chemical because it benefits one to move towards the
organism that emits it only works if the chemical and the organism are >>>> effectively associated in a consistent way). And information that's of >>>> the first type but not of the second type can become information of the >>>> second type if the information-processing system changes - for example >>>> we think of the spectra of stars carrying information because we
developed the tools and knowledge to deduce things from it - before
those tools and knowledge we didn't know there was any information
there to be gleaned so we didn't, and so in a sense that information
wasn't there for us. Just like a flower's patterns in UV light
transmits information for pollinators but not for us.
trail (information) for other bees to follow. This is information.
And why couldn't that evolve?
It's worth noting that honeybees don't leave a scent trail to the
flowers they are feeding on.
Instead, honeybees have a symbolic
language which they use to communicate the direction and distance
of rich food sources to their fellow bees.
The working hypothesis
is that they do this to avoid leaving clues for competitors.
But there are many different types of bees. Some leave a more
local scent trail, seemingly as a sort of compromise between
the value of a trail and the problem of a long trail where they
can somehow get members of their team close and then the trail
can bring them to the table.
But there are some types of bees that do leave a full scent trail
from hive to flower. I haven't seen genetic studies that try to
directly link the various strategies to specific episodes of
evolution, but then I haven't really looked. Too buzzzzzy.
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that can "understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,
still information, but it's useless information. And this is a round
trip back to my original argument, that DNA contains information. And information points to a designer. If not, then the origin of RNA / DNA
and information is the $10,000,000 question.
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:35:47 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[ … ]
,
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that canIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes of the >>>> observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information.
I don't have that capability, but I can easily find answers from other
people who do have the capability. Information is *content* and that
content doesn't change state just because you or I or any other
individual lack the capability to make sense of it.
"understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and
locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,
still information, but it's useless information.
Only useless to someone who doesn't understand it, the information
remains valuable just as Egyptian hieroglyphs were valuable as a
resource for learning more about Ancient Egypt.
And this is a round
trip back to my original argument,
You really need to get off that merry-go-round.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection, >resulting in better-functioning organisms.
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we >>observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors >>were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from >>this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit >>less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are >>overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the >>fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
--Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:16:46 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:11:28 -0400, Ron DeanIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes of the >>> observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:14:24 -0400, Ron DeanI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, know how >>>>> and the senses.
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so if there >>>>>>> was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just >>>>>>> random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying the same thing.
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:Does information exist independent of a mind that conceives it; >>>>>>>>>>>>> recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either now or in
the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. There are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though >>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people would, for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> example, consider that stellar spectra convey information about >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the composition and physical conditions of stellar surfaces. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >
Are you advocating for the position that there was no information >>>>>>>>>>>> in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified >>>>>>>>>>>> Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical elements in
stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another planet >>>>>>>>>>>>> within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does not >>>>>>>>>>>> possess life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions?
>
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we don't >>>>>>>>>>>> currently knowingly possess such information.
>
IOW information is non-existent.
>Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as >>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification for any claim that DNA contains information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an >>>>>>>>>>>> inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer? >>>>>>>>>>
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical evidence of a >>>>>>>>>>>> creator.If Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or inserted, it's >>>>>>>>>>> faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your inference. >>>>>>>>> The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a >>>>>>>>> statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning on my post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, that is >>>>>>>> that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes >>>>>>>> information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
>
So for you, information does not
require a reader,>
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a computer. The >>>>>>>>> information is there whether its ever read or not. But what does it >>>>>>>>> mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols >>>>>>>>> (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be present, but >>>>>>>>> means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could read it >>>>>>>> at the time, which was the point. To be information requires sender >>>>>>>> and receiver.
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information when >>>>>> they were first used, stopped being information during the period when >>>>>> nobody understood them but became information again when they were >>>>>> deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some
capacity.
All very interesting but I'd really like you to clarify whether using
that understanding of information, you think that Egyptian hieroglyphs >>>> went from being information to not being information, back to being
information. It's a yes or no question.
It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
My question is about *your* definition, not anyone else's
I'm glad you emphasised "for _me_" as this is the same problem that
runs right through your arguments for ID - you base them, on how
things appear to *you*, the only way in which *you* can make sense of
them. You seem to place an inordinate level of knowledge and judgement
on yourself rather than people who are more qualified and experienced
than you are. That's a standard definition of Dunning-Kruger.
As I've pointed before, I'm and engineer when I observe design I
recognize it. But I also realize that design can also be explained by evolution (mutations and natural selection), which I think is an
alternative way to view design. I'm convinced that after reading Wm.
Paley, who used design as evidence of God. Darwin set out to "rewrite"
Paley with the purpose of eliminating God.
on one's paradigm which reigns supreme over everything and overrides
belief, opinion, observation, empirical evidence and fact.
interpretation is designed to force whatever is known or discovered to
fit within one's paradigm. Even arguing that there is no obvious
design, design is an illusion (Dawkins) in biology, we must remind
ourselves that what we see is not design but evolution (Crick), This I
think is nothing more than self-serving.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848613001726
https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.0701072104
https://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2012/01/04/natural-theology-paley-and-darwin/
If it's not communicated and received by a "mind" or something that can "understand" and makes use of it, it's of no_ value. It maybe stored and locked within a reservoir. In this case, To your point it's content,Since, you have the capacity, to read and understand them, they do
contain information for you. And I can only _trust_ that you have that
capability.
I don't have that capability, but I can easily find answers from other
people who do have the capability. Information is *content* and that
content doesn't change state just because you or I or any other
individual lack the capability to make sense of it.
still information, but it's useless information. And this is a round
trip back to my original argument, that DNA contains information. And information points to a designer. If not, then the origin of RNA / DNA
and information is the $10,000,000 question.
and the relationship between
the information-carrying symbol and its meaning is notby. What I write is getting twisted into meanings I never considered, >>>>>>>>> thought or intended.
conventional? You are now in essence arguing that
human speech is not information carrying
But you are exactly right, this is getting more bizarre as time goes
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are
observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there
is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>> perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors
were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from
this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>> themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit
less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>> the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>> such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>> your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
On 13/04/2024 01:58, Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I understand the same thing on most mutations being neutral but do you
have a cite on beneficial and harmful ones being approximately equal in >number? From first principles you'd expect that once a system is vaguely >optimized (which all life is), changes that are harmful should be more
likely than changes that are beneficial.
--
The male sperm count is decreasing
with each generation. Each year new and previously unknown genetic
diseases are occurring just in humans. With the passing of time, there >>>> is little doubt that our DNA, our genetics is become increasingly _less_ >>>> perfect. The Homo-sapiens species is believed to have arrived on the
scene 200,000 years ago, given the increases in genetic disorders we
observe today, it's highly _likely_ that the DNA of our early ancestors >>>> were far closer to perfect that any of their decedents. Therefore, from >>>> this evidence one can deduce that the proofreading and repair mechanisms >>>> themselves are in a declining state with each generation becoming a bit >>>> less perfect than the preceding generation. It's possible we saw this in >>>> the extinction of Neanderthal species.
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
today. of course, human involvement accounts for some of this extinction >>>> such as passenger pigeons, the dodo bird and the Tasmanian tiger. But to >>>> your point the proofreading and repair systems are not perfect. But
without deliberate design how did the proofreading and repair systems
come about in the first place?
Obviously, because something that helps something replicate itself
better is going to leave more copies of itself in the gene pool .
Of course there is educated, guesses,
suppositions, hypothesis and theories, but no one _knows_.
Do you consider your Intelligent Design argument to be an educated
guess, or a supposition? And is there anything wrong with being a
hypothesis or theory?
question is where is the man holding hold Occam sword? Has he been
barred from entering this room of science?
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather
there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
I disagree. Beneficial mutations are rare, far more so than harmful
ones. The evidence is that mental and physical diseases and defects
resulting from defective genetics are far more often _observed_ than
mental or physical betterment, enrichment or improvement we see
resulting from beneficial mutations. You almost never observe any that
can be attributed to beneficial mutations.
I would not be surprised if neutral mutations outstripped both the
beneficial or the harmful ones. I would think though that any change in
the coded information no matter how small would be a informational
change that could over time gradually_add_up_ one way or the other, more likely than not, towards the degeneration.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanThings change, new and better designs things just go downhill because of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
That doesn't say much for the intelligence of your designer. How long
would a designer with that failure rate survive in your industry?
the second law. There is in companies a deliberate "fail rate" so new products to sell.
With the DNA coded information due to mutations (which are real) become increasingly less perfect when passed down to their offspring the
defective genes are always down to the offspring never reversed; with
the passage of time, the genome may just become so overburden with
defective genetics - bad mutations that failure to reproduce becomes inevitable. Maybe there is a loss of sexual drive, or instinct, all of
which is expressed by genetics. As a species age, perhaps like human
males species reach an age when sex desire dies and offsprings cannot
happen.
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and animals do change.
On 14/04/2024 01:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Bob Casanova wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 11:04:15 -0700, the following appearedI disagree. Beneficial mutations are rare, far more so than harmful
in talk.origins, posted by Vincent Maycock
<maycock@gmail.com>:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanAs I understand it, most mutations are neutral; the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
In the most cases where adaptations and minor evolutionary changes are >>>>> observed it's not because new information is added to DNA, but rather >>>>> there is a loss of information.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-57694-8
Bad mutations seems to be the rule.
*Most* mutations are harmful, but to disprove evolution you need to
show that *all* mutations are harmful -- those rare beneficial
mutations can be selected by and amplified through natural selection,
resulting in better-functioning organisms.
beneficial and harmful ones are (approximately) equal in
number, and are far outnumbered by the neutral ones. But
don't expect your correspondent to accept any of that.
ones. The evidence is that mental and physical diseases and defects
resulting from defective genetics are far more often _observed_ than
mental or physical betterment, enrichment or improvement we see
resulting from beneficial mutations. You almost never observe any that
can be attributed to beneficial mutations.
I would not be surprised if neutral mutations outstripped both the
beneficial or the harmful ones. I would think though that any change in
the coded information no matter how small would be a informational
change that could over time gradually_add_up_ one way or the other, more
likely than not, towards the degeneration.
OK. Now imagine we add a process - one that get rids of harmful
mutations every generation, preventing them from adding up, and
amplifies the beneficial mutations, increasing their odds of reaching >fixation far beyond their base frequency and therefore allowing them to
add up (because once a mutation has reached fixation every subsequent >mutation gets added to it regardless, there is no "what are the odds of
these two mutations occurring together" issue)
Two separate questions: 1) what would the resulting informational change
be? and 2) is such a process possible, and if not why not?
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern
eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example, there's
no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed since
their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately think
modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are
unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single
cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
No, I'm not claiming anything.
I don't really know. But I thought was
the arrangenent of eukaryotic cells that constitute molecules, proteins, bodies, organs etc. And that different molecules come from different arrangements of these cells. I realize that cells age and decline,
cancer cells are changed. But species that remain in _stasis_ for
millions of years even hundreds of millions of years, their body staying vertually the same over this time span, why would their eukaryotic cells
have changed? These are what's called living fossils, I question the eukaryotic cells that make up their bodies have undergone any
evolutionary changed since their body forms remain static and this as determined from fossils. And there are other things that cause me to
doubt these cells change which I can get into if interested.
Examples from Wikipedia:
Some living fossils are taxa that were known from palaeontological
fossils before living representatives were discovered. The most famous examples of this are:
Coelacanthiform fishes (2 species)
Metasequoia, the dawn redwood discovered in a remote Chinese valley (1 species)
Glypheoid lobsters (2 species)
Mymarommatid wasps (10 species)
Eomeropid scorpionflies (1 species)
Jurodid beetles (1 species)
Soft sea urchins (59 species)
All the above include taxa that originally were described as fossils but
now are known to include still-extant species.
Other examples of living fossils are single living species that have no
close living relatives, but are survivors of large and widespread groups
in the fossil record.
Wikipedia list perhaps a hundred examples living fossils and there's
probably more!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossil
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example,
there's no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip
cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed since
their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its
origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" is
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below
that information comes *only* from "a mind".
The highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the subject
of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in the living
cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The next
year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and physics
was virtually just mathematics.
On 16/04/2024 09:20, Arkalen wrote:
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
Point of pedantry. The usage of the term organelle is not uniform, and ribosomes are sometimes considered organelles.
The first sentence of WikiPedia's lede is "In cell biology, an
organelle is a specialized subunit, usually within a cell, that has a specific function." (I don't know why the usually is there, but maybe
it is to include pili and flagellar whips). That definition then can be narrowed first to membrane bounded compartments, and then to
compartments with their own DNA.
Ron Dean was not so much wrong as imprecise.
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes
proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
And this has been done experimentally. See the literature on expanded
genetic codes, and especially on chimeric tRNAs.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would read
a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to bind
to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the amino
acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about phenotype
is the physical consequences of which proteins get made, when and in
what number.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make proteins:
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This means
each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where a bit of
RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way until
it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends, resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would read
a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to bind to
a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the amino acid
chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about phenotype is
the physical consequences of which proteins get made, when and in what number.
On 16/04/2024 09:20, Arkalen wrote:
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
Point of pedantry. The usage of the term organelle is not uniform, and ribosomes are sometimes considered organelles. The first sentence of WikiPedia's lede is "In cell biology, an organelle is a specialized
subunit, usually within a cell, that has a specific function." (I don't
know why the usually is there, but maybe it is to include pili and
flagellar whips). That definition then can be narrowed first to membrane bounded compartments, and then to compartments with their own DNA.
Ron Dean was not so much wrong as imprecise.
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
And this has been done experimentally. See the literature on expanded
genetic codes, and especially on chimeric tRNAs.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would
read a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to
bind to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the
amino acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about
phenotype is the physical consequences of which proteins get made,
when and in what number.
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading is
my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on You
Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very disturbing,
I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and watch the video
and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
On 16/04/2024 08:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading
is my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on
You Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very
disturbing, I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and
watch the video and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
Since you failed to characterise the video I had a look at a trailer to
get some idea of the context. That baldly states "There is no evidence
for Darwinian evolution. It is not scientific."
Why would you find a video pushing that position "very disturbing"? I
would have thought you would find it comforting (unless you thought it
made religion and intelligent design look bad).
On 16/04/2024 08:24, Ron Dean wrote:
Thank you for the advice. I went to Amazon found the book you
recommended and I've bought a hardback book listed at $14.95. Reading
is my favorite pastime I'll read the book. I came across a video on
You Tube entitled Evolution Vs God and I watched it. It was very
disturbing, I would appreciate it if you would go to You Tube and
watch the video and and give your opinion of it.
It's had over 4,000,000 people who have watched the video.
Since you failed to characterise the video I had a look at a trailer to
get some idea of the context. That baldly states "There is no evidence
for Darwinian evolution. It is not scientific."
Why would you find a video pushing that position "very disturbing"? I
would have thought you would find it comforting (unless you thought it
made religion and intelligent design look bad).
Ernest Major wrote:
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately think
modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are
unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single
cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
No, I'm not claiming anything. I don't really know. But I thought was
the arrangenent of eukaryotic cells that constitute molecules, proteins, bodies, organs etc.
And that different molecules come from different
arrangements of these cells.
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they appeared
had any significant change or evolution. I definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms are unchanged,
ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period. single cells such as
bacteria is even more ancient.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and animals do change.
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
;
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The
next year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career. However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:43:28 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 11 Apr 2024 17:35:47 -0400, Ron DeanSo you say. You and numerous others have made this claim, it's always
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 12:16:46 -0400, Ron DeanAs I've pointed before, I'm and engineer when I observe design I
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:I'm glad you emphasised "for _me_" as this is the same problem that >>>>>> runs right through your arguments for ID - you base them, on how
On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 03:11:28 -0400, Ron DeanIn the case of the Egyptian hieroglyphs, I think it's in the eyes >>>>>>> of the
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 4 Apr 2024 22:14:24 -0400, Ron DeanI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, >>>>>>>>> know how
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:Maybe, they are all dead, out of sight and long forgotten, so >>>>>>>>>>> if there
Burkhard wrote:
Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 03/04/2024 18:00, Ron Dean wrote:>
Ernest Major wrote:
On 02/04/2024 21:48, Ron Dean wrote:>
Once again, you rely on baseless claims. You offer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> zero basis toInformation is knowledge from books, observation, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> communication,
claim that information comes only from a mind, either >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> now or in
the
past.
research, experience etc.. As such it requires mind. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are
no known exceptions.
That's a somewhat narrow definition of information, though >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps applicable in some contents. But most people >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would, for
example, consider that stellar spectra convey >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information about
the composition and physical conditions of stellar >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> surfaces.
Does information exist independent of a mind that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conceives it;
recognizes it or acknowledges it?
Are you advocating for the position that there was no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> information
in stellar spectra before Kirchhoff and Bunsen identified >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Fraunhofer lines as being due to absorption by chemical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements in
stellar atmospheres?
Is there empirical information concerning life on another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> planet
within our local galaxy?
Yes. Were pretty much sure that Mercury, for example, does >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not
possess life.
Is this a known fact, even microbes in polar regions? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
But on the assumption that you meant extrasolar planets, we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't
currently knowingly possess such information.>
IOW information is non-existent.
>Why can the presence of information inc DNA _not_ be seen as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> empirical evidence of a mind: the mind of a creator, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> designer (God)?
If you adopt such a restricted definition, you have no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> justification for any claim that DNA contains information. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your current position seems to be that information is not an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inherent property of DNA, but something imposed on it by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an observer.
Information _imposed_ by a observer? Is that not the same >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as reading
meaning into a statement that's not there - by an observer? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That eliminates it from consideration as empirical >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence of aIf Information is absence, but meaning is imposed or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inserted, it's
creator.
faked and dishonest.
This gets more bizarre by the post.
Above you wrote the word "imposed". I was disputing your >>>>>>>>>>>>> inference.
The reader has no right to impose or to input meaning into a >>>>>>>>>>>>> statement advanced by another!
Well, first this was not me - so you are imposing your meaning >>>>>>>>>>>> on my post?
Second, Ernst simply followed where your own argument led to, >>>>>>>>>>>> that is
that DNA does not contain information as such, it only becomes >>>>>>>>>>>> information carrier when a human looks at it - in the same >>>>>>>>>>>> way that you
seem to argue that stellar spectra do not contain information, >>>>>>>>>>>> it 's only
us humans who imose meaning on them
>
So for you, information does not
require a reader,>
Information can be stored on a record, in a book or a >>>>>>>>>>>>> computer. The
information is there whether its ever read or not. But what >>>>>>>>>>>>> does it
mean? The Dropa disc thought to be 12,000 years old has symbols >>>>>>>>>>>>> (information?) no 0ne can read. So, information might be >>>>>>>>>>>>> present, but
means nothing.
But there were people for whom it was written, and who could >>>>>>>>>>>> read it
at the time, which was the point. To be information requires >>>>>>>>>>>> sender
and receiver.
was information on the disc it is no longer information. It's just >>>>>>>>>>> random scratches on a harden clay disc. I think we're saying >>>>>>>>>>> the same thing.
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information when >>>>>>>>>> they were first used, stopped being information during the >>>>>>>>>> period when
nobody understood them but became information again when they were >>>>>>>>>> deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
and the senses.
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some >>>>>>>>> capacity.
All very interesting but I'd really like you to clarify whether using >>>>>>>> that understanding of information, you think that Egyptian
hieroglyphs
went from being information to not being information, back to being >>>>>>>> information. It's a yes or no question.
It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
My question is about *your* definition, not anyone else's
observer; I cannot read them, so for _me_, they have no information. >>>>>>
things appear to *you*, the only way in which *you* can make sense of >>>>>> them. You seem to place an inordinate level of knowledge and judgement >>>>>> on yourself rather than people who are more qualified and experienced >>>>>> than you are. That's a standard definition of Dunning-Kruger.
recognize it. But I also realize that design can also be explained by >>>>> evolution (mutations and natural selection), which I think is an
alternative way to view design. I'm convinced that after reading Wm. >>>>> Paley, who used design as evidence of God. Darwin set out to "rewrite" >>>>> Paley with the purpose of eliminating God.
That's a perfect example of what I was talking about. Various people
here who are far more knowledgeable about Darwin than you have
repeatedly told you that Darwin did not "set out" to do any such thing >>>> and they have provided solid evidence to back that up.
the same, people more knowledgeable about Darwin, has disproved my
opinion about Darwin. Well I've been waiting on this solid evidence I
keep reading about. By contrast, I have pointed to evidence which I
think supports my view. A few excerpt from Wikipedia provides thumbnail
sketches demonstrating what is known about the Paley - Darwin
connection. Of course I think this supports what I think.
Thumbnail for William Paley
William Paley
Charles Darwin, as a student of theology, was required to read it when
he did his undergraduate studies at Christ's College, but it was Paley's >>> Natural...
24 KB (2,907 words) - 03:55, 3 April 2024
Thumbnail for Charles Darwin
Charles Darwin
exams drew near, Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
_delighted_ by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity (1795)...
162 KB (15,880 words) - 14:19, 28 March 2024
Watchmaker analogy (redirect from Paley's Argument)
being.[citation needed] When Darwin completed his studies of theology at >>> Christ's College, Cambridge in 1831, he read Paley's Natural Theology
and believed...
34 KB (4,687 words) - 09:31, 3 April 2024
Charles Darwin's education
away at Greek and Latin, and studied William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity, becoming so _delighted_ with Paley's logic that he
_learnet_ it well. This was...
97 KB (12,223 words) - 23:45, 11 December 2023
Thumbnail for Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and
Attributes of the Deity
Natural Theology or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity >>> responded to such ideas by referencing Paley's book. The main thrust of
William Paley's argument in Natural Theology is that God's design of the >>> whole creation...
Thumbnail for On the Origin of Species
On the Origin of Species
of extinction, which he explained by local catastrophes, followed by
re-population of the affected areas by other species. In Britain,
William Paley's...
164 KB (18,812 words) - 22:02, 10 April 2024
Inception of Darwin's theory
clergyman, Darwin became passionate about beetle collecting, then shone
in John Stevens Henslow's botany course. He was convinced by Paley's
Natural Theology...
90 KB (11,427 words) - 00:18, 27 December 2023
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+William+Paley%27s+books+read+by+darwin&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=bbmiuvsui8nulbpha03hh76wr
Are you seriously claiming that that list of books and articles
supports your claim that Darwin *set out* to overturn Paley, even when
the second link says "Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of Christianity"?
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
;
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The
next year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career. However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine
(T, in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This
means each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how
DNA is replicated and also the first step of protein translation where
a bit of RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way
until it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
- The actual "genetic code" - the matching of triplets of RNA bases or
codons to amino acids - is physically instantiated in specific RNA
molecules called transfer RNAs (tRNA); these are basically a little
chain of RNA that matches up to a specific RNA codon on one end and a
specific amino acid on the other. The reason the code is considered
arbitrary is that you really could stick anything at those two ends,
resulting in a different matchup of codon to amino acid.
- The ribosome moves along the messenger RNA molecule as one would
read a tape, allowing transfer RNAs with their amino acid attached to
bind to a codon and transferring the amino acid from the tRNA to the
amino acid chain it is forming.
- The amino acid chain proceeds to fold itself into a protein -
spontaneously or facilitated by the ribosome and other proteins - and
the properties of that protein are basically dictated by its sequence
of amino acids and the way it's folded. Everything else about
phenotype is the physical consequences of which proteins get made,
when and in what number.
HTH.
You insulted me earlier, and I felt that I didn't need these insults
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion. This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
On Tue, 16 Apr 2024 21:23:54 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Arkalen wrote:
On 14/04/2024 22:53, Ron Dean wrote:OK, my mistake. I was under the impression that ribosomes was considered
jillery wrote:
Since you now claim your "something" isThe highly coded information contained in the DNA has become the
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below >>>>> that information comes *only* from "a mind".
subject of this thread for some time now. Obviously, an organelle in
the living cell had to read and understand the coded message.
I wish I knew more about biology. During High School a science course
was required 10/th grade I
chose biology which I came to hate, 1/st non "A" I ever made. The next >>>> year I took Physics which I loved: I absolutely loved math and
physics was virtually just mathematics.
It's not an organelle that does that work, it's the ribosome using
transfer RNAs. Here's how the "coded message" of DNA is "read" to make
proteins:
the same as organelle. just different organelles had different
functions. I've admitted I did not a consider biology of any particular
importance in my chosen field, that I hopped to make my lifes Career.
However, now I regret my failure to take more biology. When I retire, I
might just do that.
The initial position I presented was that eukaryote cells remained
- DNA and RNA are very similar molecules, both chains of nucleotides
that match preferentially with each other: Adenine (A) with Thymine (T,
in DNA) or Uracil (U, in RNA), Guanine (G) with Cytosine (C). This means >>> each chain can serve as a template to create another; it's how DNA is
replicated and also the first step of protein translation where a bit of >>> RNA is created based on a section of DNA.
- This bit of RNA (messenger RNA or mRNA) goes along its merry way until >>> it runs into a ribosome, the molecular machine that makes proteins.
constant and unchanged from the time they first appeared near the
pre-Cambrian - Cambrian border. This I thought could explain the abrupt
appearance, geologically speaking of animals during the Cambrian
explosion.
You seem hung up on this and the fact that all current life forms have
come from those that first appeared in the Cambrian.
I'm curious as to how your Intelligent Designer fits into this. ISTM
that according to your logic, he/she/it spent around 10 million years creating what you earlier described as a "myriad" of individual
lifeforms but didn't bother creating any new ones for next 500 million
years or so, just occasionally tweaking the relatively few ones that
didn't go extinct. Is that a fair summary of your thinking?
This also could explaining why there's so little fossil
evidence of ancestry in older strata. And once these cells came into
existence the DNA/RNA must have arose soon afterwards, otherwise could
have been a Cambrian explosion? I think not! Considering that the
Adenine, Thymine Cytosine and Uracil make up the genetic code, these
acids must be highly conserved as is the genetic code itself. It's also
reasonable to believe that since these amino acids are highly conserved
the eukaryotic cells themselves are highly conserved.
If there is any empirical evidence contrary to that which I presented I
would appreciate the information and it's source.
[ … ]
--
athel cb : Biochemical Evolution, Garland Science, 2016
Arkalen wrote:
What is this about?
*not* "a mind", you logically contradict your claims above and below
On Thu, 18 Apr 2024 03:03:03 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:<snip>
On Sun, 14 Apr 2024 00:25:20 -0400, Ron Dean
So, you agree - I fell out of my chair I was so shocked!
With the DNA coded information due to mutations (which are real) become >>>> increasingly less perfect when passed down to their offspring the
defective genes are always down to the offspring never reversed; with
the passage of time, the genome may just become so overburden with
defective genetics - bad mutations that failure to reproduce becomes
inevitable. Maybe there is a loss of sexual drive, or instinct, all of >>>> which is expressed by genetics. As a species age, perhaps like human
males species reach an age when sex desire dies and offsprings cannot
happen.
Where does your intelligent designer fit into that process?
No one's agreeing with you, Ron. They're just asking you a question
about your beliefs.
If you go back
in tine to one's grandparents their genome had fewer deleterious
mutations than ours: going backwards generation after generation after
generation, the genome of each preceding generation had ever fewer
harmful mutations,
Cite?
By going back say to the earliest members of their
kind (family)
Your use of the word "kind" ties you historically to the young earth creationists (Seventh-day Adventist Frank Lewis Marsh came up with it,
if memory serves). Is that something you're comfortable with?
their genome must have been far closer to perfect than any
decedent generations. From then, each succeeding generation the
deleterious mutations multiplied.
Unless they're eliminated by natural selection.
I think possibly the proofreading and
repair, which was an elegantly and highly sophisticated design set up
for the best results, but over the vast spans of time even the P&R
mechanisms, which initially were perfect,
This is a religious belief, not a science-based claim.
but with the passage of time
even the P&R became less perfect due to bad mutations that slipped
passed the P&R mechanisms, consequent the P&R systems were affected. The
results we see today.
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 12:41:29 -0400, Ron DeanThings change, new and better designs things just go downhill because of
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
Beneficial mutations are rarely observed. The defective mutations are
overwhelming the beneficial mutations, as evidenced by the increasing
list of genetic disorders. Perhaps, this explains the 99% extinction
rate of all life forms that ever lived as observed or recorded in the
fossil record, as well as the numbers of the species become extinct
That doesn't say much for the intelligence of your designer. How long
would a designer with that failure rate survive in your industry?
the second law. There is in companies a deliberate "fail rate" so new products to sell.
The fossil record is overwhelmed with the extinction of species 99% that
ever lived are extinct, this is empirical evidence that the vast
majority of copies, contrary to theory of survival of the fittest, disappeared from the face of earth. The fossil record depicts species appearing abruptly in the fossil record, remaining in stasis during
their tenure on the planet then suddenly disappearing.
(Gould & Eldredge). Stasis was observed with little variability, I
suspect the DNA of each species
during it's period of stasis, its variability was becoming increasing imperfect of it DNA continued to incur mistakes until the species became unfit to survive.
FromTheRafters wrote:
LDagget laid this down on his screen :As I've argued information has to contain, meaning, program, data
Ron Dean wrote:
Martin Harran wrote:
According to that logic, Egyptian hieroglyphs were information whenI think of information as data, knowledge, programs, language, know
they were first used, stopped being information during the period when >>>>> nobody understood them but became information again when they were
deciphered in the early 19th century. Is that correct?
;
how and the senses.
I also think information always involves mind or instinct in some
capacity. It seems that
there is a broad and shifty definition of information.
Interesting that you lump information, data, knowledge, program,
language, know how and the senses apparently synonyms.
In formal treatments, data, information, and knowledge are treated
as very distinct things.
The simplest way to illustrate is probably to use a computer example.
Data can be thought of as the bits on a computer hard drive.
Simplistically,
you count the capacity in bits and that's how much data you have.
Information is a different thing. A disk where every bit is a 0 has
information that is essentially reducible to 0,N where N is the
capacity of the hard drive. or 0 N time. A disk full of 1s has the
same amount of information, but it's different.
This continues with the ability to repeat information as one might
do with certain schemes to protect data in various RAID storage
schemes. The data is still the disk size, the information is recorded
redundantly.
This should be somewhat natural to you. You claim DNA has information
but there are identical copies of DNA in billions of cells. I don't
think you believe that an egg developing into an adult is creating
information (I would quibble, but save that).
Enough for starters. Data is not the same as information. That's
not how the words are used by people who study information.
Right, he seems to think that information is not information until it
is communicated.
know-how knowledge.
Information seems to have shifty definitions.
But I think information has to have understandable meaning for the observer.
You can observe written language in Russian, or Japanese or German. If
you cannot read the language then for _you_ it contains _no_ information.
But if it's not understood by you then it's meaningless.
I have a book on my shelf that remains unread by me. Nevertheless it
contains information.
I coded a message see if you can read the information it contains I'm convened it could make you rich:
if you cannot, it's not information.
bi cbn nale zov rjci
Martin Harran wrote:
On Fri, 12 Apr 2024 21:43:28 -0400, Ron DeanYou "put me down" by your statement that I have produced _no_ evidence _whatsoever_ to support my claims......". It;s no big jump to conclude
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=List+of+William+Paley%27s+books+read+by+darwin&title=Special:Search&ns0=1&searchToken=bbmiuvsui8nulbpha03hh76wr
Are you seriously claiming that that list of books and articles
supports your claim that Darwin *set out* to overturn Paley, even when
the second link says "Darwin applied himself to his studies and was
delighted by the language and logic of William Paley's Evidences of
Christianity"?
from the connection of Darwin with Paley's use of design to support
belief in a Divine being and Darwin _after_ studying Paley and being _delighted_by Paley's language and logic...
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-04-14 21:39:21 +0000, Ernest Major said:Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they first
appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once they
appeared had any significant change or evolution. I definately
think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living organisms
are unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian period.
single cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I suppose you've never heard of cancer? Or if you have heard of it you
don't know what it is?
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different classification
of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic cells
come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
Overview of cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fV9RWgVoI
This video comes across as an educated guess going from step by step in
a few really broad leaps in which the considerable complexity of the
cell or the inter-workings of the cell is not covered.
This video is a _overview_ of the complexity of a eukaryotic cell.
Conplexity and inner workings of internal organelles etc.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kx5NqbI9uTM
Structure and function:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eK-NCfvTtIE
I believe due to the complexity of these cells, it takes faith to accept
that it's all the results of mindless, blind random mutations and
natural selection.
I doubt it's the cells that change.It's eukaratic cells that make up
the bodies of animals and plants of their phylum and plants and
animals do change.
I don't see how to make a sensible interpretation of those claims.
Are you claiming
1) That all eukaryotic cells are identical - that, for example,
there's no difference between a human skin cell and a plant root tip
cell.
2) That all species were independently created, and have changed
since their creation.
3) That any eukaryote cell has the potential to form any other
eukaryote cell (given suitable external stimuli).
4) That the basic structure of eukaryotic cell is unchanged since its
origination, or at least since mitochondrial symbiogenesis.
5) Microbe to man is not a significant change.
Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different classification
of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic cells
come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
On 4/7/24 12:45 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
bi cbn nale zov rjci
Ten bytes of information, probably compressible to 8 or so. I doubt it
has any meaning at all.
On 20/04/2024 00:43, Ron Dean wrote:
Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2024-04-14 21:39:21 +0000, Ernest Major said:Normally cells divide to grow, cells die and new cells are formed
On 14/04/2024 07:40, Ron Dean wrote:
I question that eukaratic cells changed and evolved after they
first appeared, there's no evidence that this complex cell once
they appeared had any significant change or evolution. I
definately think modern eukaratic cells which make up _all_ living
organisms are unchanged, ancient dating back to the pre Cambrian
period. single cells such as bacteria is even more ancient.
I suppose you've never heard of cancer? Or if you have heard of it
you don't know what it is?
through information contained in DNA which exist in the cell nucleus.
Cancer sells are are abnormal uncontrollable growth of cells and they
are called cancer cells. The reason I thought cells do not change, is
because no matter what, Eukarotic cells that do not change they remain
eukaryotic cells. I thought there was _only two kinds of cells
prokaryote cells and prokaryotic cells and they do not change. I
believed and I do not believe cancer cells are different
classification of cell. They are still a eukyarotic cell.
In viewing an _overview_ of a eukaryotic cell it seems that here is an
case where gradual evolution of the cell is impossible. The cells must
be complete and functional or not at all. It seems that eukaryotic
cells come close to being called irreducible complexity. . So, how did
eukaryotic cells
evolve gradually over time. I realize on argument it that one
prokaryotic cell captured or ingested another simple cell. Two cells
combined into one, but eukaryotic cells a vastly more complex than the
combined two prokaryotic cells. This video provides a hypothical
rendituon offering one of the best explanations of the origin and
evolution of the eukyarotic cell.
Overview of cell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8fV9RWgVoI
I think this potential explanation is much better: https://youtu.be/PhPrirmk8F4?feature=shared&t=2060
Mainly because in that model, most of the unique and pervasive features
of eukaryotic cells can be traced back to a single cause, which accounts
for them being unique and pervasive.
Over time everything declines due to wear, tear and decimation of
energy. Consequently, immortality is impossibility.
The universe is under-girted and controlled by laws, order and
constants, consequently it can be understood and described via
mathematics. This fact, eliminates an accidental, aimless, blind
mindless random origin for the universe. Even stars run out of energy
and cease over time, the Universe, itself is destined to become a dead
cold mass--
There is no cause for a universe, and no explanation for the result we observe. - What brought about the big bang and from what- from nothing"
From nothing, nothing comes. The fact is - no one knows. And to answer
your question, immortality would violate the laws of physics.
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:46:43 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:16:59 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way it is. You observe it everywhere you look. Everything
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
It seems that after the task was completed it said "It is done". and
left things with the capacity and ability to take care of itself. It
seems that the designer left the scene. Over time and the 2ND law
everything enters into downward tends, copying errors occur, things tend >>>> to disintegrate and inevitably things move towards dissolution and
decay.
That doesn't fit into an ID paradigm, to go through the trouble to
start life and then leave it to inevitably disintegrate.
grows, matures, then starts to decline til death. Including you and me.
Our bodies die but if we have children, our DNA survives.
As I stated a patch died. That's just the way it is. In fact every
I had some beautiful pine trees in my
acreage. But a patch died, collapsed and are in a process of decay. This >>>> is typical. The same will happen to our bodies.
That's because they died. Apparently you still don't understand the
difference between life and death.
living thing will die.
As far as knowing the difference between life and death. That's a
idiotic charge. I've lost some very special family members through death. >>> --
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
On Thu, 25 Apr 2024 10:22:25 +0200, Athel Cornish-Bowden
<me@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 2024-04-25 07:35:04 +0000, Martin Harran said:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2024 12:46:43 -0400, Ron Dean
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
jillery wrote:Our bodies die but if we have children, our DNA survives.
On Mon, 22 Apr 2024 16:16:59 -0400, Ron DeanThat's the way it is. You observe it everywhere you look. Everything
<rondean-noreply@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip for focus>
It seems that after the task was completed it said "It is done". and >>>>>> left things with the capacity and ability to take care of itself. It >>>>>> seems that the designer left the scene. Over time and the 2ND law
everything enters into downward tends, copying errors occur, things tend >>>>>> to disintegrate and inevitably things move towards dissolution and >>>>>> decay.
That doesn't fit into an ID paradigm, to go through the trouble to
start life and then leave it to inevitably disintegrate.
grows, matures, then starts to decline til death. Including you and me. >>>
Up to a point, though not if we consider Y chromosomes or mitochondrial
DNA. My (paternal paternal) greatgrandfather had six sons and six
daughters, and has about 105 descendants alive today. I'm the only one
who has his Y chromosome, and when I die there will be no one. (I have
three daughters but no sons.)
Is it not likely, however, that virtually all your great-grandfather's
DNA is distributed among his descendants?
And now I'm being nosy - how did you find out that you are the only
one with his Y chromosome?
If I'm intruding on personal stuff, just
ignore me.
As I stated a patch died. That's just the way it is. In fact every
I had some beautiful pine trees in my
acreage. But a patch died, collapsed and are in a process of decay. This >>>>>> is typical. The same will happen to our bodies.
That's because they died. Apparently you still don't understand the >>>>> difference between life and death.
living thing will die.
As far as knowing the difference between life and death. That's a
idiotic charge. I've lost some very special family members through death. >>>>> --
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example
in Siberia.
On 4/26/24 7:28 AM, Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:I fear that Ron D's lack of knowledge of the fossil record,
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate of
deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example
in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or are
you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species biota is
the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has been
generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at times of
mass extinction).
evolutionary biology and genetics
precludes his having any coherent idea of how the living world came to be.
On 4/26/24 8:48 AM, erik simpson wrote:
On 4/26/24 7:28 AM, Ernest Major wrote:It's remotely possible that by attempting to answer questions he can be
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:I fear that Ron D's lack of knowledge of the fossil record,
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate
of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the
preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of a
species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that
ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became
extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also
changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well massive
volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for
example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or are
you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species biota is
the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has
been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at
times of mass extinction).
evolutionary biology and genetics precludes his having any coherent
idea of how the living world came to be.
led to realize that.
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase
rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit >>>>>>> than the preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time
the genes of a species become less and less incapable of
reproduction or species survival. This could account for many of >>>>>>> 99%+ of of all species that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of >>>>>>> course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter
meteor striking the Earth. Also changing weather the coming and
going of ice ages; as well massive volcano eruptions accounts
for extinction of many species for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or
are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species
biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record
is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity
has been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks
at times of mass extinction).
I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's presented due to time and
my present concerns and interest. I'm not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended or supported West Virginia Creationism. But
rather intelligent design has been my interest for decades.
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:I'm back. I got some bad news from my 6 months physical examine, and
Ernest Major wrote:Ernest had just made an attempt, above, to get the thread going
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:This thread is going nowhere and I've some pressing issues I have to
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase rate
of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit than the >>>>> preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time the genes of
a species become less and less incapable of reproduction or species
survival. This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species
that ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs
became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the Earth.
Also changing weather the coming and going of ice ages; as well
massive volcano eruptions accounts for extinction of many species
for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your
Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? Or
are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot) species
biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil record is
that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species diversity has
been generally increasing over time (though with big setbacks at
times of mass extinction).
deal with. So, hopefully I'll be back soon.
somewhere, and your response is to bail? This says something about
you, and it's not good.
spent a few days in the hospital. I've had some health issues, but this latest diagnoses is the same condition that took my father's life. It's
very concerning an depressing.
Ernest Major wrote:
On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known about
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and increase >>>>>>>>> rate of deleterious mutations each generation becomes less fit >>>>>>>>> than the preceding generation, so in the passing spans of time >>>>>>>>> the genes of a species become less and less incapable of
reproduction or species survival. This could account for many >>>>>>>>> of 99%+ of of all species that ever lived that have gone
extinct. Of course the dinosaurs became extinct due to a 6 mile >>>>>>>>> diameter meteor striking the Earth. Also changing weather the >>>>>>>>> coming and going of ice ages; as well massive volcano
eruptions accounts for extinction of many species for example >>>>>>>>> in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which your >>>>>>>> Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species de novo? >>>>>>>> Or are you claiming that the current 10 million (+/- a lot)
species biota is the remnant of a much richer biota of a billion >>>>>>>> species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil
record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) species >>>>>>>> diversity has been generally increasing over time (though with >>>>>>>> big setbacks at times of mass extinction).
snip
;I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions, challenges
and issues. I cannot address every comment that's presented due to
time and my present concerns and interest. I'm not so sure of just
how important anything I see on TO is to me, right now especially
this thread. I never intentionally defended or supported West
Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent design has been my
interest for decades.
To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate material.
The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The context is the
claims you've made about the natural world.
origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of highly
complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the natural world
has ever equaled or come close to such information. If the present is
key to the past, then there is no exception; highly complex information
comes _only_ from a mind. Without information - there is no life.
John Harshman wrote:
On 5/2/24 4:39 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 5/2/24 7:39 AM, Ron Dean wrote:The Cambrian explosion was not just an explosion of 30+/- body plans,
Ernest Major wrote:You contradict yourself. If nothing except life has ever displayed
On 01/05/2024 03:52, Ron Dean wrote:I think the weakest facets of evolution is what is _not_ known
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/30/24 4:27 AM, Ron Dean wrote:
John Harshman wrote:
On 4/26/24 6:06 PM, Ron Dean wrote:
Ernest Major wrote:
On 26/04/2024 02:31, Ron Dean wrote:
I think due to gradual increasing genetic errors and >>>>>>>>>>>>> increase rate of deleterious mutations each generation >>>>>>>>>>>>> becomes less fit than the preceding generation, so in the >>>>>>>>>>>>> passing spans of time the genes of a species become less >>>>>>>>>>>>> and less incapable of reproduction or species survival. >>>>>>>>>>>>> This could account for many of 99%+ of of all species that >>>>>>>>>>>>> ever lived that have gone extinct. Of course the dinosaurs >>>>>>>>>>>>> became extinct due to a 6 mile diameter meteor striking the >>>>>>>>>>>>> Earth. Also changing weather the coming and going of ice >>>>>>>>>>>>> ages; as well massive volcano eruptions accounts for >>>>>>>>>>>>> extinction of many species for example in Siberia.
Are you taking a progressive creationist position, in which >>>>>>>>>>>> your Intelligent Designer is continuously creating species >>>>>>>>>>>> de novo? Or are you claiming that the current 10 million >>>>>>>>>>>> (+/- a lot) species biota is the remnant of a much richer >>>>>>>>>>>> biota of a billion species?
For your information, the conclusion drawn from the fossil >>>>>>>>>>>> record is that (for multicellular eukaryotes at least) >>>>>>>>>>>> species diversity has been generally increasing over time >>>>>>>>>>>> (though with big setbacks at times of mass extinction). >>>>>>>>>>>>
snip
;I dismissed, Although I do try to respond to questions,
challenges and issues. I cannot address every comment that's
presented due to time and my present concerns and interest. I'm
not so sure of just how important anything I see on TO is to me, >>>>>>> right now especially this thread. I never intentionally defended >>>>>>> or supported West Virginia Creationism. But rather intelligent
design has been my interest for decades.
To remind you of the context, I've removed the intermediate
material. The context is not "West Virginia creationism". The
context is the claims you've made about the natural world.
about origins. The most serious is the question is the origin of
highly complex information. Except for life, nothing else in the
natural world has ever equaled or come close to such information.
If the present is key to the past, then there is no exception;
highly complex information comes _only_ from a mind. Without
information - there is no life.
complex information, the inference would be that highly complex
information comes from life, not from "a mind", whatever you might
mean by that. Further, all the minds we know of are living beings,
and they descend from less complex living beings in the past. It
appears, then, that complexity arises from evolution.
;
but also an explosion of information needed for each body plan. Where
did this information come from? No one knows how DNA structure arose
which is designed to store information and control development of
living organisms. Evolution, of course. The be all and end all
explanation.
How do you know there was an explosion of information?
Do you know anything regarding Pre- Cambrian genetic information?
And what's your alternative source for this information?
I've very recently concluded, based primarily on the reality of the
infusion of genetic information into the planet, where none existed
before, there must be a God. I've seen no empirical evidence falsifying
the existence of God. So, atheism is a faith.
Again, you said that only life shows such compleity, which means that
life must be the source.
Of course, Pasteur is credited with the evidence demonstrating that life comes only from life. And if the present is the key to the past, then
this demonstrates that the first living cell came from earlier life. IE
the Living God, who, "breathed the breath of life into man an man became
a living soul".
( Don't know the source of this, but I heard this expression numerous
times - But I have my suspicions) You can believe or disbelieve, but you
have _no_ better explanation!
If
minds are the source, minds are living, and so must themselves have a
source. Do you see how you have locked yourself into an infinite
regression here?
No, I have not! I personally think there's somethings we are capable of arriving knowledge about, and at there;s some things that is beyond our ability to gain knowledge. For example: today we live in a universe that exist, but our universe_had_ a beginning almost 14KKK years ago. We can observe and know the effect, but not the cause. Who or what caused the universe to begin, or why is beyond any observation or our capacity to
know and this is to say nothing regarding the utterly fantastic amount
of energy locked within the universe where there was none. Again we have
no way to know! OF coerce we can hypothesis and theorize to our heart's content, but our best minds cannot create energy from nothing.
Ever heard the term the eternal God? Guess not!
Of course a mind is quite complex. So where did the mind you think
is responsible for all that come from? Is it minds all the way down?
??
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 118:53:15 |
| Calls: | 6,704 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 12,235 |
| Messages: | 5,349,464 |