Evolution doesn't work

[Alpha Beta]

Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's impossible guys.
Mutations only reshuffle existing information and natural selection doesn't create anything either. That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.

[Sean Dillon]

AB, let me ask you:

Why do you post here? I mean it, really? You post over and over, exactly the same crap that has been refuted over and over and over. And it'll be refuted this time, just the same. Do you really imagine that anyone finds your ill-informed drive-by posts at all convincing?

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's impossible guys.

Not sure what you mean that evolution doesn't work at the chemical level. It absolutely does. All biological evolutionary processes abide by the rules of chemistry, and indeed wouldn't function without.

> Mutations only reshuffle existing information

Nope! Mutations can reshuffle existing information, but they can also duplicate information (which creates new information), alter existing information (creating new information), and delete information, for that matter.

> and natural selection doesn't create anything either.

You're correct that natural selection doesn't create anything. Natural selection actually DESTROYS things. Random variation (such as mutation) creates a bunch of new options, and natural selection destroys all but the best options (eventually).

That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.

I assume you're referring to this?:

http://www.revelation.co/2009/08/06/richard-dawkins-stumped-on-example-of-showing-new-information-in-genome/

He wasn't asked for an example of "true evolution" he was asked for an example showing new information in a genome. And it doesn't actually matter whether Dawkins can answer that question or not (though I suspect he can), because it has emphatically been answered:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

[Alpha Beta]

Duplications are not new information. If you copy a piece of newspaper it still contains the same information, and not new.

[Alpha Beta]

Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:15:06 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

Chemical evolution, which is impossible.

[Bill Rogers]

I think there's a difference in the information between "desert" and "dessert", even though it was just a duplication of the "s".

[Alpha Beta]

Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:15:06 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

That talkorigins link doesn't answer shit.

[Alpha Beta]

Only in English language.

[Alpha Beta]

Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:15:06 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:

Altering existing information IS reshuffling information, which is not new information.

[Sean Dillon]

The Theory of Evolution is not ABOUT "chemical evolution." It is irrelevant to the question of whether LIVING THINGS evolve.

[Sean Dillon]

That's not necessarily true.

From an information theory perspective, duplicating a piece of information adds at least one new bit of information.

From a more real-world perspective, consider the word "both." If I did a "duplication mutation" on the "o" in that word, all of a sudden it becomes "booth," which is new information.

Or consider a recipe. If you repeat a direction, all of a sudden you may have twice as much flour in your cake. The repetition it self changes the nature of the outcome.

And when it comes to genomes, not ONLY can a duplication itself potentially change the "recipe" of how an organism forms, but having a duplicate copy of a gene provides raw material that can be FURTHER changed by substitution mutations, allowing that second copy to essentially become a whole new gene in its own right. New information.

[Sean Dillon]

Actually, it provides several instances of instances of increases of information resulting from mutation. The fact that you don't understand it doesn't change that.

[Sean Dillon]

No, duplicating an element can affect a wide variety of systems. Recipes, computer programs, sentences, genomes...

[Sean Dillon]

No. If I shuffle a deck of cards, that's "reshuffling information." If I replace the ten of hearts with a joker, I have added new information.

[Alpha Beta]

If you believe in evolution you need to begin from the very beginning, which is chemical evolution, which is impossible. It makes only sense that life was created.

[Alpha Beta]

If you pick a story and change the name of the protagonist into a different name it's not going to change the story.

[Sean Dillon]

No, evolution regards already living systems. We don't need to "start from the very beginning" for that to be true.

I don't need to know how a car was built to understand how to drive a car. Same deal here. REGARDLESS of how life started, there is mountains of evidence indicating that evolution is how it diversified and developed since.

PS: There ARE naturalistic possibilities for how life began, so no... it doesn't "only make sense" that life had to be created.

[Sean Dillon]

Oh I beg to differ. Consider for example the VERY different reactions Republicans have to stories about sexual harassment, depending on whether "Trump" or "Franken" is the name in the story.

Besides which, a base pair isn't a name -- a label -- a base pair directly contributes to the chemical activity of a gene. So if you change a base pair, you may change what the gene DOES.

[Alpha Beta]

Yes, we have to. Chemical evolution is step #1 of evolution, and that fails miserably already. But you can be fooled easily to believe everything was created in these long ages all by itself because it cannot be proven or refuted.

[Sean Dillon]

No it isn't. The Theory of Evolution only regards living biological systems. It is only INTENDED to regard living biological systems. It doesn't even ATTEMPT to explain the origin of life, because that is outside the scope of the theory.

However, ALL EVIDENCE we do have, indicates that evolution is FAR AND AWAY the best explanation for the diversification and development of life, since the time it first arose.

But AGAIN: there ARE naturalistic explanations available for the origins of life... or "chemical evolution" as you put it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Therefore, we are not dependent on divine creation to explain the origins of life.

[Alpha Beta]

Creation is the best explanation for the variety of life. The pre-flood world had all types of species which became extinct during the deluge (for example dinosaurs), and now these are being used as examples of evolution in the past, which is a fatal misinterpretation. There is not so much variation in the land life because these animals were saved by Noah. But there are lots of species of fish for example. And of course observed evolution happens way too quickly for evolution to be true for billions of years. Wolves downgrading into dogs happened during humanities lifetime (last few thousand years). But they are not radically different from each other, just downgraded. Of course it's also easy to fool people like you when you are being shown a picture of dogs turning into wolves by just reverting the order of creatures. That's what these evolutionists are doing all the time to fool people, see that famous picture of a monkey becoming a human.

[Bill Rogers]

If you think that the claim that duplication does not generate new information only applies in certain contexts, then you have a lot more work to do. Why should it apply in genetics but not in linguistics, or computer science, or mathematics?

[Alpha Beta]

I know you disagree but the Bible mentions dinosaurs.

[Sean Dillon]

No, it really doesn't.

[Alpha Beta]

We all know that codes and writing systems from linguistics, mathematics and computer science always come from an intelligence.

[Sean Dillon]

If that were true, we should expect all of the animals that died in the Flood to be intermixed, not consistently divided into the same geological layers. We wouldn't expect to find, for example, that all the dinosaurs (regardless of size) are in lower layers than most all of the mammals (regardless of size). But that's not what we find. We don't find a "world-wide flood layer" at all, in fact.

> and now these are being used as examples of evolution in the past, which is a fatal misinterpretation. There is not so much variation in the land life because these animals were saved by Noah.

Oh, there is quite a LOT of variation in land life. I wish you would stop talking out your ass.

> But there are lots of species of fish for example. And of course observed evolution happens way too quickly for evolution to be true for billions of years.

Not at all.

> Wolves downgrading into dogs happened during humanities lifetime (last few thousand years).

Wolves didn't "downgrade" into anything. Dogs are not "downgraded" wolves. And they were domesticated around 20,000-40,000 years ago. And wolves and dogs are still very similar. They in no way evolved "too fast" for evolution to be true.

> But they are not radically different from each other, just downgraded.

They are not radically different from each other, they are also not downgraded.

> Of course it's also easy to fool people like you when you are being shown a picture of dogs turning into wolves by just reverting the order of creatures. That's what these evolutionists are doing all the time to fool people, see that famous picture of a monkey becoming a human.

Actually, the fossil record, genetics, and the fact that wolves and dogs can still interbreed provides a much stronger evidence for their common ancestry.

[Vincent Maycock]

If they were drowned in the deluge, why is there so much order in the
fossil record?

[Sean Dillon]

Sorry... that should have read:

"If that were true, we should expect all of the animals that died in the Flood to be intermixed, not consistently divided into the same geological layers. We wouldn't expect to find, for example, that all the dinosaurs (regardless of size) are in lower layers than most all of the mammals (regardless of size). But that IS what we find. But we don't find a "world-wide flood layer" at all."

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 05:30:05 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

>Evolution doesn't even work

Yes, it does.

Next moron!
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Mark Isaak]

On 12/7/17 5:30 AM, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, ...

except that it does.

> Mutations only reshuffle existing information and natural selection doesn't create anything either.

Likewise, stepping forward with your left leg does not move your right
foot forward, and stepping with your right leg does not move your left
foot, so it walking is impossible.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bill Rogers]

So if God designed an evolutionary process then genetic duplications would add information, but if the same duplications occurred by mutation (if God *hadn't designed the evolutionary process) then they would not add information?

[John Stockwell]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 6:35:05 AM UTC-7, Alpha Beta wrote:
> Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's impossible guys.

> Mutations only reshuffle existing information and natural selection doesn't create anything either. That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.

Actually, we all have 100 to 200 mutations, so we all have genetic material
that our parents do not have.

Maybe you should grow a pair, come out from behind the pseudonym and discuss
rather than make your ridiculous (and erroneous) pontifications.

[J.LyonLayden]

Dawkins couldn't answer it because Dawkins is an idiot. That's why Rupert Sheldrake wipes the floor with his ass every time they meet.

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0f0d193d-c17a-458f...@googlegroups.com...

> Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:40:04 UTC+1 schrieb Bill Rogers:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:15:06 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> > > AB, let me ask you:
>> > >
>> > > Why do you post here? I mean it, really? You post over and over,
>> > > exactly the same crap that has been refuted over and over and over.
>> > > And it'll be refuted this time, just the same. Do you really imagine
>> > > that anyone finds your ill-informed drive-by posts at all convincing?
>> > >

>> > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > > > Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect
>> > > > it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's
>> > > > impossible guys.
>> > >

>> > > Not sure what you mean that evolution doesn't work at the chemical
>> > > level. It absolutely does. All biological evolutionary processes
>> > > abide by the rules of chemistry, and indeed wouldn't function
>> > > without.
>> > >

>> > > > Mutations only reshuffle existing information
>> > >

>> > > Nope! Mutations can reshuffle existing information, but they can also
>> > > duplicate information (which creates new information), alter existing
>> > > information (creating new information), and delete information, for
>> > > that matter.
>> > >

>> > > > and natural selection doesn't create anything either.
>> > >

>> > > You're correct that natural selection doesn't create anything.
>> > > Natural selection actually DESTROYS things. Random variation (such as
>> > > mutation) creates a bunch of new options, and natural selection
>> > > destroys all but the best options (eventually).
>> > >

>> > > That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer
>> > > the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.
>> > >

>> > > I assume you're referring to this?:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.revelation.co/2009/08/06/richard-dawkins-stumped-on-example-of-showing-new-information-in-genome/
>> > >
>> > > He wasn't asked for an example of "true evolution" he was asked for
>> > > an example showing new information in a genome. And it doesn't
>> > > actually matter whether Dawkins can answer that question or not
>> > > (though I suspect he can), because it has emphatically been answered:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
>> >
>> > Duplications are not new information. If you copy a piece of newspaper
>> > it still contains the same information, and not new.
>>
>> I think there's a difference in the information between "desert" and
>> "dessert", even though it was just a duplication of the "s".
>
> Only in English language.
>

????

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:98e74b16-d069-4a88...@googlegroups.com...

It is irrelevant wrt evolution whether first life was "created" or not. We
know life started, and has been evolving ever since. If it didn't start, we
wouldn't be here.

Difficult to understand?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:7997ea12-941d-4794...@googlegroups.com...

When talking about evolution in biology, is there any evolution except
chemical there?

Biology = chemistry. Unless we are at a submolecular level, everything is
chemistry, or ?

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:64017bbf-7089-4b6d...@googlegroups.com...

Just show us where, please!

Show your knowledge, don't just say you have it!

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:e80032cf-712d-4231...@googlegroups.com...

What you mean downgraded? You mean some life is of poor quality? If it is
alive, it is life in action. What more can ypu ask for? That God is busy
running the chemical processes on our planet?

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:92bc25a6-5f20-411a...@googlegroups.com...

> Altering existing information IS reshuffling information, which is not new
> information.
>

Aha, reshuffling "the man ate the steak" to "the steak ate the man" is not
something new, it will always be the same thing?

Can you please define "new information"?

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:326bef5c-038c-4efe...@googlegroups.com...

You're making it too simple. It is not about the names of the parts, it is
about the properties of the parts. That might change the story, don't you
think?

Rolf

[Rolf]

"Alpha Beta" <dark...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:ab1f84e6-00ac-472d...@googlegroups.com...

> That talkorigins link doesn't answer shit.
>

To me, it looks like genomes are being modified all tht time. I don't know
how many different configurations of a genome is possible, but the number
must be astronomic.

We know evolution works, we see it all around us all the time. Are you
blind?

[jillery]

On Thu, 7 Dec 2017 06:40:52 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:40:04 UTC+1 schrieb Bill Rogers:
>> On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 9:35:05 AM UTC-5, Alpha Beta wrote:

>> > Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 15:15:06 UTC+1 schrieb Sean Dillon:
>> > > AB, let me ask you:
>> > >
>> > > Why do you post here? I mean it, really? You post over and over, exactly the same crap that has been refuted over and over and over. And it'll be refuted this time, just the same. Do you really imagine that anyone finds your ill-informed drive-by posts at all convincing?
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 7:35:05 AM UTC-6, Alpha Beta wrote:
>> > > > Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's impossible guys.
>> > >
>> > > Not sure what you mean that evolution doesn't work at the chemical level. It absolutely does. All biological evolutionary processes abide by the rules of chemistry, and indeed wouldn't function without.
>> > >
>> > > > Mutations only reshuffle existing information
>> > >
>> > > Nope! Mutations can reshuffle existing information, but they can also duplicate information (which creates new information), alter existing information (creating new information), and delete information, for that matter.
>> > >
>> > > > and natural selection doesn't create anything either.
>> > >
>> > > You're correct that natural selection doesn't create anything. Natural selection actually DESTROYS things. Random variation (such as mutation) creates a bunch of new options, and natural selection destroys all but the best options (eventually).
>> > >
>> > > That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.
>> > >
>> > > I assume you're referring to this?:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.revelation.co/2009/08/06/richard-dawkins-stumped-on-example-of-showing-new-information-in-genome/
>> > >
>> > > He wasn't asked for an example of "true evolution" he was asked for an example showing new information in a genome. And it doesn't actually matter whether Dawkins can answer that question or not (though I suspect he can), because it has emphatically been answered:
>> > >
>> > > http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
>> >

>> > Duplications are not new information. If you copy a piece of newspaper it still contains the same information, and not new.
>>
>> I think there's a difference in the information between "desert" and "dessert", even though it was just a duplication of the "s".
>
>Only in English language.

You do your self and your faith no favors by talking nonsense and so
raising both to scorn in the eyes of nonbelievers.

You made an abstract claim, that duplications don't create new
information. You were shown an abstract example where the mere
duplication of a letter created a new word. And your objection is not
to deny the creation of new information, but to reject the example as
too abstract.

A sensible Creationist would understand that exactly analogous cases
happen with genes, where the duplication of a single nucleotide
creates a new gene, just as the duplication of a single letter creates
a new word. A sensible Creationist would understand that a sensible
response would be to show how those new genetic words were not
functional.

Of course, since molecular biology and genetics are beyond your
understanding, you would have trouble doing that, which would explain
why you turn to aping those famous three monkeys.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Alpha Beta]

Am Donnerstag, 7. Dezember 2017 14:35:05 UTC+1 schrieb Alpha Beta:
> Evolution doesn't even work on chemical level, so how do you expect it to evolve into all kinds of creatures all by itself? That's impossible guys.

> Mutations only reshuffle existing information and natural selection doesn't create anything either. That's not proof for evolution. That's why Dawkins couldn't answer the question when he was asked to give an example for true evolution.

Yes, evolution is impossible on chemical level, so forget about the rest of your fairy tale theory.

[Alpha Beta]

By believing in evolution you made a monkey out of yourself.

[*Hemidactylus*]

J.LyonLayden <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Dawkins couldn't answer it because Dawkins is an idiot. That's why Rupert
> Sheldrake wipes the floor with his ass every time they meet.
>

Rupert Sheldrake? By the laws of formative causation every time AB and you
post you bring the rest of us down. You are etching out the dingbat basin
for the rest of humanity. An alternative hypothesis is that you
independently tap into reservoirs of bad ideas that others have the
wherewithal to reject.

Morphic resonance taps into the vibrational fields of similar bad mnemes,
such as Haeckel’s perigenesis and CG Jung’s collective unconscious.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I believe in just desserts.

[Sean Dillon]

The Theory of Evolution operates on the biological level, REGARDLESS of what occurred on the chemical level. How biology first emerged is simply not a part of the Theory. Never was, never will be.

However, there is no evidence to suggest that evolution-like process could not and did not occur at a molecular level. In fact, many of the plausible naturalistic models of abiogenesis utilize such chemical "evolution."

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 8:35:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> J.LyonLayden <joseph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Dawkins couldn't answer it because Dawkins is an idiot. That's why Rupert
> > Sheldrake wipes the floor with his ass every time they meet.
> >
> Rupert Sheldrake? By the laws of formative causation every time AB and you

Rupert Sheldrak wiped the floor with Richard Dawkins on two different occasions, and the second time Dawkins made sure none of the debate aired.

I am not a follower of Sheldrake, but Dawkins is an absolute idiot and I doubt his IQ reaches 100. He is incredibly angry, and his forehead glows bright red every time someone points out his ignorance.

> post you bring the rest of us down. You are etching out the dingbat basin
> for the rest of humanity. An alternative hypothesis is that you
> independently tap into reservoirs of bad ideas that others have the
> wherewithal to reject.

And furthermore, James Randi was caught lying about duplicating Sheldrake's experiments. Sheldrakes experiments with dogs were sound. They were recreated by other camps. Randi claimed he could not get the results in his own laboratory, and later admitted he not conducted a real experiment only watched his girl friend's dog for a day.

he has still not coughed up the million dollars to Sheldrake, and has since changed the wording on his challenge so that the million dollars can never be won even if someone prooves a "mprhic field."

>
> Morphic resonance taps into the vibrational fields of similar bad mnemes,
> such as Haeckel’s perigenesis and CG Jung’s collective unconscious.

And he's not the only one currently proving aspects of such concepts. Ki energy kills cancer cells, rats solve mazes faster after other rats have already done so, and Sheldrake almost certainly has more education from better schools than you have.

[J.LyonLayden]

On Friday, December 8, 2017 at 8:35:03 AM UTC-5, *Hemidactylus* wrote:

Of course, his stellar education does not make Sheldrake smarter than you, it only shows that you should give him the respect of actually addressing his theories rather than simply dismissing him like some pseudoscientist.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:21:13 -0800 (PST), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Alpha Beta
<dark...@gmail.com>:

Talk to yourself much?

[zencycle]

On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
> Next moron!
> --
>
> Bob C.

Bob, stop calling out for morons. We'll only get more like AB.

[jillery]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 05:26:38 -0800 (PST), Alpha Beta

>By believing in evolution you made a monkey out of yourself.

Cute, but meaningless. Do you really want to stick with your
implication that you can't understand how duplication creates new
information?

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

You appear to believe that this is some kind of refutation of the ToE. As humans are hominids, and hominids are apes, and apes are primates, humans are descended from something which might be identified as a monkey. I fail to understand why you would think that this is either anything particularly significant, or insulting. It's a fact. You may not like it. That would be entirely too bad for you, as your not liking the fact does not change it one iota.

[Panthera Tigris Altaica]

Too late. Muggsy and Jonathan and JTEM are already here.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 8 Dec 2017 12:49:03 -0800 (PST), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by zencycle
<funkma...@hotmail.com>:

>On Thursday, December 7, 2017 at 1:10:03 PM UTC-5, Bob Casanova wrote:

>> Next moron!

>Bob, stop calling out for morons. We'll only get more like AB.

Apologies, but they continue to clamor for entrance
regardless of what I (or anyone) says. Probably extreme
masochism...

[Mark Isaak]

"The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself -—
and you are the easiest person to fool." - Richard Feynman

I think you might enjoy learning science if you ever gave it serious
consideration. You probably would not enjoy the initial steps, though,
because you clearly enjoy fooling yourself, and you would need to give
that up. However, you can still enjoy fantasy and science at the same
time; you simply need to recognize that they are separate disciplines.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin