• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Lochness monster proves the theory of evolution is wrong

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

mattpegher

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2006
2,207
0
71
That is pretty much what I have been saying all along.

How is it so hard to believe that "God" can clear the table on one shot? Somehow an omniscient and omnipotent being would not have enough smarts to create a system that would yield a man in 6 days or 200,000 years?

You also forget that he is immortal, so what is a few hundred thousand years to a God?

(It is like the creationist story that highlights that God created things in "days"... even before there was "night" and "day". the first "day" there was Heaven and Earth... but not Light and Dark... so how could you measure time with no light and no atomic clocks?)
That is another part I usually point out, how can you define a day before there is an earth
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,599
17
81
Well I'm glad at least one person in this thread has some sense.. :thumbsup:



Do you know any instance of a code being generated by a non intelligent process?
*cough*
Well, depending on how "code" is going to be defined....DNA.
:awe:


...
The premise is that since all known codes have an intelligent origin, then using inductive reasoning, DNA itself will also have an intelligent origin.
...
That reasoning immediately excludes even the possibility that any code could exist that is created by means other than an intelligent entity, so arguing this point with that (faulty) premise in mind is simply pointless.
 
Last edited:

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
And yet if I say that our species doesn't yet know how to make life from scratch, that's proof that it's impossible?
No. But as you yourself noted, if the Universe, Life etc has a Creator, then It obviously has to be something even more complex and wondrous than It's Creation, perhaps infinitely so.

I also didn't say it was impossible to know or understand the Creator. I said it's probably impossible to do so with the conscious mind.

I could expand on this notion, but then we would be going way off topic.

Currently unknown? Yes.
Inexplicable? Probably not. And I don't know of many in this grouping who say that the process of pathogenesis cannot be explained or understood. You may as well go back 500 years and say that a lodestone's attraction to iron will never be explainable.
But we're not talking about pathogenesis. We're talking about abiogenesis, something which Scientists have been tackling for in one form or another for centuries, with no success.

Everything we know about Life, tells us that Life only comes from Life. But it had to start somewhere right?

But, there exists a good chance that we could build a computer that is either more intelligent than we are, or which is at least intelligent enough to begin learning how it might accomplish this.
To me, intelligence is a reflection of conscious activity (which is unique to life forms), so unless a computer could ever become conscious (extremely unlikely), it will likely be limited to processing only, and not actual thinking.

Keep in mind too, the life forms we see today aren't purely accidental. It was just "poof" and everything appeared exactly as it is. You've got a long process going on, all the way back to some exceptionally simple little molecules. As far as those go, I would grant that those are indeed mere coincidence, just as it's coincidence that Earth formed where it did, around a sufficiently calm star. You've got a big ocean, lots of chemicals mixing around, and a constant influx of sunlight, and other energy transfer methods, such as volcanoes, chemical reactions, or lightning. Once a single molecule forms, in an environment with materials it can metabolize, which is capable of replicating itself, you've got a foothold scenario, and it can start going nuts, making much more of itself. A "mutation" at that stage would be little more than something like two of these molecules combining, or chancing upon a different substance that also can fulfill the requirements for reproduction.
Like I said before, we live in a RATIONAL Universe that obeys certain laws. It's irrational to believe that molecules would self assemble and form extremely intricate and orderly parts and processes that make our present intelligence driven technology look positively stone age in comparison; and to top it all, also become endowed with consciousness with no external creative input at all.

If that is possible, then it's even more possible that you could get a Boeing 747 if you toss a few tons of steel, aluminum, rubber, plastic, jet fuel etc into a pile and let it sit for a billion years.

A Boeing 747 is FAR less complex, intricate and orderly than even basic life forms after all, yet who in their right mind would believe such a thing?

Yes, and I still think it's something of a semantics argument over the precise definition of the word.
This more than anything boggles my mind. You seem like a reasonable guy, yet even after me posting several sources from Scientific experts, text books, encyclopedias that state the genetic code is 100% synonymous with a code, you instantly become incredulous. o_O

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I expect you to acknowledge the wide body of Scientific evidence in support of the genetic code, being classified as an actual code.

It's more a commentary on how everyone gets all "oh wow, life is so incredibly amazing and all that!" Many people see what life is like now, but at the same time, seem to forget about just how long the timescales discussed really are. As I said, we've only known about DNA for less than 100 years. And no doubt, a lot of life forms do now have considerable complexity. The process to get here has also been about 3 billion years. That's a lot of time in which to accumulate complexity.
It's not just complexity though, it's ingenuity and harmony. I've read books on molecular biology, and I've always come away stunned at not only how complex living structures are, but how harmonious and INGENIOUS they are as well.

One of the most amazing aspects of living creatures is the ATP synthase.

We apparently have "quadrillions" of these things in our bodies, and each one is akin to a rotary atomic motor more sophisticated than any nanotechnology we've yet devised, that can convert energy in one form to another, and back again with ease.

I see life as one of those things that, given the right ingredients and conditions, will just happen, inevitably. Our tiny sample size severely restricts us.
What evidence is there to support such a notion?

Beyond that, the order. Mass extinctions, plagues wiping out large numbers of creatures, natural disasters that can kill entire small populations. Orderly? The one consistent part of this order is that this planet is extremely proficient at killing individual life forms, to the degree that the only way that life is able to survive is by the individuals constantly making fresh copies of themselves, in preparation for the day when this wonderful, orderly planet kills them.
If there's one thing thats true, it's that life is inherently tough and full of suffering.....which is why I've never subscribed to the belief in a personal and caring God.

To me, God is completely and utterly transcendent, remote and unknowable to our conscious, physical selves.

To understand God, requires that you raise your consciousness beyond the waking, physical state. Thats the purpose of meditations.

Just because I can't make a better system from nothing, that doesn't mean that I can't point out that there are some pretty significant flaws in the current system. That is of course unless it's somehow been the intention of this creator that our own DNA is capable of killing or torturing us in a stunning variety of ways. In which case, this creator is just sadistic.
But the point is, what you think are flaws, may in fact be some necessary part or function. Junk DNA is just the tip of the iceberg in that regard. You have tonsils, the appendix, the coccyx etc which were once thought to be either completely useless or "vestigial," but were eventually found to exhibit important functions.

I'd honestly be more ok with the idea of a creator if people would at least stop assigning benevolence as one of its inherent properties. From what I've seen in this world, "cruel and violent malevolence" is closer to the truth. The majority of this world's population lives in severe poverty, and a lot live in war-torn areas, the latter of which would arguably be due to a genetic predisposition to overly-aggressive behavior. Besides that, this planet's got a wonderful penchant for various destructive and deadly disasters, many of which strike without warning. Then let's not forget the hazard of large objects like asteroids. Nothing like a good extinction level event to let a creator prove how benevolent he really is.
I already addressed this earlier, and I agree. No one with any honesty can say that the Creator is benevolent. Personally, I think the Creator is above petty, dual concepts such as good and evil.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
That reasoning immediately excludes even the possibility that any code could exist that is created by means other than an intelligent entity, so arguing this point with that (faulty) premise in mind is simply pointless.
It doesn't exclude the possibility that a code could exist or be created by an unintelligent process.

Remember, I said KNOWN codes. There are no known codes that have their origins in an unintelligent, natural source or process.

If I would have said "all" codes then you would have a point.

Such a premise would be easy to over turn. All you have to do is find a single instance of a code that was formed via an natural process..

So far, no one has done that yet. All known codes from bee waggles to whale songs to languages to morse code to DNA has their source in sentient life forms.

But I'm sure pseudo genius Cerpin Taxt will get on it and win himself a Nobel prize :D
 

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
There are no known codes that have their origins in an unintelligent, natural source or process.

If I would have said "all" codes then you would have a point.

Such a premise would be easy to over turn. All you have to do is find a single instance of a code that was formed via an natural process..
We can watch the mutation of DNA populations, these mutations products of random, natural processes, form new combinations of 'codes. There you go.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
We can watch the mutation of DNA populations, these mutations products of random, natural processes, form new combinations of 'codes. There you go.
Mutations do not solve the mystery of the origin of DNA (and as far as I know, do not increase information, just re-arrange it), so moot point.

But lets just say for shits and grins that DNA was formed from unintelligent, natural processes as you believe, then why hasn't this phenomena (complex coded information) been observed in inorganic matter?

The fact is, DNA and other codes are only associated with living creatures. Thats pretty telling I think..
 
Last edited:

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
Mutations do not solve the mystery of the origin of DNA (and as far as I know, do not increase information, just re-arrange it), so moot point.

But lets just say for shits and grins that DNA was formed from unintelligent, natural processes as you believe, then why hasn't this phenomena (complex coded information) been observed in inorganic matter?

The fact is, DNA and other codes are only associated with living creatures. Thats pretty telling I think..
You are correct, mutations do not solve the problem of DNA origin, though most biologists I know posit an earlier RNA-world (have you read about ribozymes?). You are incorrect though, mutations can and do increase the amount of DNA, number of genes, and thus differentiation and natural selection. Plus, the DNA code has not always been the DNA code, amino-acids have been added through time (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/10/1645.full).

As for inorganic to organic matter, there have been a number of experiments that have produced organic material (i.e. amino acids) from random inorganic interactions. Though, to my knowledge none have produced DNA, though I don't think that is necessary.

But this argument is not really relevant to the topic of Nessie disproving evolution. Even if the starter material was seeded on earth by aliens, god(s), or Nessie herself, an abiogenetic origin does not necessarily refute natural selection, evolution, or the heaps of evidence all pointing to shared ancestry.
 

shira

Diamond Member
Jan 12, 2005
9,567
5
81
It doesn't exclude the possibility that a code could exist or be created by an unintelligent process.

Remember, I said KNOWN codes. There are no known codes that have their origins in an unintelligent, natural source or process.

If I would have said "all" codes then you would have a point.

Such a premise would be easy to over turn. All you have to do is find a single instance of a code that was formed via an natural process..

So far, no one has done that yet. All known codes from bee waggles to whale songs to languages to morse code to DNA has their source in sentient life forms.

But I'm sure pseudo genius Cerpin Taxt will get on it and win himself a Nobel prize :D
It's impossible to prove that anything is natural, because "explanations" (they don't deserve the term "theories") based on the supernatural aren't falsifiable.

So your point "All you have to do is find a single instance of a code that was formed via an natural process," is nonsensical. True believers will just respond, "That was the hand of God meddling with your experiment."
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
The genetic code within DNA constitutes the rules by which genetic information is translated into amino acids you asshat D:
What code?

A certain arrangement of molecules is not a code, and you have not established that it is a code. Moreover, I have explained at length why it is NOT a code. A code is a language. Language is not a physical thing. DNA is a physical thing.

Seriously, you are one of the biggest trolls I've ever had the displeasure of crossing on any internet forum.

Everything you say contradicts well known Scientific facts..

Chargaff's rules which help explain some of the fundamental workings of DNA

Biophysicists discover four new rules of DNA grammar
None of this refutes me.



Go ahead and quote me where I said that. I said infinite regress was illogical, in the context of causation.
But an infinite regress is not "illogical" unless the negative numbers are also "illogical."

You are cordially invited to demonstrate any contradiction of logic presented by an infinite regress.

Believe me, I won't hold my breath.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Mutations do not solve the mystery of the origin of DNA...
WHAT origin?

(and as far as I know, do not increase information, just re-arrange it), so moot point.
Gene duplication increases information.

But lets just say for shits and grins that DNA was formed from unintelligent, natural processes as you believe, then why hasn't this phenomena (complex coded information) been observed in inorganic matter?
How do you know that the information produced by a radium atom is not a code?

The fact is, DNA and other codes are only associated with living creatures. Thats pretty telling I think..
So much perpetual fail. It's no wonder you're a theist.
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
No. But as you yourself noted, if the Universe, Life etc has a Creator, then It obviously has to be something even more complex and wondrous than It's Creation, perhaps infinitely so.
Why must that be? We see complexity arise from simple things all the time.

Everything we know about Life, tells us that Life only comes from Life. But it had to start somewhere right?
Nope. For all we know, it has always existed.


Like I said before, we live in a RATIONAL Universe that obeys certain laws.
Well... *WE* do. I'm pretty certain you don't, what with your belief in the existence of an inter-meddling being of unlimited powers and inscrutable motives.

It's irrational to believe that molecules would self assemble and form extremely intricate and orderly parts and processes that make our present intelligence driven technology look positively stone age in comparison; and to top it all, also become endowed with consciousness with no external creative input at all.
Your incredulity is not a compelling argument.

If that is possible, then it's even more possible that you could get a Boeing 747 if you toss a few tons of steel, aluminum, rubber, plastic, jet fuel etc into a pile and let it sit for a billion years.
Holy crap, I haven't seen this canard trotted out in a long time. Only the stupidest of creationists try to get it off the ground. Do have any idea what the odds of the particular configuration of air molecules in your room is right now?

A Boeing 747 is FAR less complex, intricate and orderly than even basic life forms after all, yet who in their right mind would believe such a thing?
Can you quantify the "complexity" of a 747?



This more than anything boggles my mind. You seem like a reasonable guy, yet even after me posting several sources from Scientific experts, text books, encyclopedias that state the genetic code is 100% synonymous with a code, you instantly become incredulous. o_O
Because the claim is false, for reasons I've already supplied ad nauseum. It's your problem that you're impervious to facts, not ours.

I don't expect you to take my word for it, but I expect you to acknowledge the wide body of Scientific evidence in support of the genetic code, being classified as an actual code.
It isn't. It is a particular arrangement of chemicals. Chemicals are physical things. Codes are not physical things.
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
You are incorrect though, mutations can and do increase the amount of DNA, number of genes, and thus differentiation and natural selection.
Are you certain of this? Thousands of experiments have been conducted on the random mutations of organisms like bacteria, fruit flies using irradiation and other methods, yet none has ever resulted in an increase in the amount of DNA, or the change of one species into something else entirely..

Quite the opposite in fact. Forcing organisms to mutate is almost always harmful in some manner.

Plus, the DNA code has not always been the DNA code, amino-acids have been added through time (http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/10/1645.full).
Articles on evolution such as the one above are always full of words like assume, inferred etc. Thats because they don't really know and are just speculating.

As for inorganic to organic matter, there have been a number of experiments that have produced organic material (i.e. amino acids) from random inorganic interactions. Though, to my knowledge none have produced DNA, though I don't think that is necessary.
Are you referring to the Urey Miller experiments? If so, those experiments didn't prove anything as far as I'm concerned. Intelligence imposed itself in every stage of the experiment in an effort to guide it towards a certain goal, and they produced equal amounts of both right and left handed organic molecules. In real life, almost all amino acids found in proteins are left handed.

And how can you say DNA wouldn't be necessary? Without information, how can we have life?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
It's impossible to prove that anything is natural, because "explanations" (they don't deserve the term "theories") based on the supernatural aren't falsifiable.

So your point "All you have to do is find a single instance of a code that was formed via an natural process," is nonsensical. True believers will just respond, "That was the hand of God meddling with your experiment."
I disagree with this statement. Natural in this context to me means adhering to or deriving from known Scientific laws.

As such, what I said should be easily falsifiable. But as I mentioned before, even if you start with the premise that DNA is a completely natural phenomena, then how do you explain that codes are only associated with life forms?

Should it not be found elsewhere as well, if it were indeed completely natural?
 

Carfax83

Diamond Member
Nov 1, 2010
6,064
868
126
What code?

A certain arrangement of molecules is not a code, and you have not established that it is a code. Moreover, I have explained at length why it is NOT a code. A code is a language. Language is not a physical thing. DNA is a physical thing.
Cerpin Taxt, this may come as quite a shock to you, but you don't get to define what a code is or isn't.

People that are far more intelligent than you or I, who have studied information theory for years on end.....they're the ones that get to define what a code is or isn't.

And they say your narrow and ignorant minded view of a code does not suffice.

None of this refutes me.
None of this refutes you because you're apparently in your own little "Cerpin Taxt is God" imaginary world.

In the real World though, it positively bitch slaps you across the face, leaving you teary eyed.. :D

But an infinite regress is not "illogical" unless the negative numbers are also "illogical." .
You're really an idiot. Infinite regress is illogical because of causation. Infinite regress would demand an infinite amount of causes, which would require an infinite amount of time, which is beyond absurd because according to physicists, neither Time nor the Universe themselves are infinite.

Also, if you believe infinite regress is logical, then no rational statements regarding sufficient causation could ever be made.

Really, only delusional pseudo-geniuses like yourself find the notion of infinite regress appealing.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
2
0
There is the somewhat semi-famous story of Albert Einstein applying for US citizenship shortly before the full out break of WW2. But post the rise of Hitler.

But in the process some not too bright but well meaning US official asked the Albert if he believed in GOD. And the answer given was Albert believed in the GOD of Spinoza, which was enough to get Albert into the USA and on a track for later full US citizenship.

But its my understanding that the Philosophy was not exactly friendly to any established religion. As Spinoza may have conceded GOD may have created our solar system and the physical laws governing its future progression, some 4.6 billion years ago, and the laws of evolution governing life in the process.

But after GOD doing so, some 4.6 billion years ago, Spinoza reasoned, why should "GOD" bother with just one solar system, when GOD had so many other fish to fry? In other solar systems and other galaxies. Why should GOD stick around or even bother to revisit just one of his many on going experiments?

After all, we should be grateful God created us and now we are on our own.
 
Last edited:

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
Are you certain of this? Thousands of experiments have been conducted on the random mutations of organisms like bacteria, fruit flies using irradiation and other methods, yet none has ever resulted in an increase in the amount of DNA, or the change of one species into something else entirely..

Quite the opposite in fact. Forcing organisms to mutate is almost always harmful in some manner.



Articles on evolution such as the one above are always full of words like assume, inferred etc. Thats because they don't really know and are just speculating.



Are you referring to the Urey Miller experiments? If so, those experiments didn't prove anything as far as I'm concerned. Intelligence imposed itself in every stage of the experiment in an effort to guide it towards a certain goal, and they produced equal amounts of both right and left handed organic molecules. In real life, almost all amino acids found in proteins are left handed.

And how can you say DNA wouldn't be necessary? Without information, how can we have life?

Yes, I am certain gene duplication mutations certainly increase the amount and number of genes. If you are unaware of this, you clearly don't know enough to have an constructive conversation on this topic, this is fairly elementary stuff. Of course inducing mutation is mostly deleterious, but not always and that is the point.

There is a difference between speculation and inductive reasoning. Since no one was there when life began, we must infer based on evidence currently available - that is how science works. To dismiss peer reviewed research by experts in the field because you disagree, or even worse because they use words like 'infer' is just plain ignorant. I would take their "assumptions" over your certainty every day of the week. One is evidence based, the other is just your opinion.

Are you suggesting Miller, Urey, and those that have repeated the experiment under varying conditions have all falsified their results? What does chirality have to do with the results? The point is not that inorganics can make a bunch of stuff, but that it can indeed make organic molecules, the same as found in you.

As how can we have life without DNA, obviously you failed to read the proposed RNA world hypothesis.


I would like you to to explain what this has to do with the original OP. Abiogensis is not evolution, are you refuting common ancestry?
 

JACKHAMMER

Platinum Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,870
0
76
But as I mentioned before, even if you start with the premise that DNA is a completely natural phenomena, then how do you explain that codes are only associated with life forms?

Should it not be found elsewhere as well, if it were indeed completely natural?
Ever consider the periodic table a code? 1 proton equals hydrogen, two protons equals Helium, etc. Just like AUG = methionine, etc.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,112
318
126
Ever consider the periodic table a code? 1 proton equals hydrogen, two protons equals Helium, etc. Just like AUG = methionine, etc.
I don't think that's really the same thing. An atom with two protons is some form of Helium. The concurrent nucleic acids adenine, uracil, and guanine translated in the proper reading frame will result in the incorporation of a methionine residue. Yeah, the aforementioned three nucleic acids aren't literally a code, but neither is the graphite on a post-it note attached to my grandfather's computer monitor reminding him of his password. Arguing with him on this point is both futile and pointless.

Are you certain of this? Thousands of experiments have been conducted on the random mutations of organisms like bacteria, fruit flies using irradiation and other methods, yet none has ever resulted in an increase in the amount of DNA, or the change of one species into something else entirely..

Quite the opposite in fact. Forcing organisms to mutate is almost always harmful in some manner.
Uh, transposable elements?
 

Cerpin Taxt

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
11,912
411
126
Cerpin Taxt, this may come as quite a shock to you, but you don't get to define what a code is or isn't.
Neither do you. The fact remains that codes are language. DNA is not language. It is atoms and molecules -- physical things.

People that are far more intelligent than you or I, who have studied information theory for years on end.....they're the ones that get to define what a code is or isn't.

And they say your narrow and ignorant minded view of a code does not suffice.
No, they don't. My argument remains unassailed by your pathetic fallacy.



None of this refutes you because you're apparently in your own little "Cerpin Taxt is God" imaginary world.

In the real World though, it positively bitch slaps you across the face, leaving you teary eyed.. :D
Now you're just getting pissy because you can't mount a sound counter-argument. Pathetic.



You're really an idiot. Infinite regress is illogical because of causation.
What is the contradiction?

Infinite regress would demand an infinite amount of causes, which would require an infinite amount of time, which is beyond absurd because according to physicists, neither Time nor the Universe themselves are infinite.
Newsflash: things which are not physically possible are not automatically illogical.

That is regardless of the fact that it is not known that past time is not infinite. At present, we observe a singularity in our history. This does not establish a "beginning" of time, but rather a first observable point. We do not know if there is anything or nothing before that.

Also, if you believe infinite regress is logical, then no rational statements regarding sufficient causation could ever be made.
Says you, and your say-so isn't worth much.

Really, only delusional pseudo-geniuses like yourself find the notion of infinite regress appealing.
I just know that it isn't "illogical" like you claimed. It isn't even that hard.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS