No, it isn't.wellwisher said:I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math - - -
No, it doesn't.wellwisher said:For example, the DNA has a double helix of water.
And so forth.
No, it isn't.wellwisher said:I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math - - -
No, it doesn't.wellwisher said:For example, the DNA has a double helix of water.
My problem with evolution is not with the idea of evolution, but with the random assumptions for its chemical mechanism. The random assumptions are the primary stumbling block for many critics. This stumbling blocks constantly shows its face when people give examples of the odds being too high at various areas in evolution. They are looking for a logical mechanism since the odds don't appear there.
I think I figured out the source of the problem connected to the random assumptions. It came to light many years back during a project I did as an engineer. I forgot how this got me questioning evolution, as is. I was doing development work and had to invent a process to clean several milllon gallons of mercury contaminated water to less than 1PPB. I was able to come up with the invention in about three weeks, which worked very well in pilot studies.
Because of the high visibility of the final cleanup project, I was assigned a mathematician, whose job was to model the process with a statistical design type analysis I objected at first, since I invented the stupiid thing and knew how it worked, chemically and logically, and didn't need any hand holding with gambling math. But I was ordered to let him do his analysis just in case things went south. He could soften potential problems during discharge with statistical magic that would be acceptable to the EPA.
When it was all over, his statistical modelling actually did a very good job. I was old school, but could see the usefulness in what he did. Ironically, he was a mathematician and not a chemists or an engineer, yet his math analysis, without his having any of my expertise, worked well. That made me think, even without a real understanding of the chemical mechanisms, by simply using his math design, he was able to achieve good results that parallelled what I was doing. I was impressed because the blackbox worked better than I expected.
The question that came to me was, since his statistical design was doing all the heavy lifting for him, using a randon assumption, would it have been possible for him to make up a mechanism, and then let the math do all the heavy lifting, and still have the result come out well?
If we apply this question to evolution, is the random assumption there to allow the statistical math to do all the heavy lifting. My math friend seemed to demonstrate that even if his random assumption was not true in reality, it still worked. In other words, my mathematician was able to parallel a rational analysis, from a trained chemical engineer, using a random assumption without needing full knowledge of the detailed mechanism. Reality was not needed by him, since the math was doing all the heavy lifting using blackbox statistics.
If evolution is letting the math doing all the heavy lifting, a random mechanism can be wrong within bio-chemical reality, but will be needed, so the math can do all the lifting. If you look at the DNA, it also contains a double helix of water. This reality is not needed when the math does the heavy lifting. Evolution can deny this and other reality and still get good results as long as it uses the assumptions needed by the math.
One test we could do that can determine whether evolution has a real mechanism or its usefulness is really due to a mathematical tool, is to define evolution without the math, to see if the theory can do the heavy lifting. I don't think the theory can stand without the math tool. This is why there is always a fight to maintain the math tool requirements.
I am not against evolution, just the mechanism is tailored to the math thereby allowing one to lose touch with reality and still get results.
Actually DNA does have a double helix of water. But this is not stressed because when the cart of math is leading the horse of evolution a complete reality mechanism is not important, since the math can do the heavy lifting with less than reality. The power of statistics is it is black box math and allows us to ignore the reality of what is inside the black box. Again, I am not saying there is not a process of change within life that we call evolution. What I am saying is, the current mechanism works because it is conforming itself to the needs of the math; cart leading the horse. The mechanism does not have to be correct, to wor, since the math can make use of a black box to compensate.
In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind. To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution. But it may not fit into the current math car, since it does not lead to a needed random grease for the cart wheels. Again math is a powerful tool, but the hammer should not swing the carpenter.
No it doesn't.wellwisher said:Actually DNA does have a double helix of water.
No, they weren't.wellwisher said:In the image below, the extra hydrogen bonding hydrogen on the bases, as well as the extra electron density on the nitrogen and oxygen atoms of the bases were designed by evolution with water in mind.
Evolutionary lingo says nothing like that.wellwisher said:To use evolutionary lingo, this arrangement had selective advantage since the very beginning, even before cells, and therefore plays a important role in evolution
The DNA double helix can take up a number of conformations (for example, right handed A-DNA pitch 28.2 Å 11 bp, B-DNA pitch 34 Å 10 bp, C-DNA pitch 31Å 9.33 bp, D-DNA pitch 24.2 Å 8 bp and the left handed Z-DNA pitch 43Å 12 bp) with differing hydration. The predominant natural DNA, B-DNA, has a wide and deep major groove and a narrow and deep minor groove and requires the greatest hydration.
Sure there is, and it is even simpler than ToE: "God is Evil." That is the whole theory.But DNA, living things, and the fossil evidence all support the theory. This is the mark of a good theory,
and so far there is no alternative theory with the same explanatory power.
Sure there is, and it is even simpler than ToE: "God is Evil." That is the whole theory.
I.e. God likes to trick and mislead people. For two examples:
(1) None of the stars exist (except the sun, if considered to be a star). There appear to be more stars than grains of sand on Earth's beaches - Making all that mass is lot of work, even for God, so about 10,000 years ago, he just made beams of parallel light a little wider than the solar system about 25,000 light years long and pointed them at the sun from many different directions. Note the GiE theory is falsifiable and the ToE is not! I.e. GiE theory is false if: (1) After about 15,000 years more the heavens are NOT free of their apparent stars. OR if (2) the pioneer space craft, which are now outside of many of God's light beams, had cameras, which still look at where the stars are falsely believed to be, did observe "star light;" but scientists were stupidly believing in the ToE so did not test the GiE theory as they should have.
Thus man can test the GiE theory currently, but can not show the ToE is false, with no possibilitity that the "disproof" cannot be explained away so as to keep the ToE alive.
Your problem is that you have swallowed that false nonsense* about "God is Good" instead of the truth God reveled to me. (That God is Evil and did mislead intelligent men into believing in the ToE, despite its greater complexity.)
Fossil evidence is very important to help show the rough progression of life over time. The data is discontinuous, as expected, since nature tends to recycle. This recycling to create discontinuous data, means there is no guarentee basing a theory on this data will lead to the correct assumptions about the evolution life.
Discontunous data implies a discontinuous model for evolution (to fit the random assumptions of the math), with recycle able to hide the true nature of the data.
Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn. I was careful to make each piece touch the adjacent pieces. I leave the design and come back weeks later to show others my popcorn artwork. The birds, in the mean time, have pillaged my design (nature recycles) leaving a fragmented and discontinuous fraction of the original design. Based on the hard data remaining, you may not be able to infer the reality of the actual original design.
Water is an important part of the DNA, with the predominate nature DNA, B-DNA, the most hydrated. .
http://www.lsbu.ac.uk/water/nucleic.html
You'r right no doubt. I.e. God foresaw the trajectories of Pioneers, so did provide "curved" star beams to follow their progress thur space. That was hardly worth mentioning in my prior post as they are small - only about 100 meters in cross section. Do you think the radiation pressure not being exactly what was expected could account for the anomaly (No camera looks directly at the sun, so God may not have it shine in that direction or could have made it shine stronger than it should to really bother scientists with the extra acceleration, which would be harder to explain. - He is very evil, you know.)?Considering Voyager cameras were still operational up to a few years ago and that Voyager uses star mapping for orientation, I think they would have noticed something by now. .. He {God} can forsee all the times people will test his false reality and make an illusion for each test. ...
Yes, that updating memories, Star parallax film photos, etc. every second or so, is the approach lesser Gods ruling other universes probably use, but not our great and evil God.... science only cares to understand and map the nature of reality, be it that reality is false or real doesn't matter. And so far science mapping of reality has allow the human population to swell into the billion with more people living happier and in standards of opulence better then any time before... unless of course everything we know is false, that we were spawn into existence just seconds ago with false memories and false history and all
You'r right no doubt. I.e. God foresaw the trajectories of Pioneers, so did provide "curved" star beams to follow their progress thur space. That was hardly worth mentioning in my prior post as they are small - only about 100 meters in cross section. Do you think the radiation pressure not being exactly what was expected could account for the anomaly (No camera looks directly at the sun, so God may not have it shine in that direction or more likely have it shine stronger than it should to bother scientists. - He is very evil, you know.)?
Yes, that updating memories, Star parallax film photos, etc. every second or so, is the approach lesser Gods ruling other universes probably use, but not our great and evil God.
While true that many more humaoids are happier now than even only 100 years ago and certianly ~10,000 years ago when God made Adam, (and Eve as an after thought to how how evil he could be), you forgot to mention all the millions who starve to death, etc. now. How can you deny all the evidence that God is evil?
The short answer is that evolutionary theory is not the pattern. Evolutionary theory explains the pattern.wellwisher said:Let me give an example of how letting the tail of discontinuous data, wag the dog, can lead to problems. Say I made a large four leaf clover pattern on the ground out of popcorn.
So your objection to the ToE is that it leads to interesting hypotheses and brings up questions for further research?chiller said:I don't have anything against the consistent parts of the theory its the arrogant certainty about the unknown unrecorded history that gets to me because there are still many speculations going around under the veil of TOE.
When you have some idea of evolutionary theory, including the reasoning and evidence supporting it, you will be in a position to have preferences among the ideas.wellwisher said:I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.
I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.
I prefer the idea of evolution having a sense of direction by means of chemical mechanisms.
Consciousness is not about lacking a sense of direction, like is assumed by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, is goal orientated. If the brain and consciousness is an artifact of the DNA, how can consciousness have a sense of direction when evolutionary change lacks sense of direction?
When you depend on the tail to wag the dog, you miss things.