75 Theses ~ Science Against Evolution

[ChristineM]

There are about 115 to 118 known elements, made up of three even smaller particles. So I see your point everything is made up of simple building blocks, thus everything no matter how complex is simple.

So my question is what makes something complex?

Ultimately, everything can be broken down onto basic eliments. A complex molecule will be made of several eliments in a complex structure.

Here is an example of (to my mind) a complex molicule

The following shows 2 AT molicules and 2 GC molicules, making a short strand of dna. Each is structurally very simple.

 

[ChristineM]

OK, as I have said take it up with just about every English dictionary as they all have a similar definition. But since a dictionary is not a good place to find a definition maybe you can give us a better definition, that would help us all to have a proper definition.

What is the he definition of imagination? Use that as a basis for a definition of supernatural.

Only if the supernatural can be shown to exist can a meaningful definition be written.

 

[Misunderstood]

Ultimately, everything can be broken down onto basic eliments. A complex molecule will be made of several eliments in a complex structure.

Here is an example of (to my mind) a complex molicule

The following shows 2 AT molicules and 2 GC molicules, making a short strand of dna. Each is structurally very simple.

Thanks, for the reply. It is good to see what it is that is being discussed to keep from arguing back and forth. I think I see where you are coming from. The element maltotoxin is a complicated bond of multiple elements into a long chained molecule, whereas DNA is made of simpler bonds of repeating nucleotides in your posted diagram.

However, in my mind I feel that the DNA molecule is more complex. Even though, the repeating nucleotides are somewhat simple they form a very long and complicated chain. This chain also contains many other parts and a language all of its own.

Also, in my definition (sorry it does not seem I am good with definitions) a complex is defined as containing similar or different parts within the same structure. Like a single house is just a house, a housing development can be a housing complex. As DNA is made up of a chain of nucleotides I would think that that makes it complex in my interpretation.

I am going to end this here as I do not see how this makes any difference (whether DNA is simple or complex) except to make someone upset. I don't know as anyone will change their mind, and even if they did what would it prove.

 

[David T]

I think you'll find that none of them are actually scientific theories. I doubt they are even hypothesis, probably some tabloid articles that got published in the name of science reporting.

I know for a fact the the school of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was complete crackpot and that 85% of physicists bought into it. Good luck at finding 10% today. Apparently you do not understand creationism males up a minority in religion!! It has zero to do with anything including religion, exactly like the Copenhagen interpretation had zero to do with science. Or did it? It was complete a d total crackpot yet there was a time it was scientific fact. I can go through history on all the scientific "facts" of the day and to be honest it's completely nuts. Is religion exempt from that? No it's not, although I must say they seem dedicated. Science helps in context to creating nonsensical mental models. But I question the whole enterprise. That's way more difficult and it's fundemental to most historical metaphysics. It's like a attacking that phenomena, and then around that attack develops what was originally attacked. You can certainly see it in Christianity if you study history. We could arrive today with a statement it could be truth, and absolutely guaranteed 5 generations later it would be cartoon world like religion. It appears to me we evolve independent of ourselves in spite of ourselves across everything and science cannot be magically independent of that and can be just as goofed as religion. Do not rely on religion creationism to validate your thinking. Yea you are right but so what It's superficial. Are you being affirmed superficially, by superficial? Are others superficiality in agreement with you in context to creationism of greater depth than creationism? Twice as deep maybe? Double up on a quark of depth isnt deep. It's two quarks.

 

[Altfish]

I know for a fact the the school of Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics was complete crackpot and that 85% of physicists bought into it. Good luck at finding 10% today. Apparently you do not understand creationism males up a minority in religion!! It has zero to do with anything including religion, exactly like the Copenhagen interpretation had zero to do with science. Or did it? It was complete a d total crackpot yet there was a time it was scientific fact. I can go through history on all the scientific "facts" of the day and to be honest it's completely nuts. Is religion exempt from that? No it's not, although I must say they seem dedicated. Science helps in context to creating nonsensical mental models. But I question the whole enterprise. That's way more difficult and it's fundemental to most historical metaphysics. It's like a attacking that phenomena, and then around that attack develops what was originally attacked. You can certainly see it in Christianity if you study history. We could arrive today with a statement it could be truth, and absolutely guaranteed 5 generations later it would be cartoon world like religion. It appears to me we evolve independent of ourselves in spite of ourselves across everything and science cannot be magically independent of that and can be just as goofed as religion. Do not rely on religion creationism to validate your thinking. Yea you are right but so what It's superficial. Are you being affirmed superficially, by superficial? Are others superficiality in agreement with you in context to creationism of greater depth than creationism? Twice as deep maybe? Double up on a quark of depth isnt deep. It's two quarks.

What has all that assertion got to do with what I said. None of them were scientific theories.
Science is NOT about truth; it is about explaining how the world works, the refining the explanation as we find out more. Yes, science has had some dead ends and mistakes but it is another scientist who almost inevitably reveals the error.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Apparently you do not understand creationism males up a minority in religion!!

I don't think he said anything to the contrary. I think you're getting a bit overly defensive.

It has zero to do with anything including religion,

Um, no. It absolutely does have to do with religion. Religion doesn't necessarily result in creationism, but creationism does absolutely depend on the notion of an unquestionable, faith-based mythology that is impervious to facts or reason.

 

[David T]

What has all that assertion got to do with what I said. None of them were scientific theories.
Science is NOT about truth; it is about explaining how the world works, the refining the explanation as we find out more. Yes, science has had some dead ends and mistakes but it is another scientist who almost inevitably reveals the error.

and we are often times wrong about how the world works. I work in construction and was at one time a marine biology major I am not anti science. In fact I can't stand the issues in religion creeping into science at all. And yet they do!!! But in order to see the issues you have to understand the issues in yourself. Everyone points a finger, no one ever sees the three pointing back. Science is broad, what we self select into the variety of fields is telling. Jane goodall is one of my favourites, jacques cousteau inspired a lot of us to enter into science. The enviromental research team at the elwa dam reclamation project in Washington state are on fire for what they are doing. Btw if you get a chance watch the videos on that project amazing. The government getting something right.

I was practicing marine biology just yesterday. Getting close to the ocean was good for my biology on a rainshine oregon day. My concern is always enviromental not religion or science a something other.

 

[David T]

I don't think he said anything to the contrary. I think you're getting a bit overly defensive.


Um, no. It absolutely does have to do with religion. Religion doesn't necessarily result in creationism, but creationism does absolutely depend on the notion of an unquestionable, faith-based mythology that is impervious to facts or reason.

Exactly like atheism!!!! Atheism does not exist without religion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Exactly like atheism!!!! Atheism does not exist without religion.

Firstly, no. Atheism does exist without religion and can even technically be said to exist without theism.

Secondly, what does that have to do with anything that I wrote?

 

[David T]

Firstly, no. Atheism does exist without religion and can even technically be said to exist without theism.

Secondly, what does that have to do with anything that I wrote?

Let's see I saw a shirt that said my cat is an atheist. That's a statement of a lack of self awareness and a lack of understanding of what even objective is. So to the statement I am going to say, a cat most certainly is not an atheist, and a dog most certainly is an evolutionist!!! You understand neither a cat not a dog apparently thus zero of what is objective and zero about nature. Oh, other than in clock and car engine analogies. In clock/car engine reality it makes total sense. Very creationist btw.

Where I walk In the woods I have never met an atheist, a believer, or an agnostic. Nope never, they drift by occasionally as either a poacher, a tourist, or a patient. That is all they are in context to nature!!! CONFUSED...Now this little girl she is not confused by the issues of the intellect.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks, for the reply. It is good to see what it is that is being discussed to keep from arguing back and forth. I think I see where you are coming from. The element maltotoxin is a complicated bond of multiple elements into a long chained molecule, whereas DNA is made of simpler bonds of repeating nucleotides in your posted diagram.

However, in my mind I feel that the DNA molecule is more complex. Even though, the repeating nucleotides are somewhat simple they form a very long and complicated chain. This chain also contains many other parts and a language all of its own.

Also, in my definition (sorry it does not seem I am good with definitions) a complex is defined as containing similar or different parts within the same structure. Like a single house is just a house, a housing development can be a housing complex. As DNA is made up of a chain of nucleotides I would think that that makes it complex in my interpretation.

I am going to end this here as I do not see how this makes any difference (whether DNA is simple or complex) except to make someone upset. I don't know as anyone will change their mind, and even if they did what would it prove.

Well, part of the problem is defining what it means to be 'complex'. Certainly the maitotoxin molecule is more complex than a urea molecule, which is more complex than a water molecule. So the question is where DNA fits into this and why.

Well, there *is* a workable definition of complexity that could apply in this discussion. The basic idea is to ask how long the shortest description would have to be to print out the structure of the molecule, say which bonds happen between which atoms. In this, the description of water is trivial. That or urea is definitely more involved and that of maitotoxin is substantially more involved than that.

But let's get into specifics. In maitotoxin, there are several different 6 and 8 ringed sugars linked together with occasional methylation and separated by short carbon chains. Where there are a lot of 6 ringed systems, they are mostly the same basic structure, repeated. The 8 ring structures are less common, there are repeats, and a variant with a hydroxy group off one side. Repeats have the effect of moderating the increase of complexity. Instead of having to detail where each molecule is, we can say 'just take that subunit and put it here'. So large numbers of repeats don't add significantly to the overall complexity of a molecule. The result is that maitotoxin is a moderately sized molecule and is moderately complex according to this definition.

When we compare the DNA, part of the question is what length of DNA do we compare to? Do we compare to a length of DNA of comparable size to the maitotoxin molecule? Or do we compare to a sequence that would encode a typical protein in a cell?

DNA consists of 4 basic subunits, with the two strands of the DNA always paired off. So the description of the whole molecule can consist of the description of one strand with the note that the other strand has to match. This automatically cuts overall complexity. Next, unlike the maitotoxin, the units in DNA are always connected in exactly the same way.. This also reduces overall complexity. This means that most of the complexity in DNA is in the sequence of units, not in the units themselves.

Now, a typical end-piece for DNA consisting of Adenosine strings, AAAAAAA, is easy to describe and has low complexity. So most of the complexity of the DNA will be in the coding areas or the areas that bind to regulatory molecules. These are where the 'information' resides. But even in most coding sections, as long as you stay away from the 'core' pieces of the resulting protein, the actual sequences are not tightly constrained, are often repeated, and so carry low complexity.

Finally, we do have to deal with the fact that DNA can also be methylated as a regulatory process. This means that the DNA strand can, itself, change over time due to the environment in ways that the maitotoxin will not. This *increases* the complexity of the DNA, although the number of methylation sites tend to be low and so the overall complexity isn't added to by much.

So, I have not done a detailed calculation, but it looks to me that a DNA strand for a largish protein would be of comparable complexity to the maitotoxin molecule. This is especially true if the protein has several subunits coded separately (which is common) and regulatory zones, as well as principle active sites (which is also common). Both molecules have fairly simple basic units, but the arrangement in maitotoxin is more complex while the sequencing contains more complexity for the DNA.

TL;DR: Maitotoxin is moderately complex and corresponds to the complexity of a DNA strand corresponding to a largish protein. Approximately.

 

[Polymath257]

"THE FIBONACCI SEQUENCE, SPIRALS AND THE GOLDEN MEAN. TheFibonacci sequence exhibits a certain numerical pattern which originated as the answer to an exercise in the first ever high school algebra text. This pattern turned out to have an interest and importance far beyond what its creator imagined."

Sounds quite complicated to me, but if this is classed as simple and evidence of a Designer, then yes, clearly simple as well as complex things can both be pointed to in making a case for a Supreme Designer.

The Fibonacci sequence is incredibly simple and certainly is NOT complex by any reasonable standard. I can describe it quite easily:
start with two 1's. Then each new thing in the sequence is obtained by adding the previous two.

So, we start with

1,1

the next term will be 1+1=2, so we have

1,1,2

Now the next term will be 1+2=3,

so we have

1,1,2,3

The next term is obtained by adding the last two (as always), so 2+3=5

1,1,2,3,5

Once you have the pattern, it is easy to produce more terms:

1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,34,55,89,144,233,377,610,987,1597,......

This is *far* from being complex. And it also shows why it can come up so often. Many times in biology, a new generation of cells is produced by the division of the previous two generations. This naturally leads to the Fibonacci sequence. No designer is required. Nothing deep is involved. Just the simple definition and an awareness of how things happen naturally.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Let's see I saw a shirt that said my cat is an atheist. That's a statement of a lack of self awareness and a lack of understanding of what even objective is.

That sentence doesn't even make sense...

So to the statement I am going to say, a cat most certainly is not an atheist, and a dog most certainly is an evolutionist!!! You understand neither a cat not a dog apparently thus zero of what is objective and zero about nature. Oh, other than in clock and car engine analogies. In clock/car engine reality it makes total sense. Very creationist btw.

This collection of words makes even less sense. What are you trying to say, exactly?

Where I walk In the woods I have never met an atheist, a believer, or an agnostic. Nope never, they drift by occasionally as either a poacher, a tourist, or a patient. That is all they are in context to nature!!! CONFUSED...Now this little girl she is not confused by the issues of the intellect.

Come back to me when you're sober.

 

[Altfish]

Exactly like atheism!!!! Atheism does not exist without religion.

!!
Atheism is the rejection of belief in god or gods.
Religion is the organised structure that is built up (usually to raise money and give control to a few leaders).around the worship of one of these gods.
You can believe in a god or a higher being without subscribing to a religion.
Therefore you can be an atheist without religion.

 

[ChristineM]

Thanks, for the reply. It is good to see what it is that is being discussed to keep from arguing back and forth. I think I see where you are coming from. The element maltotoxin is a complicated bond of multiple elements into a long chained molecule, whereas DNA is made of simpler bonds of repeating nucleotides in your posted diagram.

However, in my mind I feel that the DNA molecule is more complex. Even though, the repeating nucleotides are somewhat simple they form a very long and complicated chain. This chain also contains many other parts and a language all of its own.

Also, in my definition (sorry it does not seem I am good with definitions) a complex is defined as containing similar or different parts within the same structure. Like a single house is just a house, a housing development can be a housing complex. As DNA is made up of a chain of nucleotides I would think that that makes it complex in my interpretation.

I am going to end this here as I do not see how this makes any difference (whether DNA is simple or complex) except to make someone upset. I don't know as anyone will change their mind, and even if they did what would it prove.

No it doesn't contain many other parts, it is made up entirely of 4 parts (in pairs) attached a backbone of sugar.

Only the quantity is complex, the structure built from AT and/or CG pairings. The AT and CG paintings are individually not complex.

 

[David T]

!!
Atheism is the rejection of belief in god or gods.
Religion is the organised structure that is built up (usually to raise money and give control to a few leaders).around the worship of one of these gods.
You can believe in a god or a higher being without subscribing to a religion.
Therefore you can be an atheist without religion.

It's the cranium, "the wind is moving the flag" arguing with the cranium "the flag is moving the wind." I am sorry, but the cranium is irrelevant especially that tiny newest primative dictator of modern cranium reality the intellect. It's a thumb nothing more than that grasping at straws of its own fantasies.

 

[David T]

That sentence doesn't even make sense...


This collection of words makes even less sense. What are you trying to say, exactly?


Come back to me when you're sober.

Oh please you love yourself way way to much and are too lazy to even think. REM wrote a song about you "losing my religion."you practice free speech believing it's actual thinking while its just rote it all starts with your cranium which is fundementalist nonsense. It's just vanilla, Normal no wonder you find affirmation in disagreement with creationism religion your are them. Rote.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I don't expect you to absorb this, but for those who might not understand yet have a genuine interest in learning; it's highly probable that there have been countless offshoots that became something else, but because bacteria as they are have adapted to and clearly thrive in their environments, there is no reason that they would've disappeared.

Thanks for that - it immediately came to mind when reading @Guy Threepwood's post you quoted - but I was getting lost trying to keep in mind all of the points there were to refute and basically gave up.

I thought it was a pretty simplistic thing to have a grasp of... but I believe that a lot of times "thinking" tends to stop once a point has been reached that sees the subject matter even slightly corroborating the thinker's chosen narrative. I've been guilty of this myself, from time to time... with a difference being that I feel remiss if I am not always looking to adopt the understanding that makes more sense.

 

[Altfish]

It's the cranium, "the wind is moving the flag" arguing with the cranium "the flag is moving the wind." I am sorry, but the cranium is irrelevant especially that tiny newest primative dictator of modern cranium reality the intellect. It's a thumb nothing more than that grasping at straws of its own fantasies.

What drugs are you on?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

... "the wind is moving the flag" ... "the flag is moving the wind."

You like to re-use things a lot. Like your "Into the wilderness I go..." stuff. The funny part is that you don't seem to realize that these things you seem to feel are so profound rarely ever make your ultimate "point" (when you do have one, that is) any more cogent or pithy.

Take the above about the wind moving the flag versus the flag moving the wind... BOTH end up being true, just to varying degrees. Which is much the same with intellect. In large part, the world pushes what we think... and in smaller part, what each of us think on an individual basis pushes the world. I take you as one who would wholeheartedly reject the notion that you think in "black and white" - absolutes. But quoting the above without realizing the more subtle truth that exists beyond the surface of the comparison (a surface that you don't seem capable of breaking in a lot of different instances) is something that I feel belies the more true state of affairs.