Philosophy Now Forum

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:05 pm
We all have faith they'll explain how the first cell came to existence,

What's with the "we"? From where I'm standing you look pretty much on your own, unless you count the creationauts.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 12:44 am
Attack Davidm instead, Greta. That guy is very lazy and never explains anything new to us.

I should charge you for all the education I have tried to drill through your thick head!

Just a comment, Greta. Those are not seemingly astronomical odds. They are supra-astronomical odds if you're talking about probabilities of 1 in 10E190 or 4x10E619 and take into account all atoms in Universe sum up 10E80 only. According to Asimov, that's virtually impossible (for the semantics connoisseurs: Asimov didn't use those words exactly. He said that's impossible period. But I think he went too far).

Asimov was talking about a purely random process, you ignorant wack job --as has been repeatedly shown to you. What is wrong with you? Asimov was supporting, not denying, evolution!

Are you more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid? That is the only relevant question remaining in this thread you have blighted.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 3:05 pm SUMMARY OF RECENT POSTS:

We have quite a small puzzle, just a tiny detail in animals, hemoglobin. No Evolutionaut so far could demonstrate how natural selection arranged for 141 amino-acids to be put in such a correct sequence as to produce a hemoglobin chain (or the same for the DNA counterpart if you so prefer).

We have so far been bombed by intelligence attacks by supporters of Evolutionomics, each one eventually leading to improprieties from them of all possible kind as they exhaust their array of argumentation that even includes negating science and trying semantics.

We've learned that some Evolutionauts, but not all, think evolution is teleological and driven by a force, others think it's teleological only. Still others think it's nothing. This is of capital importance because I need to win a few Euromillions.

Maybe this will make you think - but I doubt it.
You are not going to win the lottery.
If the lottery was just for you then it would be truly astounding were you to win it.
However people win the lottery every week.
And in a cup of the primordial soup there were more amino acid molecules than stars in the sky, all busily interacting on a planet on which the temperature and pressure were under constant change.
The existence of naturally occurring amnio-acids have long been demonstrated with a simple boiling tube and a spark.
But the fact that Haemoglobin has a number of precursors make its evolution far from impossible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005275/

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:41 pm

Asimov was talking about a purely random process, you ignorant wack job --as has been repeatedly shown to you. What is wrong with you? Asimov was supporting, not denying, evolution!

Are you more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid? That is the only relevant question remaining in this thread you have blighted.

Yes, Asimov was. Do you mean evolution is not s purely random process? Then, it's teleological and driven by force? You said it wasn't. You're confusing.

No, Asimov wasn't. Asimov didn't even know about DNA at the time. He didn't consider evolution about hemoglobin. Later, when DNA was found, I'm sure Asimov realized he shot a bullet in his foot. He never acknowledge that, only that hemoglobin synthesis was made clear by DNA.

Now, we won't have enough with hemoglobin synthesis, as that wouldn't help Evolutionomics. Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.

Great, the only question remained. After you didn't clarify not even Cambrian explosion. One question is enough, and this question implies many many more questions alike, as it challenges almost all biochemical evolution. It's the same that you say you're a perfectly sound person, except for a HIV infection.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm Yes, Asimov was.

No, Asimov wasn't.

Asimov didn't

Now we want to know how hemoglobin came to existence, given its virtual impossibility as put by Asimov.

Somehow, I've lost confidence in Asimov.

PS. How many times do you need to be told? It's Haemoglobin. This place gets more like the US every day.

Paulol wrote:

Do you mean evolution is not s purely random process? Then, it's teleological and driven by force?

Natural selection is not random. Neither is natural selection driven by intention of God.

Natural selection is indeed designed, not by God, but is designed by a natural process.

I don't suppose you have ever bred any domestic animals such as farmers do?

If you have you would understand that you as a farmer have been doing artificial selection to get the best offspring , perhaps the offspring with the most muscle mass, or the offspring that produces more milk . Paulol, can you at least understand about artificial selection ?

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:22 pm

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 6:41 pm

Asimov was talking about a purely random process, you ignorant wack job --as has been repeatedly shown to you. What is wrong with you? Asimov was supporting, not denying, evolution!

Are you more stupid than dishonest, or more dishonest than stupid? That is the only relevant question remaining in this thread you have blighted.

Yes, Asimov was. Do you mean evolution is not s purely random process? Then, it's teleological and driven by force? You said it wasn't. You're confusing.

it is NEITHER random NOR teleological. This has been EXPLAINED TO YOU -- over and over!

Are you really this thick????

I explained this to you IN DETAIL with three key examples -- the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, the evolution of glucose-aversion among cockroaches in the presence of bait traps, and the evolution of whales from land mammals. All three process are neither random, nor teleological!

Is it really possible that you are this thick? No, you're just a lying creationist troll.

Hobbes' Choice wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:15 pm
Maybe this will make you think - but I doubt it.
You are not going to win the lottery.
If the lottery was just for you then it would be truly astounding were you to win it.
However people win the lottery every week.
And in a cup of the primordial soup there were more amino acid molecules than stars in the sky, all busily interacting on a planet on which the temperature and pressure were under constant change.
The existence of naturally occurring amino-acids have long been demonstrated with a simple boiling tube and a spark.
But the fact that Haemoglobin has a number of precursors make its evolution far from impossible.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5005275/

Thanks for the reference, which isn't new to me, but I'll analyze it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Artificial selection isn't new in the thread and I told before that you simply concentrate traits, you don't originate any new trait, so there isn't evolution. Please refer to the posts backward.

davidm wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 8:09 pm

it is NEITHER random NOR teleological. This has been EXPLAINED TO YOU -- over and over!

Are you really this thick????

I explained this to you IN DETAIL with three key examples -- the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, the evolution of glucose-aversion among cockroaches in the presence of bait traps, and the evolution of whales from land mammals. All three process are neither random, nor teleological!

Is it really possible that you are this thick? No, you're just a lying creationist troll.

It isn't neither random nor teleological. You're getting more contradictory each day.

I discussed each example of yours and challenged each one. When you couldn't argument any longer you went nuts each time.

In summary:

1. You created a bacteria with useless genes just in case, something against natural parsimony believed to be fundamental for survival.
2. There were cockroaches that tasted glucose bitter. You killed those that taste glucose sweet. I can call it adaptation to a poisonous environment. But as all cockroaches were already there, I can't call it evolution. Do you?
3. The whales evolution, a diamond for Evolutionautics, is based on Geological imperfections. You have not even a fossil of one of the nine "postulated" common ancestors, not even a finger. A descendant of a common ancestor was added under support of the only part of it found, head and upper trunk, but when the rest was found not to conform as expected, this ancestor remained in the list. Is this sound scientific reasoning?

Details can be found in posts backwards.

PauloL wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 11:07 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Oct 01, 2017 7:47 pm

Artificial selection isn't new in the thread and I told before that you simply concentrate traits, you don't originate any new trait, so there isn't evolution. Please refer to the posts backward.

Natural selection also "concentrates traits". Do you want to know how natural selection is an unwitting designer?

PauloL wrote:But don't waste your time, Arising.

On you? Could be good advice but then I'm an optimist so I'm still awaiting these links of yours to Nature and American Scientists(or whatever) backing up your claims.

Everything is clear up. Hobbes already revealed evolution is teleological and there's a "driving force".

I doubt that but if he did it'll be the sieve of NS I'd guess.

The Blind Watchmaker has a ragged blindfold and some kind of supernatural powers.

Nope, just time, NS and evolutionary algorithms.

Hemoglobin is peanuts, I already told Davidm.

I thought it an evolutionary development and that it's spelt haemoglobin?

PauloL wrote:I asked Arising the probability this week's Powerball match will win next week.

Answer: And the point?

Yes, what is your point? As you appear to be just trying to raise a point that has been answered under another guise. Is it true then that you are just a creationist troll as that would sadden me.

PauloL wrote:I'm no fool. Charles Darwin is the most important person who ever lived and his book The Origin of Species the source of all cosmic knowledge.

Seems foolish to me.

Although he's definitely up there as one of the smartest persons who has ever lived.

PauloL wrote:Thanks for the reference, which isn't new to me, but I'll analyze it.