Are we vessels for dna?

[John21]

Or I could phrase it: are organisms vessels for dna or is dna a tool for organisms?

Does one serve the other, or am I looking at this wrong?

[hmkpoker]

We are just simply spiraling coils of self-replicating deeee-en-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay-nay.

[madnak]

Neither, really. But if anything we serve the DNA. That must be true in general, because it's always the most successful genome that's selected for, not the most successful individual.

I guess maybe we "serve" DNA in the same sense that a prion is "parasitic." Of course, our actions will tend to be those that serve the propagation of our genomes. Except that now, well, things are strange. I have a strong libido, and that's because having lots of sex served the genomes of my ancestors. However, I can now "trick" my genome and benefit myself instead, using contraceptives and having no children. Of course, by the same token, as my genome will die with me I won't be selected for, and it's those who consciously choose to procreate who will dominate the future. So I guess the DNA gets the last laugh.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Or I could phrase it: are organisms vessels for dna or is dna a tool for organisms?

Does one serve the other, or am I looking at this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to let a large molecule tell you what to do?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Or I could phrase it: are organisms vessels for dna or is dna a tool for organisms?

Does one serve the other, or am I looking at this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you going to let a large molecule tell you what to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Coming from someone who pretends to despise tyranny.

If you're going to deny free will, despite abundant first-person testimony, with such a comprehensive statement, the burden of proof is on you.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Coming from someone who pretends to despise tyranny.

If you're going to deny free will, despite abundant first-person testimony, with such a comprehensive statement, the burden of proof is on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

so you think you want what you want to want?

[Skidoo]

It's not necessary to want to want.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not necessary to want to want.

[/ QUOTE ]

of course it isn't.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Coming from someone who pretends to despise tyranny.

If you're going to deny free will, despite abundant first-person testimony, with such a comprehensive statement, the burden of proof is on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, in fairness, free will would conflict with all known theories of physics. (except for the nitty compatibilists, who are just semantic bickerers /images/graemlins/smile.gif ). It seems to me, that if something conflicts with all known laws of physics, the burden would fall back on it's proponents.

If evidence is required, I find that the experiments show that the part of the brain generally viewed as being responsible for decisions is activated AFTER one takes an action, and not before. Obviously not conclusive. But certainly, it makes any first-person report completely worthless (if they weren't already).

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in fairness, free will would conflict with all known theories of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Balderdash.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]

That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that's true, how would that play out with metric's post about the future of an AI system - would the gene ever allow something to be designed that would cause it's own extinction?

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

...Coming from someone who pretends to despise tyranny.

If you're going to deny free will, despite abundant first-person testimony, with such a comprehensive statement, the burden of proof is on you.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol firstpersontestaments

[51cards]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

That large molecule doesn't just tell you what you have to do, it tells you what you want to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming that's true, how would that play out with metric's post about the future of an AI system - would the gene ever allow something to be designed that would cause it's own extinction?

[/ QUOTE ]

Um, yes. Many species are gone already.

Well, ok. I guess you could say they didn't 'cause' their extinction just 'allowed' it. But that doesn't seem like a real distinction to me.

Rest asured though that genomes that tend to cause they're own demise won't last long. Ergo what we see are mostly non-selfdestructing genomes.

If someone posts a suicide bomber pic, just remember that I said mostly.

[Borodog]

Basically, what madnak said. The individual members of every species until Homo sapiens are "merely" survival machines built by their genes to help those genes propagate. Human beings are built with the same intentions, but our genes know not what they have unleashed; in creating rational beings (with the aim being that rational beings can better plan for the survival of genes), they have unleashed survival machines that have the capacity to care more about themselves than their genetic masters. Hence people exist who voluntarily choose not to reproduce; disaster from their genes' point of view.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
Basically, what madnak said. The individual members of every species until Homo sapiens are "merely" survival machines built by their genes to help those genes propagate. Human beings are built with the same intentions, but our genes know not what they have unleashed; in creating rational beings (with the aim being that rational beings can better plan for the survival of genes), they have unleashed survival machines that have the capacity to care more about themselves than their genetic masters. Hence people exist who voluntarily choose not to reproduce; disaster from their genes' point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like a biological slave revolt?

I don't remember the post, but awhile back you mentioned something about the runt of the litter basically choosing to die (cease to replicate). Do you know of anything that connects one strand to one of its off-spring or sibling? Does one know what the other is doing, or would do? Hence a kind of hari-kari to somehow benefit the more fit strand.

[DCopper04]

[ QUOTE ]
Well, in fairness, free will would conflict with all known theories of physics.

[/ QUOTE ]

Explain this, please. I'm not trying to hijack, but I'm really curious what you have to say about this. If you've got a lot to say, then start a new thread.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, what madnak said. The individual members of every species until Homo sapiens are "merely" survival machines built by their genes to help those genes propagate. Human beings are built with the same intentions, but our genes know not what they have unleashed; in creating rational beings (with the aim being that rational beings can better plan for the survival of genes), they have unleashed survival machines that have the capacity to care more about themselves than their genetic masters. Hence people exist who voluntarily choose not to reproduce; disaster from their genes' point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like a biological slave revolt?

I don't remember the post, but awhile back you mentioned something about the runt of the litter basically choosing to die (cease to replicate). Do you know of anything that connects one strand to one of its off-spring or sibling? Does one know what the other is doing, or would do? Hence a kind of hari-kari to somehow benefit the more fit strand.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you think about it, an individual is exactly as closely related (on average) to a sibling as it is to a parent, 50%. Hence, siblings should care for each other as much as parents care for children (there are complications, but they are 2nd order). A runt does it's genes good by struggling to survive, unless the cost of it's survival, which is paid in resources spend on it by the mother that must come at the expense of it's siblings, costs other copies of those genes in its siblings more than its own copies benefit. If this becomes the case, the runt should give up and die meekly, since this will benefit its genes (admittedly the copies of its genes in its siblings, but the genes do not care what individual they are sitting in).

How does the runt "know" this and "decide" to die? It doesn't, of course. It has these complex algorithms built in, the same way you know how to catch a thrown ball without having to first solve the differential equations involved.

[Bill Haywood]

Well, in fairness, free will would conflict with all known theories of physics.

Not according to my pet theory, which is that the universe is ultimately random, not determinant, and within the gap of indeterminancy, free will is able to escape fate and assert itself.

It cannot be predicted when a particular radioactive atom will give off a subatomic particle. In my theory, this is the ultimate source of randomness. Things are not determinant, anything can happen, and this unpredictability, this lack of determinancy, is experienced by us as free will.

I've yet to meet anyone who thinks that makes any sense, but it does to me.

And yes, we are vessels for DNA. But not at the genome level -- evolution is blind and cannot conceive of a genome to operate on. Dawkins argues that replication and selection do not even operate at the organism level -- it's individual genes.

[madnak]

That's about the only way free will could exist, and it seems solid enough. But it still means free will is functionally (or at least empirically) random.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Basically, what madnak said. The individual members of every species until Homo sapiens are "merely" survival machines built by their genes to help those genes propagate. Human beings are built with the same intentions, but our genes know not what they have unleashed; in creating rational beings (with the aim being that rational beings can better plan for the survival of genes), they have unleashed survival machines that have the capacity to care more about themselves than their genetic masters. Hence people exist who voluntarily choose not to reproduce; disaster from their genes' point of view.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like a biological slave revolt?

I don't remember the post, but awhile back you mentioned something about the runt of the litter basically choosing to die (cease to replicate). Do you know of anything that connects one strand to one of its off-spring or sibling? Does one know what the other is doing, or would do? Hence a kind of hari-kari to somehow benefit the more fit strand.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you think about it, an individual is exactly as closely related (on average) to a sibling as it is to a parent, 50%. Hence, siblings should care for each other as much as parents care for children (there are complications, but they are 2nd order). A runt does it's genes good by struggling to survive, unless the cost of it's survival, which is paid in resources spend on it by the mother that must come at the expense of it's siblings, costs other copies of those genes in its siblings more than its own copies benefit. If this becomes the case, the runt should give up and die meekly, since this will benefit its genes (admittedly the copies of its genes in its siblings, but the genes do not care what individual they are sitting in).

How does the runt "know" this and "decide" to die? It doesn't, of course. It has these complex algorithms built in, the same way you know how to catch a thrown ball without having to first solve the differential equations involved.

[/ QUOTE ]

My favorite example of what you're talking about is sexual cannibalism (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/271/5245/70)

More in line with what you're talking about, look into siblicide in birds.

[John21]

[ QUOTE ]
My favorite example of what you're talking about is sexual cannibalism


[/ QUOTE ]
from article:
[ QUOTE ]
...These results represent empirical evidence for male copulatory suicide as an adaptive behavior.


[/ QUOTE ]

i.e. marriage /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

[Borodog]

I believe "Sexual Cannibalism" was the original title of "Sexual Healing." Unfortunately, political correctness won out.

[JacKnight21]

DNA -is the ruler
DNA -short term goal is reproduction
DNA -has no long term goal
that portion of your life not spent repoducing is inconsequential

Important note we humans are currently fifth when compared to other multicellular animals in terms of biomass behind
ants krill termites and squid. We need 30b people so get off your computer and get to the real work you were suppose to do.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
DNA -is the ruler
DNA -short term goal is reproduction
DNA -has no long term goal
that portion of your life not spent repoducing is inconsequential

Important note we humans are currently fifth when compared to other multicellular animals in terms of biomass behind
ants krill termites and squid. We need 30b people so get off your computer and get to the real work you were suppose to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

What? You mean get five times fatter? A lot of people are doing that already.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
Poster: John21
Subject: Re: Are we vessels for dna?

Or I could phrase it: are organisms vessels for dna or is dna a tool for organisms?

Does one serve the other, or am I looking at this wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the situation is this: Your DNA makes you a human. So if you just go ahead and be a human, it's probably fine with your DNA.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually the situation is this: Your DNA makes you a human. So if you just go ahead and be a human, it's probably fine with your DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elevator takes me to my office, therefore whatever I do in my office is probably fine with the elevator.

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the situation is this: Your DNA makes you a human. So if you just go ahead and be a human, it's probably fine with your DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elevator takes me to my office, therefore whatever I do in my office is probably fine with the elevator.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually the analogous example would be "the elevator takes me to my office, so going to my office is probably fine with the elevator."

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the situation is this: Your DNA makes you a human. So if you just go ahead and be a human, it's probably fine with your DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elevator takes me to my office, therefore whatever I do in my office is probably fine with the elevator.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually the analogous example would be "the elevator takes me to my office, so going to my office is probably fine with the elevator."

[/ QUOTE ]

My activities in the office correspond to exercising free will. The elevator is a material precondition, as is DNA.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Actually the situation is this: Your DNA makes you a human. So if you just go ahead and be a human, it's probably fine with your DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

The elevator takes me to my office, therefore whatever I do in my office is probably fine with the elevator.

[/ QUOTE ]

actually the analogous example would be "the elevator takes me to my office, so going to my office is probably fine with the elevator."

[/ QUOTE ]

My activities in the office correspond to exercising free will. The elevator is a material precondition, as is DNA.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but Skidoo you Boss fully determined everything that would happen in your office building before it even existed.

There is no room for free will in the world you imagine.

There is definitely room for free will in the real world though.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but Skidoo you Boss fully determined everything that would happen in your office building before it even existed.

There is no room for free will in the world you imagine.

There is definitely room for free will in the real world though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a boss at the office. The overall Boss put me in charge.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, but Skidoo you Boss fully determined everything that would happen in your office building before it even existed.

There is no room for free will in the world you imagine.

There is definitely room for free will in the real world though.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't have a boss at the office. The overall Boss put me in charge.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's the Boss I was referring to. The make-believe "overall Boss" that you imagine exists. The existence of such an omniscient omnipotent "overall Boss" would absolutely preclude the possibility of free-will existing.

However, in reality no such omniscient omnipotent being exists, so free will can exist.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the Boss I was referring to. The make-believe "overall Boss" that you imagine exists. The existence of such an omniscient omnipotent "overall Boss" would absolutely preclude the possibility of free-will existing.

However, in reality no such omniscient omnipotent being exists, so free will can exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That could be what you like to believe, but you can't prove diddly.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's the Boss I was referring to. The make-believe "overall Boss" that you imagine exists. The existence of such an omniscient omnipotent "overall Boss" would absolutely preclude the possibility of free-will existing.

However, in reality no such omniscient omnipotent being exists, so free will can exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

That could be what you like to believe, but you can't prove diddly.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[John21]

What if we took humans and what we call freewill out of the equation, and look at something like plant life. While I can't relate to what's going on within the plant, from the outside, it looks like this DNA molecule is simply appropriating and organizing elements from its environment to protect and perpetuate itself.

I can't help seeing an analogy with how my own existence functions:
My house is basically a giant ectoplasm or membrane, protecting me from the environment.
My car gives me extended mobility and is basically an extension of my legs or flagellum.
My telephone and email are extensions of my mouth and ears allowing me to communicate over much larger distances.
My TV, radio, and internet are extensions of my senses, allowing me to be aware of my environment to a much larger scale.

Aside from freewill, it seems like everything that is going on in my existence is just at a macro level of what's going on in the micro.

The only idea that comes to mind with freewill, and the volition that seems to accompany it, is from what I can observe it doing. I can't really say that we create things, it's more like we construct things from our environment that lead to our benefit. But the interesting point is that these constructions are things that do not spontaneously or randomly occur in nature, without the aid of freewill.

So whether or not freewill occurs through emergence, or some other process, I feel fairly certain that it exists, simply by what it does. Or maybe what it is, is what it does: create combinations of things that do not randomly combine.

[DonkBluffer]

You guys act like DNA has a free will, goals, etc.

Also, how could DNA and organisms exist seperately? Neither uses the other. They just ARE. lol

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[Skidoo]

Good points. Intention does things that no one can account for as the sum of natural processes.

[DonkBluffer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is true for a lot of people. A LOT.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[madnak]

Nothing created by humans doesn't randomly combine. Everything that happens in the universe is spontaneous, technically. Your distinction makes no sense - it's not just that you can't draw a line between what "happens randomly" and what doesn't, but there is no such line.

And DNA doesn't really do much. It sits there. It occasionally "pops" or "bubbles" or something, makes a little noise or a hiss. But very occasionally. Now, enzymes don't do anything either. Oh yes, when an enzyme bumps into DNA, something happens. But the enzyme's just hangin' out, the DNA's just hangin' out, and whoops! That enzyme just broke the DNA apart! And then another enzyme, that's also just hangin' out, happens to bump into one of the strands. And other enzymes bumping around end up facilitating the process - because these enzymes are bumping around at incredible speed relative to the DNA molecule, so eventually one of them will bump into the DNA where it's "supposed" to. And so on, and so on, and so on.

The molecules will bump into each other a bunch, and then some of the smaller ones will start sticking together. One of them will get stuck to this other molecule, and that molecule will bump into other molecules, and then molecules will bump into the first molecule and stick to it. There'll be a "bump" and a "bump" and a "bump," and these molecule will stick to the first molecules and then there'll be a big chain of molecules. But they're still bumping around, so the chain twists and spins and folds and starts sticking to itself, and it clumps up and starts spinning and sticking and then it's all tangled up into a big shape. And now it's an enzyme, and it starts bumping around with the rest of them.

That's how DNA works. Do you understand why talking about DNA as though it's doing something intentional is silly? The entire process is just stuff bumping into other stuff and happening to stick together. The fact it has the structure it does is absolutely awesome, and I can see why it would convince some people of God, but seriously, that's what's going on - stuff bumping into other stuff. But, usually because one molecule can only "stick to" one other specific type of molecule, or according to some mechanism along those lines, the way it happens is highly ordered.

But again, the DNA isn't appropriating and organizing. The DNA just sits there. That's its job. If anything, it's the enzymes that do the organizing. If the DNA is a zipper, then the enzymes are the finger that zips it and unzips it. But see, even the enzymes, despite their mechanical ingenuity, are kind of just sitting there themselves. And the controlling conditions happen for similar reasons.

And the same thing is what happens in your brain.

Yes, free will is an emergent property that doesn't exist at the microbiological level. But it's expressed by choices, not by structure. Structure certainly exists without free will. Choice, by definition, doesn't.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you are a hopeless troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[Borodog]

How about the fact that you refuse to admit that not only is spontaneous generation of order possible, it is commonplace?

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, if introspection and self-evaluation is completely useless to you, how difficult will it be for you to ever change ANY of your beliefs or behaviors?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that you refuse to admit that not only is spontaneous generation of order possible, it is commonplace?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be reasonable, yet maybe it's not about my refusal but rather your lack of such evidence that is applicable to what you are trying to prove.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, if introspection and self-evaluation is completely useless to you, how difficult will it be for you to ever change ANY of your beliefs or behaviors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's on the record. I asked you to show me exactly where you think I made a mistake, and all you could come up with was yet another personal attack.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that you refuse to admit that not only is spontaneous generation of order possible, it is commonplace?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be reasonable, yet maybe it's not about my refusal but rather your lack of such evidence that is applicable to what you are trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowflakes.

[thylacine]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, if introspection and self-evaluation is completely useless to you, how difficult will it be for you to ever change ANY of your beliefs or behaviors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's on the record. I asked you to show me exactly where you think I made a mistake, and all you could come up with was yet another personal attack.

[/ QUOTE ]

Skidoo, I have come to the conclusion that you are a trollbot, and not a sentient being.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, if introspection and self-evaluation is completely useless to you, how difficult will it be for you to ever change ANY of your beliefs or behaviors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's on the record. I asked you to show me exactly where you think I made a mistake, and all you could come up with was yet another personal attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry I thought my example of the whole entropy/information thing was what you were looking for. Oh and I also thought it was implied that I agreed with Boro's example.

Its a fine line between personal attack and what I said, at least in my opinion. You yourself said that you cannot realize an error if it something that you yourself said, I was commenting on that. Its not like I called you a poopy-head.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that you refuse to admit that not only is spontaneous generation of order possible, it is commonplace?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be reasonable, yet maybe it's not about my refusal but rather your lack of such evidence that is applicable to what you are trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowflakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowmen.

[Borodog]

Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously. Address it or STFU about the subject.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
How about the fact that you refuse to admit that not only is spontaneous generation of order possible, it is commonplace?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to be reasonable, yet maybe it's not about my refusal but rather your lack of such evidence that is applicable to what you are trying to prove.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowflakes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Snowmen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you [censored] kidding me?

[Bill Haywood]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
That's because you require zero evidence for what you want to believe, and you require infinite proof for what you don't want to believe.

[/ QUOTE ]

No.

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. See evolution.

[/ QUOTE ]

When you have no proof, any required proof is infinitely too much.

[/ QUOTE ]
That post being evidence, but not proof, of my theory that you require a ridiculous standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's the case, I would like to know about it and correct my mistake.

Kindly remind me of specifically what I have required in the way of evidence that is unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I will refer you to your series of posts about your bizarre interpretation of entropy and information theory.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't help much. Since I wrote those posts, it's not easy for me to identify what you find "bizarre" in them.

What, exactly, do you consider to be an error or unreasonable requirement made by me in regard to evolution in any of my posts?

[/ QUOTE ]
But honestly, if introspection and self-evaluation is completely useless to you, how difficult will it be for you to ever change ANY of your beliefs or behaviors?

[/ QUOTE ]

Now it's on the record. I asked you to show me exactly where you think I made a mistake, and all you could come up with was yet another personal attack.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm sorry I thought my example of the whole entropy/information thing was what you were looking for. Oh and I also thought it was implied that I agreed with Boro's example.

Its a fine line between personal attack and what I said, at least in my opinion. You yourself said that you cannot realize an error if it something that you yourself said, I was commenting on that. Its not like I called you a poopy-head.

[/ QUOTE ]

These quote pyramids are kind of pretty! Self generating order out of madness and chaos.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not nearly enough.

Snowflakes can be completely accounted for in terms of the properties of their constituent molecules and a few universally observable combinatory phenomena. None of the proposals for a natural origin of the species offers the equivalent.

[ QUOTE ]
Address it or STFU about the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

Real cute, anarchist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not nearly enough.

Snowflakes can be completely accounted for in terms of the properties of their constituent molecules and a few universally observable combinatory phenomena. None of the proposals for a natural origin of the species offers the equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is hysterical. The spontenous generation of complex organic compounds is well understood and has been observed innumerable times. It happens and is observed in interstellar space! One only needs a chance arrangement of such bits to produce an auto-catalyzing compound once to get the ball rolling, with hundreds of millions of years and oceans full of complex organic molecules on just one planet to play with. Add in the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars and only an idiot could be puzzled by the idea.

[madnak]

Guys, this is a real, authentic, "don't feed the troll" troll. He's not just dense, he must be ignored.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Guys, this is a real, authentic, "don't feed the troll" troll. He's not just dense, he must be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]

I REALLY hate to do that. I dont like the idea of ignoring anyone, on the offchance they have a nugget or two of insight, and I really dont like the (likely) outcome of having an ignore list populated entirely by people who disagree with me. I dont have anyone on my ignore list.

[madnak]

Neither do I - I just meant normal ignore.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Neither do I - I just meant normal ignore.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. I can't make any promises, I'm about as easy a person to bait as anyone, ever, but I'll give it a shot.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
I REALLY hate to do that. I dont like the idea of ignoring anyone, on the offchance they have a nugget or two of insight, and I really dont like the (likely) outcome of having an ignore list populated entirely by people who disagree with me. I dont have anyone on my ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.
Some of you are too quick on the ignore trigger. (I'm looking at you Boro)

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not nearly enough.

Snowflakes can be completely accounted for in terms of the properties of their constituent molecules and a few universally observable combinatory phenomena. None of the proposals for a natural origin of the species offers the equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is hysterical. The spontenous generation of complex organic compounds is well understood and has been observed innumerable times. It happens and is observed in interstellar space!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're joking, right? That's essentially no different than your snowflake example I just addressed.

[ QUOTE ]
One only needs a chance arrangement of such bits to produce an auto-catalyzing compound once to get the ball rolling, with hundreds of millions of years and oceans full of complex organic molecules on just one planet to play with. Add in the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars and only an idiot could be puzzled by the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking observation here, not Storybook Corner. Let's keep the discussion on facts.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I REALLY hate to do that. I dont like the idea of ignoring anyone, on the offchance they have a nugget or two of insight, and I really dont like the (likely) outcome of having an ignore list populated entirely by people who disagree with me. I dont have anyone on my ignore list.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree 100%.
Some of you are too quick on the ignore trigger. (I'm looking at you Boro)

[/ QUOTE ]

My ignore list is not populated by people who disagree with me. It's populated with pure trolls. bobman disagrees with me on practically everything, and even trolls me once in a while, but he is not on ignore. The same thing with the once and future king. The same thing with Propertarian, Moorobot, and any number of others.

After his last response though, "Skidoo" is looking like an awfully good candidate.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not nearly enough.

Snowflakes can be completely accounted for in terms of the properties of their constituent molecules and a few universally observable combinatory phenomena. None of the proposals for a natural origin of the species offers the equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is hysterical. The spontenous generation of complex organic compounds is well understood and has been observed innumerable times. It happens and is observed in interstellar space!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're joking, right? That's essentially no different than your snowflake example I just addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. You didn't address it. You claimed it wasn't relevent without saying why it wasn't.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One only needs a chance arrangement of such bits to produce an auto-catalyzing compound once to get the ball rolling, with hundreds of millions of years and oceans full of complex organic molecules on just one planet to play with. Add in the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars and only an idiot could be puzzled by the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking observation here, not Storybook Corner. Let's keep the discussion on facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. What an argument.

Them are the facts, chuckles. Or is it your contention that chance events don't occur? You understand that given enough tries extremely unlikely events happen with near certainty, right?

Probably not.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Snowflakes are prima facie evidence that increased order and complexity arise spontaneously.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not nearly enough.

Snowflakes can be completely accounted for in terms of the properties of their constituent molecules and a few universally observable combinatory phenomena. None of the proposals for a natural origin of the species offers the equivalent.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. This is hysterical. The spontenous generation of complex organic compounds is well understood and has been observed innumerable times. It happens and is observed in interstellar space!

[/ QUOTE ]

You're joking, right? That's essentially no different than your snowflake example I just addressed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. You didn't address it. You claimed it wasn't relevent without saying why it wasn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your example of the snowflake is irrelevant because all increases in complexity are not equivalent.

We can describe the emergent form of a snowflake in terms of its component parts. The complexity of a snowflake is REDUCIBLE to the sum of the properties of water molecules and a few universally observable phenomena such as electrostatic charge.

Life itself and the differences between species, on the other hand, are of a complexity that is IRREDUCIBLE with respect to the observable phenomena of matter per se. If you or anyone else had an empirical theory that could describe the origin of species in terms of observations generalizable to all matter without recourse to magical thinking, such a disjunction would not exist.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
One only needs a chance arrangement of such bits to produce an auto-catalyzing compound once to get the ball rolling, with hundreds of millions of years and oceans full of complex organic molecules on just one planet to play with. Add in the fact that there are hundreds of billions of galaxies containing hundreds of billions of stars and only an idiot could be puzzled by the idea.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm talking observation here, not Storybook Corner. Let's keep the discussion on facts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lol. What an argument.

Them are the facts, chuckles. Or is it your contention that chance events don't occur? You understand that given enough tries extremely unlikely events happen with near certainty, right?

Probably not.

[/ QUOTE ]

Certainly not. You haven't met your burden of accounting for all the variables.

For instance: unless the starting conditions are restored, what began as an improbability can sometimes become an impossibility. Etc.

[Tubes]

"Are we vessels for dna?"

That is the chicken and egg, clever. The chicken is the egg's way of becoming another egg. Ha!