05 Feb 17
Originally posted by humy7 edits, and your post still doesn't make sense.
Yes, I can prove Earth life has an origin by deduction;
Life exists on Earth.
The Earth once didn't exist.
Therefore there once existed no Earth life.
Therefore there existed a first Earth life.
That first Earth life must have had an origin.
That inference isn't assuming anything because it is valid deduction.
Can you prove no origin of life?
Can you prove magic/Goddidit?
If not, you are assuming.
You give evolution an intellect, even though you deny it.
05 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by chaney3How can I imply evolution has intellect when I wasn't talking about evolution but rather the origin of life?
You give evolution an intellect, even though you deny it.
You still make no sense.
7 edits, and your post still doesn't make sense.
only to the rare moron like you who doesn't understand logic.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadEvolution DOES have an intellect but not like he thinks. There is definite computational ability in the DNA/RNA interactions, something he would probably deny to his dying day. It has to be some kind of god overseeing every atom in the universe. Sounds like it would get a tad boring after the first billion years, eh. Like a queen bee just spitting out eggs for her entire life. Pretty preposterous.
You just make up what you think other people are thinking. You have many times in this thread attributed to people views they have not expressed.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by sonhouseDNA / RNA interactions are not evolution, nor is computational ability equivalent to intellect.
Evolution DOES have an intellect but not like he thinks. There is definite computational ability in the DNA/RNA interactions,
Evolution does not have intellect by any reasonable definition of that word.
Evolution is, however, a pretty effective algorithm for finding best fit solutions. I would not call an algorithm 'intellect'.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYes, not intellect like we think of it of course, never suggested there was some kind of consciousness involved, but computing power, definitely. Enough to drive evolution.
DNA / RNA interactions are not evolution, nor is computational ability equivalent to intellect.
Evolution does not have intellect by any reasonable definition of that word.
Evolution is, however, a pretty effective algorithm for finding best fit solutions. I would not call an algorithm 'intellect'.
07 Feb 17
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseWell as I say, intellect is not equivalent to computing power. It is the wrong word altogether.
Yes, not intellect like we think of it of course, never suggested there was some kind of consciousness involved, but computing power, definitely.
Enough to drive evolution.
Evolution is not driven by computing power. Evolution is driven by two things:
1. replication.
2. selection.
Evolution IS an algorithm, but I wouldn't really say it is computing as such, nor is DNA / RNA computing power involved nor required. All they need to do is replicate (with occasional errors). Other features such as sexual reproduction and the swapping of bits of DNA between species does help too. But I don't really think DNA based computation or intellect can really be said to be involved.
One could argue that a river finding the sea is computation and performs a minimum height topological calculation, but one would not typically attribute rivers with computing power or intellect.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou might, however, call it an analog computer🙂
Well as I say, intellect is not equivalent to computing power. It is the wrong word altogether.
[b]Enough to drive evolution.
Evolution is not driven by computing power. Evolution is driven by two things:
1. replication.
2. selection.
Evolution IS an algorithm, but I wouldn't really say it is computing as such, nor is DNA / RNA computing power ...[text shortened]... cal calculation, but one would not typically attribute rivers with computing power or intellect.[/b]
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3Quite a wild attribution to nobody in particular. Not surprising given that you just made it up.
Whichever way you guys want to evade the intellect you have given to evolution, go ahead, we are now up to DNA super computers.
Quite an admission from your earlier stance on 'probability' and 'random nothing'.
I bet you have no clue who in this thread has what stance on what. I know for a fact that you have multiple times attributed to me views I neither expressed nor hold.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by humyYes.
chaney3
What you don't seem to get is that here you have totally lost what pathetically little credibility you may have once had because you just keep making stuff up (lies) about what we say.
Who are you trying to kid here? We know what we said.
Deny intellect, then assign intelligence to DNA and evolution, as a 'computer'.
The more you try to defend a majestic accident, the more credibility you all lose.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 28862
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by chaney3How tall are you? I ask as everything seems to go right over your head.
Yes.
Deny intellect, then assign intelligence to DNA and evolution, as a 'computer'.
The more you try to defend a majestic accident, the more credibility you all lose.
If my cat wandered into this thread she would have more credibility than you.
Again, i'm embarrassed for you.
07 Feb 17
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeEverything you have offered in this thread amounts to zero. Science has not offered much too much more.
How tall are you? I ask as everything seems to go right over your head.
If my cat wandered into this thread she would have more credibility than you.
Again, i'm embarrassed for you.
Without knowing origin, you are simply applying known science to something ALL of you have admitted to being unknown. You all like to think you sound scientific, but in reality, it is merely guessing. There is a clear intellect involved here, which sonhouse noted only a few posts ago, as did twhitehead.
All of you 'say' you are open to the possibilty of design, while arguing against it at all times.
Total hypocrisy, which is embarrasing for you and your 'probability' and your 'guessing' and your Elvis toast.
Oh yeah, evolution is being compared to computers now. And not by me.
Nice try Ghost.