Functionally complex

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Good thing I have an entire brain. That allows me to see the truth from the creationist propaganda. I cannot believe that anyone believes that a big man in the sky goes around creating planets.

You do occassionally see mutants with things growing where they shouldn't, but they are thankfully rare. Most are (naturally) aborted before they are born. ...[text shortened]... t gradually that can lead to large changes - much in the same way as has happened in computing.

No in computing it takes years of research, pain staking testing, and
validation, a plan, a purpose, and a design. The power consumption,
the timing of events, error checking, degrading of materials used; the
one thing that computers do show is, that things do not just happen.
If everything isn’t accounted for, it will cause unexpected and almost
without fail catastrophic results for the system design.

I don't believe in a big guy in the sky either, so in that we have some
thing in common.
Kelly

Originally posted by twhitehead
As usually kellyjay falls back on his only argument which is basically that he is not intelligent enough to understand evolution.
Anyway I think he has more or less admitted that it is possible for 'funtional complexity', whatever that is, to increase without direct influence from an external intelligent being. He is merely denying that it can increase ' ...[text shortened]... to believe" and no indication as to exaclty how 'significant' the imposible changes are.

I have given you examples, you are not going to get something new
in a living system such as a nervous system and all that goes along
with that, there might be small changes in a nervous system, but
the system itself isn't going to just appear in time in side a species
that didn't already have one. Small changes don't give us that type
of modification, it can degrade, it isn't going to add to that degree.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
No in computing it takes years of research, pain staking testing, and
validation, a plan, a purpose, and a design. The power consumption,
the timing of events, error checking, degrading of materials used; the
one thing that computers do show is, that things do not just happen.
If everything isn’t accounted for, it will cause unexpected and almost
witho ...[text shortened]... don't believe in a big guy in the sky either, so in that we have some
thing in common.
Kelly

Doesn't matter, all computers are variations on a basic design.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Doesn't matter, all computers are variations on a basic design.

Well not ALL computers. It would be correct to say all digital computers but there is a coming revolution you are no doubt aware,
Quantum computing, there is no comminality there.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Doesn't matter, all computers are variations on a basic design.

If you believe that, I no longer wonder why you buy into evolution.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you believe that, I no longer wonder why you buy into evolution.
Kelly

If you don't, I wonder why you claim to have a job working with them.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I have given you examples, you are not going to get something new
in a living system such as a nervous system and all that goes along
with that, there might be small changes in a nervous system, but
the system itself isn't going to just appear in time in side a species
that didn't already have one. Small changes don't give us that type
of modification, it can degrade, it isn't going to add to that degree.
Kelly

That is too vague in the sense that you are saying an organ can not appear and too specific when you give and example of the central nervous system. I can give examples of new organs appearing in an observed situation but I know that you will immediately redefine your definition of the word 'organ' just as my examples of new species has lead to your preference for the word 'kind' which we all know is an invention of creationists. Can you give us a list of animals in one 'kind' that you accept could have decended from a common ancestor?

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is too vague in the sense that you are saying an organ can not appear and too specific when you give and example of the central nervous system. I can give examples of new organs appearing in an observed situation but I know that you will immediately redefine your definition of the word 'organ' just as my examples of new species has lead to your prefe ...[text shortened]... list of animals in one 'kind' that you accept could have decended from a common ancestor?

LOL, I'm too vague when I say organ and to specific when I say
nervous system, okay.

In conversation odds are we are always going to be defining our
terms to make ourselves understood and if need be redefine them.
It is going to happen with you too, if you say something to me
and you realize I did not take it the way you meant. It isn't a flaw,
it is communication that is the long and short of it all. There are
various levels of education here, there are different cultures here,
people who are using English when it isn’t their first language, or
worse, it is their first language but their culture and background
cause them to misunderstand.

There is debate about species, what is related to what and how.
If I say to you that I believe that with one kind that dogs, foxes,
wolves, and many Like creature share a common ancestor that
would be consistent with my beliefs.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, I'm too vague when I say organ and to specific when I say
nervous system, okay.

In conversation odds are we are always going to be defining our
terms to make ourselves understood and if need be redefine them.
It is going to happen with you too, if you say something to me
and you realize I did not take it the way you meant. It isn't a flaw,
it i ...[text shortened]... d many Like creature share a common ancestor that
would be consistent with my beliefs.
Kelly

So you believe in evolution now?

So, what makes the "kind" barrier immutable? (Just thought I'd ask again)

Originally posted by KellyJay
LOL, I'm too vague when I say organ and to specific when I say
nervous system, okay.

In conversation odds are we are always going to be defining our
terms to make ourselves understood and if need be redefine them.
It is going to happen with you too, if you say something to me
and you realize I did not take it the way you meant. It isn't a flaw,
it i ...[text shortened]... d many Like creature share a common ancestor that
would be consistent with my beliefs.
Kelly

So if I can find one member of the 'kind' which includes dogs, foxes, wolves etc that has a unique organ that is not found in any other member of that kind will you accept that the organ evolved or will you claim that the common ancestor had that organ and all the other members lost it?
Alternatively is a unique organ evidence that it is not a member of the 'kind'?
I keep tropical fish and there is a group called Anabantids which have a unique organ for breathing air. Is this evidence that they are of a different 'kind' from all other fish?

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you believe in evolution now?

So, what makes the "kind" barrier immutable? (Just thought I'd ask again)

I answered that once already, but maybe you missed it.
It is like a large complex computer program that is accomplishing
something, you may change a letter here and there and not break
the code, but it is limited where making changes can occur in a
random manner, and it doesn’t break. Writing the code from scratch it
isn’t going occur in such a haphazard manner. Even changing existing
code with knowledge can cause it to break, but unlike life you can
correct your changes while writing code, with life if DNA changes it can
be a death sentence for the life form whose DNA was altered at birth
in an important piece of code.

I have always mantained there can be changes within kinds, it isn't
a change in stance for me.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
So you believe in evolution now?

So, what makes the "kind" barrier immutable? (Just thought I'd ask again)

Actually, if you are the one saying it isn't, I'd suggest you have the
burden of proof not I. Since proving a negative isn't going to occur.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Actually, if you are the one saying it isn't, I'd suggest you have the
burden of proof not I. Since proving a negative isn't going to occur.
Kelly

Wrong, stop trying to shift the onus of proof. It's more parsimonious to conclude from the lack of evidence that there is no reason to suspect immutability. You are making a positive assertion. You're burden of proof, of which I've seen none so far. I want a specific biological example.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I answered that once already, but maybe you missed it.
It is like a large complex computer program that is accomplishing
something, you may change a letter here and there and not break
the code, but it is limited where making changes can occur in a
random manner, and it doesn’t break.

Computer code is not a good parallel. Computer code as it stands today is far less complex than genetic code. It is also very different in operation. Its like saying "take a wheel of a bicycle and it will fall, therefore taking a wheel of a train will also make it fall."
It is a fact that nearly every generation of sexually producing life has a unique (yet working) genetic code. It is also a well known fact that mutations are a regular occurence. It is also a well known fact that mutations which work or even benefit the organism are a regular occurence. I do not know of any such cases with computer programs. This is partly because computer programs are designed to perform in a specific way and any deviation is considered failure. In the case of life, this is not the case.
To proove natural selection to be an unworkable theory via a probability claim you must first proove that beneficial changes are considerably less common than harmfull ones. Unless you are claiming that God is involved in every generation of life and picks out each gene personally, then life itself is proof of the falsity of your claim.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Wrong, stop trying to shift the onus of proof. It's more parsimonious to conclude from the lack of evidence that there is no reason to suspect immutability. You are making a positive assertion. You're burden of proof, of which I've seen none so far. I want a specific biological example.

You are the one telling me something is occurring, I'm saying show
me! If that is all you have to say on the subject, is saying there is no
reason not to accept something isn't giving me a reason to accept it
outside of your desire to see it accepted! I have a desire to see you
accept God, there is no reason not too! Having shared this statement
of asking you to accept God, I must say it is woefully pitiful in is
strength of persuasion, and since both of us have reasons for not
accepting the other’s view it is completely inaccurate as well.

I don't see the changes occur to that level, when I look at those
small changes if they get out of hand or occur somewhere they
should not more times than not, whatever is born dies or is in a
weaken state. What you are suggesting has all parts of the code in
some great fluid flux at all times in all areas of the code, I see it
tweak a little here and there making small alteration in kinds,
nothing to major, nothing to the degree you are putting forth in your
statement of faith.

You want an example of something not happening, fine, every
stinking life form on the planet is an example of only seeing little
changes in kinds! Every life form on the planet in all of human
recorded history has only had small changes within kinds or species,
you may use kinds or species to describe all life I do not care. We
do not see examples of changes occurring in DNA that for the most
part brings about healthy good changes, drastic changes or changes
done in critical areas almost most always weaken or cause death if
they are done in the wrong place!

You want to claim you can see these changes adding up to something
new, I want an example of that! You can show me small changes,
but I acknowledge that, I do not acknowledge them adding up into
something new. Prove your point, or acknowledge you have just
made a statement of faith!
Kelly