[JerryLove]

And we have never seen that the necessary changes to go between nerve bundle to sac of goo, are possible in nature. At least, you have not been able to show they are when asked.

I've never seen you type "mixelplick". I've never seen your Dog type "mixelplick". I've never seen a fly's DNA mutate so that the fly had 8 legs.

I've seen you type every letter. I've never seen evidence your dog can type anything. I've seen a fly's DNA mutate.

I know Mixelplick can be formed in the letters you type. I know 8-legged fly DNA can be formed with the mutations I have seen.

I would consider it proven that you can type "mixelplick". I would consider it known that your dog cannot. I would consider it proven that a fly could evolve to eight legs.

You are assuming that the necessary changes in DNA between bundle of nerves->goo filled sac, are possible in nature.

That's because I know it's just a rearrangement of 4 base pairs... and I know that mutation (which is observed) rearranges the 4 base pairs.

This is no more "obvious" than the possibility of electrical surges connecting jumpers, et al. In my hypothesis, I started with a precursor CPU capable of doing "primative" processing

No. There is no evidence that electrical surges can connect jumpers. If you had proof of an electrical surge connecting a jumper (what this has to do with processors I don't know) then I would acknowledge that an electrical surge could connect a different jumper, even though there was no observation that it ever had.

Not that it cannot (absolutely), but that it cannot (qualifiedly). As I said you seem to be arguing Deistic Evolution, in which case I would say that it cannot, because the information necessary to those kinds of changes requires a telic design and purpose.

God did it. This thread is theistic evolution. That is what I am arguing for.

Never said anything like that. Doesn't matter what you want to call each step ("good" "bad" or "ugly," I could care less), my positive claim was that sacs of goo would counter-act the bundle of nerves by obscuring light untill it was a fully functional sac of goo and actually focused light instead of obscuring it. In other words, untill you reach each major step in your hypothesis, the animal would be non-functional.

You said that DNA A could not mutate into DNA B.

All computers since the 8086 have the same basic functions (or "bios calls"). They are just assembly instructions executed by logic gates. Thus, everything to make a p4 is right there in the x8486, you just have to re-arrange it

You'll have to add abtou 55 million transistors, change the voltage and gate size, die size, firmware, etc. There is no evidence of any random process which could result in any of those changes or any similar changes.

we have never seen that it is possible for high current to arrange it in the specific ways necessary to be a p4. We have also never seen that it is possible for mutation, to arrange the DNA of a bundle of nerves into a goo filled sac, et pass.

I don't need to see either directly.

Is that seriously what you are arguing? That gives you an even bigger burden. How is it possible for whole animals to become whole other animals in just one generation without hundreds of generations with minor changes in between them?

How many times do I have to dispute that straw man? Are you even listening? Are you that incompetent at reading a post.

You know. This is not the first thread where I have gotten to the point that I could just list 5 times I addressed that exact issue to you on this trrhread in the past week! There were two other threads last month where I spent the last several posts to you simply cuting and pasting the multiple times I had already answered the exacct claim you were making, to you, when you made it before, on that thread....

Well, today I have a game to play and I will not wast any more time on your lunacy.

[MonkeeSage]

Originally posted by JerryLove
I've never seen you type "mixelplick". I've never seen your Dog type "mixelplick". I've never seen a fly's DNA mutate so that the fly had 8 legs.

I've seen you type every letter. I've never seen evidence your dog can type anything. I've seen a fly's DNA mutate.

I know Mixelplick can be formed in the letters you type. I know 8-legged fly DNA can be formed with the mutations I have seen.

I would consider it proven that you can type "mixelplick". I would consider it known that your dog cannot. I would consider it proven that a fly could evolve to eight legs.

That's because I know it's just a rearrangement of 4 base pairs... and I know that mutation (which is observed) rearranges the 4 base pairs.

I am granting the idea of "similarity" (as Russell termed it), without getting into the whole issue. But you're making a leap from one category to another--what is theoretically possible given X (mutation), and what is actually possible on X given Y (the supposed result of the mutations).

IFF the "theistic evolution" you are talking about involves God working supernaturally (either as to time-frame or mechanisms) to bring about fully formed kinds of animals, then I grant that on X, Y is actually possible.

No. There is no evidence that electrical surges can connect jumpers. If you had proof of an electrical surge connecting a jumper (what this has to do with processors I don't know) then I would acknowledge that an electrical surge could connect a different jumper, even though there was no observation that it ever had.

You have a motherboard that was created by controlled electrical surges being strategically applied (i.e., supernaturally--what doesn't occur in nature) to raw matertials to make various parts, then soldering the parts, et pass.

God did it. This thread is theistic evolution. That is what I am arguing for.

Deism believes in a "God" that is wholly other from anything that is created (like the Vedic Brahman concept), who, in essence, started the world going with certain self-governing laws, and now has nothing to do with it--laws like "Natural Selection" do all the process of creation and selection, not God directly acting to bring about some purpose in the world.

This is not the same as "Theistic Evolution" (where "Theism" is a reference to the Christian conception of God).

You said that DNA A could not mutate into DNA B.

....given certain conditions; such as having to get from A to B by minute steps that are possible to occur in nature.

You'll have to add abtou 55 million transistors, change the voltage and gate size, die size, firmware, etc. There is no evidence of any random process which could result in any of those changes or any similar changes.

You showed me a few diodes soldered to a board, making a logic gate (bundle of nerves), then skipped over mentioning all the other minute changes and then showed me a garage door opener (sac filled with goo), then skipped more smaller steps and showed me a cathode ray tube controlled by a digital timer (eye with lense, retina, iris, pupil), then skip more and show me a computer (human eye). I am insisting that you have skipped some steps and I want to see the in-between models that exist in the spaces you skipped.


Have fun at the game!


Shelumi`El
Jordan

S.D.G

[JerryLove]

Actually... the 8088 did evolve into the P4, and the 6800 evolved into the G4, and both have a common ancestor.

In the case of processors, design changes in future generations through a process of engineering; and they don't reproduce. But yes... 500 years from now, I would look at 8088, 8086, 80186-80486, P1-P5 and order them and talk about how they are related (even though I did not observe the engineers or fabrication)