6 plus ones
Shared publicly•View activity
View 47 previous comments
Seriously, you're not using words correctly. You also appear to be confusing "directives" and "directions" which mean completely different things.
I think you mean combination, not sequence, and probably instructions, not directions. No, we are not random chemicals, that's the entire point of evolution. It isn't a purely random process because anything which can't self-replicate won't survive on its own. That is self-evident. Why would you think the process needs instructions ? An animal poorly-suited to its environment because of its specific characteristics is less likely to survive than one that's well-adapted. That is also self-evident.
Like any offspring, I am not exactly the same as my parents. Hence over time new species can emerge, a process which, I repeat, we have actually seen happening, and we know enough about the genome to artificially induce new characteristics. It is not just random mutations that do this, it is also a natural feature of sexual reproduction - our parents genes are not combined in a totally random way, but through a process that reproduces the major features whilst still allowing variation.
I would urge you to go and read a book on evolution, but since you're willing to ignore mountains of observational evidence, I don't think it would do any good. You are putting theory before fact.
Your entire argument boils down to "this just can't work because..." and that's it. You never say why it can't occur through natural means, you just say it can't. Natural processes are perfectly capable of creating other complex features, like clouds and rainbows and volcanoes and tectonic plates and canyons, so why you think life is impossible I just don't understand. But then you probably think everything is the will of God and that it's "obvious" nothing happens naturally.
And you have yet again failed to answer my question as to why minds, which was what we were originally discussing, need instructions. You just assume you know what a mind is without any justification. You keep avoiding my questions, and it's becoming seriously irritating.
- How is it that you know with such certainty what a mind is ?
- Why wouldn't animals with features least suited to their environment stand less chance of reproducing, and why wouldn't the ones better suited have more offspring ?
- What is the evidence that you need something more mystical than atoms to have a mind ?
- Why, if the physical brain is damaged, are minds also damaged ?
- Why are you so certain that minds cannot come from mindless things ?Feb 21, 2016
- Thank you, I really appreciate it. I'll have to dig into it again to point to the specific parts, though the absence of wild animal life is obviously not referencing a specific point. Even if you are not a climate scientist, you may see things I missed :)
Interesting difference between established science and consensus. Now that you say it, it does makes sense...Feb 21, 2016
- The sequence is the combination. You have to prove random unrelated changes result in additional significant sequencing. You can only ever change what is already in place you cannot put in place significant sequencing that is not there. It is not that hard to understand. Changing what is there will never result in another living organism requiring additional sequencing. Atoms don't do significant and/or specific sequencing.
Without the sequencing, there will never be a physical mind. I know physical minds are made by recombination of preexisting genomes. We can see given sequencing, we cannot see additional sequencing being made. It is the sequence that makes the mind, It cannot make sequencing that is not there.Feb 21, 2016
- You're not listening. I'm done here.Feb 22, 2016
- You assume genomes gain directed function over the long run when the reality is that they lose direction and function over time.Feb 28, 2016
- Sssh now. Enough.Feb 29, 2016