Jan Ardena:
You're a long way behind in this thread. Your latest response is to my post #58. Since then, I've posted a number of subsequent replies to you, some of which have directly answered some of the questions you have asked me in your latest response.
It would be useful if you could read the entire thread to date. I have no problem with your replying in chronological order, but asking me questions that I have already given you answers to is a waste of your time and mine.
In this reply, I will reference replies I made to you in this thread that you have apparently not read yet. I am happy to take questions on those when you get to them.
Why, you are of course, Jan. You talk about God in every post.
Where did the information come from to build the first life form?
I'll wait for you to catch up on my posts where I answered this specific question.
Where does intelligible information generally come from. Period?
Basically, it comes from the processes that organise things in the universe. Our universe is not random, but is governed by physical laws that determine how it evolves. Certain such processes produce concentrations of useful energy in certain places in the universe, and that energy has locally anti-entropic effects. This is a very general answer to a very general question. A more complete answer would require us to delve into physics, which would be better done in a different forum.
How did/does complex specified information evolve out of natural processes?
I'll wait for you to catch up on the posts where I answered this specific question.
What was the first lifeform?
It was most likely something rather virus-like.
I notice that, in your reply, you skipped over where I asked you to explain your understanding of "Darwinian evolution", as opposed to the "evolution" you say you accept. This is now the third time I have asked you to clarify that. Each time you have ignored the question, pretending it wasn't asked? Can you or will you respond, or do you intend to keep avoiding this question? To me, this avoidance of yours looks a lot like the behaviour of a troll arguing in bad faith.
What is the evidence for this?
I already told you a little of it with the comet example in the post you're replying to. Basically, a lot of experiments have been done to show that basic chemistry tends to produce things like amino acids from simple ingredients. Moreover, observations indicate that this kind of thing even happens in apparently "hostile" environments such as space.
So speech is purely for reproductive advantages?
You misunderstand. The problem is hidden in that word "for". You might well ask what speech is "for", but the answer will be different depending on which perspective you tackle the problem from. On one level, speech is "for" communication. This could be asking the question at the level of why an individual human being finds speech to be useful, for example. At another level, speech is a product of genes, and as far as the genes are concerned it is good "for" making many copies of those same genes and spreading them around the world.
This gene-centric point of view can be misleading for newcomers like yourself, however. Genes do not really "want" anything. They are not conscious. So when we talk about speech being "good" for propagating the genes for speech, we are rather using a convenient shorthand description of the evolutionary processes that result in the propagation of genes. Genes, in the end, are only spread to new generations by reproduction (in human beings, anyway). An animal or human relies (in part) on its genetic traits to survive in the world long enough to reproduce. Genes which give certain groups survival advantages (such as genes for speech, for example) over others, make it more likely that those groups will spread the genes to future generations.
Compare two proto-human groups, one with speech (and the genes for it), and one without. Suppose that speech allows one group to communicate important information about food sources, predator locations and all kinds of other things, whereas, lacking the capacity for speech, the other group has less knowledge about those things. Then we would expect, on average, the first group to have greater reproductive success. Over many generations, the human population would become dominated by groups which all had the power of speech. This is what is meant by "reproductive success".
Don't worry. I get it know.
Speech gets you laid.
That would be an example of what is known as "sexual selection". Suppose, for example, that women were to find men more attractive if they could speak, compared to their being unable to speak. Then, speech would, indeed, get you laid, if you were a man, at least with a statistically greater likelihood than if you lacked the capacity for speech. Over time, we would expect that the gene pool would become dominated by men who could speak, and presumably also women who preferred men who could speak.
So all our evolutionary benefits are purely there so we have a better chance of getting laid, and reproducing?
No. Some are side effects of other things. And for the most important traits, having a better chance of getting laid is a benefit to being able to survive more effectively and for longer.
That is if you see any benefit in anything we do.
Recall that you asked me not how
we benefit as individuals, but how
nature benefits. Those are two different questions, and also conceptually separate from the question of how a particular set of genes benefits.
If we are aspect of nature, then we think and act in accordance with nature. That means every thought and action is true, according to nature. If we express an overall plan, ultimate goal, or God, it must necessarily be true according to nature.
I don't know what you mean by using the word "true" there. We have no choice but to act in accordance with nature. We aren't immune from the application of physical laws.
You speak as if "nature" is a personified entity that has preferences and desires. Maybe this is because you identify nature with God?
We are simply expressions of nature, so it has to be the truth according to nature. Doesn't it?
What do you mean by "a truth according to nature"? It sounds like you think nature is a person.
If a cheetah kills an antelope, the cheetah has done nothing wrong. In fact it is correct to kill the antelope, because it is simply expressing it's natural instinct. Right?
When you talk about right or wrong, you're referring to moral values. I'm not sure that a cheetah or an antelope has a good sense of morality. Therefore, it seems to me that it is
you who is judging the rightness or wrongness of the cheetah's actions here, not the cheetah, and not some personification of "nature".
Mindless DNA stores biological information. Where did that information come from?
Where does information come from, generally?
I'll wait until you get to my posts in this thread where I specifically addressed the question of information in DNA, with helpful examples.
It tells you in the bible. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God?
How does this help answer the questions you asked above, like what the first life form was, or how human beings evolved? The bible is hardly a scientific textbook. If you think it is, you have a lot more to learn about both science and the bible.
What evidence?
You believe Darwinian evolution accounts for all the forms on the planet, and you have no evidence for it.
Spoken like one who is truly ignorant about biological science. A brief google search ought to disabuse you of this silly notion of yours. You can google, right? Try to avoid Creationist propaganda sites.
You cannot account for the vast amounts of information that would be needed to make these transformations.
Prove me wrong.
Already done that. I'll wait for you to catch up.
Trick?
Can you hear yourself.
Did you not understand the point I put to you about the cheetahs running fast, etc.? I can explain further, if you have questions.
Am I an expression of nature?
If yes, my knowledge of God is, as I say it is.
Non sequitur.
From your perspective, how can it be anything else but a natural phenomenon?
From my perspective, your supposedly innate knowledge of God doesn't exist, in fact.
Spoken like a person who knows little to nothing about evolutionary psychology.
