An atheists world (2)

[mzungu]

btw abiogenesis is evolution remember?

No it is not; it is related, yes but it is not the same. Abiogenesis deals with how life began while ToE deals with how life evolved once it began. Just like Christianity is related to Judaism but Judaism does not deal with Jesus.

Ophthalmology and orthopaedics are both related as they both belong to the field of medicine but they are different fields that although they deal with the physical body they differ in that they each deal with specific areas.

Your hate for science has been duly noted and if I may add the mere fact that you are using a computer to debate with someone across the globe or that you visit a doctor when you need one or use a cell phone ad infinitum; simply cannot coincide with your bronze age beliefs. It is called Hypocrisy and Jesus was right when he said "Hypocrites and Pharisees".

 

[createdtoworship]

Are you kidding? By saying that the evolution we are talking about is the same as the other types of evolution that you mention, you are the one equivocating and you are the one falsely relying on etymology.

examples?

 

[nuttypiglet]

I can't say this enough, and I love the way you guys facepalm, but for the record: theistic evolutionists are creationists.

All the Jews I know believe in Micro Evolution, simple adaptation, but not Macro. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe in macro evolution. I think it's a false religion but I admit it does take a strong faith to accept it.
There are too many other factors aiming at ID, which are conveniently forgotten by the false religion. Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist. Even if the expansion rate at the beginning was slightly faster or slower, it would have altered everything too much. So, admitting this problem, science comes up with a great fairy tale "THE MULTIVERSE". Oh yes, of course, there are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere and it just so happens ours formed correctly for life. To quote Richard Dawkins "To admit God adds complexity, there are always simpler things to look for for explanation, that's the beauty of evolution". A Multiverse with an infinite number of Universes makes the problem SIMPLER? WHAT? It's far easier to accept there was a creator.
I can picture tropical fish in a tank saying "Hey this tank is natural, it's one of an infinite number of tanks and ours is just right".

 

[lasthero]

Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist.

Life as we know it couldn't exist.

 

[Skaloop]

examples?

What you said in the post I was replying to.

 

[Subduction Zone]

All the Jews I know believe in Micro Evolution, simple adaptation, but not Macro. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe in macro evolution. I think it's a false religion but I admit it does take a strong faith to accept it.
There are too many other factors aiming at ID, which are conveniently forgotten by the false religion. Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist. Even if the expansion rate at the beginning was slightly faster or slower, it would have altered everything too much. So, admitting this problem, science comes up with a great fairy tale "THE MULTIVERSE". Oh yes, of course, there are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere and it just so happens ours formed correctly for life. To quote Richard Dawkins "To admit God adds complexity, there are always simpler things to look for for explanation, that's the beauty of evolution". A Multiverse with an infinite number of Universes makes the problem SIMPLER? WHAT? It's far easier to accept there was a creator.
I can picture tropical fish in a tank saying "Hey this tank is natural, it's one of an infinite number of tanks and ours is just right".

Your personal experiences clearly do not count. The U.S. is one of the few majority Christian countries that has a problem with evolution. Fundamentalism is mostly an American misinterpretation of the Bible.

As to Jews, evolution is taught and accepted in Israeli schools. In fact when a government official turned out to be a fundie it caused a controversy:

Controversy over evolution in Israel | NCSE

 

[createdtoworship]

That is largely because the "controversy" they purport to teach isn't really a "controversy".

There's always questions in science, but the level of "controversy" in evolution is so very small. The whole desire to "teach the controversy" is limited to only those things which impinge on a RELIGION's views.

How many "controversies" are taught in quantum mechanics? Well certainly there are questions in that field, but you don't see people marching to have disclaimers put in science books.

Evolution is a pretty solid hypothesis. NOt perfect, but CERTAINLY nowhere nearly as controversial as specific religious organizations would like.

Science is taught in the earliest levels using the best available evidence and the least controversial stuff.

Only when the students are able to understand the scale of the questions are the questions delved into.




I have not read Meyer's book but I am familiar with him.

The problems with this sort of thing come down to a couple points:

1. When one is looking at a system that has the ability to "adapt" to and has had sufficient time in a given niche then it would be nearly impossible to differentiate between successful adaptation and some "original design".

2. When the ONLY way to find evidence for the designer is in "information entropy" it becomes even more questionable. Think about the nature of a "designer" capable of designing all of life on the earth. This being should of course be far more obvious and unable to hide so effectively. If the only way to know it is there is to rely on a rather hyper-complex concept such as information entropy (when most people don't even understand basic entropy in thermo let alone this sort of thing) it makes me question why I should prefer an "intelligent designer" to an adapted organism/structure.

Now your question about DNA, well that's actually quite good! And interestingly enough DNA is simply a chemical. Just like any number of chemicals in the world around you that follows very strict, relatively simple physical rules.

When you put water in the refrigerator you get ice. Ice is a highly organized structure of the molecules of water. In fact we see crystals spontaneously form in nature all the time without the need of a "designer' because the chemicals HAVE to conform in certain ways based on their CHARGE, SIZE, and BONDS.

DNA is very much like that. It essentially has to form a helix (which is NOT uncommon in many macromolecules) due to the nature of the bonds and the order in which the molecules are stacked.

DNA becomes "magical" in this discussion NOT because it is somehow magical but because it is a big molecule that people know is related to life. But it is little different to many regular polymers that you may experience in the world that don't carry for you (or other religious people) any sort of mystical meaning. (There are some vinyl polymers with a helical structure if I recall correctly, and then some starches take on a helical structure).

There is no reason to assume that these structures are somehow special apart from the basic "energy minimization" and "conformational" rules that govern regular chemicals.

good response I disagree that DNA magically forms however,

DNA polymerase is an error correcting mechanism just so that it will specifically not evolve from nothing into something. As a creationist put it, DNA is digital not analogue with a 4 out of 5 error correcting code - Chuck missler.

here is more info on error correction:

http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf

Unitary Pseudogenes and RNA Editing - Evolution News & Views

and a quote from here:

The coded information, organized in small sets called "bytes" in binary computer code and "codons" in the DNA of living organisms, is able to tolerate some mutations. But the study's authors show that these mutations must occur within the boundaries of the error-correction systems or the whole program—or whole organism—will be irreparably harmed.

Can Evolution Hurdle the 'Mutation Protection Paradox'?

 

[createdtoworship]

Stephen Meyers says about DNA and error correction that it's digitally encoded not analogue as well...

"The Functional Logic of Information Storage and Processing

Dembski’s theory applies to the cell’s information-processing system as well as to DNA itself. As I noted in Chapters 1 and 4, DNA encodes information by storing it in a digital form. It also uses machinery—indeed, a system of molecular machines—to copy, transmit, and process that information to produce a functional outcome.
All cells use stored digital information to regulate and direct the expression of other digital information (in particular, the information stored in the “protein coding regions” of the DNA molecule). Indeed, as I discuss in more detail in Chapter 18 and in the Epilogue, portions of the genome that many biologists previously regarded as “junk DNA” are now known to perform many important functions, including the regulation and expression of the information for building proteins. In this respect, the nonprotein coding regions of the genome function much like an operating system in a software program, directing and regulating how other information in the system is processed.
In any case, the cell’s information-processing system has three key elements: (1) digital storage and encoding of information, (2) machinery for processing that information to produce a functional outcome, and (3) encoding of higher-order (hierarchically arranged) regulatory information. These three key elements for expressing biological information are also found in computer-based information-processing systems. They too (1) encode information digitally, (2) process information with machinery, and (3) use hierarchically organized information to regulate the expression of other information.
These three elements provide a good example of what software designers and other engineers call a design pattern.11 A design pattern is a general way of solving a design problem. A design pattern distills a functional logic that can be applied and modified in different contexts to solve different but related engineering problems.
DNA and the cell’s information-processing system exemplify many design patterns. At the highest level, the way DNA and its information-processing machinery encodes and processes digital information represents a solution to a general design problem: how to store information and transmit it across a communication channel in order to produce a functional outcome. It also represents a solution to many other more specific subproblems such as how to convert one-dimensional digital information into useful three-dimensional structural information, how to copy information with fidelity from one medium to another, how to automate error correction during information processing, how to organize information about related and unrelated functions, and how to access and utilize distributed information.
The design patterns exemplified in the cell’s information-processing system also exhibit specifications. Why? Because we recognize design patterns in the cell’s information-processing system that match ones we know from an independent realm of experience, in particular, from our own information technology. We recognize a match or, rather, several of them.
We see in the cell’s use of nucleotide bases as digital characters a functional motif that we know well from our own information technology. Recall Richard Dawkins’s observation that “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like” or Bill Gates’s observation that “DNA is like a computer program.” We also recognize a design pattern in the way the cell stores, transmits, and processes information. Recall Hubert Yockey’s observation that the “genetic code is constructed to confront and solve the problems of communication and recording by the same principles found…in modern communication and computer codes.”12 We also recognize a functional pattern in the way the cell uses digital characters to construct three-dimensional mechanical parts. Recall the discussion in Chapter 5 of the airline manufacturing industry’s use of CAD-CAM (Computer Assisted Design and Manufacture). And scientists familiar with the logic of software design can recognize many other more specialized design patterns and strategies in the subsystems of the cell’s information-processing system.
"

signature of the cell- stephen meyers

 

[nuttypiglet]

Life as we know it couldn't exist.

with no matter, you are saying life could exist another way?

 

[Subduction Zone]

good response I disagree that DNA magically forms however,

DNA polymerase is an error correcting mechanism just so that it will specifically not evolve from nothing into something. As a creationist put it, DNA is digital not analogue with a 4 out of 5 error correcting code - Chuck missler.

here is more info on error correction:

http://benthamscience.com/open/toevolj/articles/V005/1TOEVOLJ.pdf

Unitary Pseudogenes and RNA Editing - Evolution News & Views

and a quote from here:

The coded information, organized in small sets called "bytes" in binary computer code and "codons" in the DNA of living organisms, is able to tolerate some mutations. But the study's authors show that these mutations must occur within the boundaries of the error-correction systems or the whole program—or whole organism—will be irreparably harmed.

Can Evolution Hurdle the 'Mutation Protection Paradox'?

Only creationists believe in magic. Please don't project your flaws onto us.

Once again, it is a very poor analogy to compare DNA to a computer program. That is a failed analogy that I already explained to you.

Yes, there are error protection devices in your body. I am aware of them I am also aware that they are far from perfect. I don't know if they exist in the organs that make germ cells.

Once again you have around 150 mutations from your parents. Most mutations are benign so you don't need to worry.

Plus try to use valid sources. Open journals tend to publish questionable science. They very often are not peer reviewed. Your last two sources have both been caught lying too many times to be seen as reliable sources.

 

[lasthero]

with no matter, you are saying life could exist another way?

I don't know. There's no possible way to know that.

You're also assuming that the way the universe is isn't the only way it could possibly be. There's no way for you to know that, either.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I really don't care what Stephen Meyers has to say.

He is totally out of his depth. He is not a valid source either.

Do you understand the importance of peer review when it comes to science?

Of course if I challenge you to use peer reviewed sources you will have nothing. It is still a valid point to keep hammering you with.

 

[nuttypiglet]

With DNA constantly being checked for errors, how are the errors formed which could lead to a new type of life form? I'm not speaking of eye colour etc, the blending of characteristics from both parents, I'm talking of kicking to the process of long term life form changes into action. For example, the lobe fin fish which started all life on Earth must have undergone many errors in its DNA.
If I have a data file on my PC and constantly check it for errors, correcting them, how can I possibly find the file corrupted? It would take hacking or a sudden power surge while I was using the file. We do know radiation damages DNA, but that would be too harsh to make the changes required. Perhaps viruses could be a culprit, replacing some of the original DNA with their own? How else can DNA become so corrupt to eventually turn a fish into a Cow? Oh and PLEASE, before anyone says it doesn't work like that, it's natural selection, no matter how you look at it, you need those mutations first, whether they fit the environment or not.

 

[lasthero]

For example, the lobe fin fish which started all life on Earth

Whoa, whoa, whoa - stop.

Before we address anything else, who ever - EVER - said that the lobefinned fish started all life on Earth?

 

[Subduction Zone]

With DNA constantly being checked for errors, how are the errors formed which could lead to a new type of life form? I'm not speaking of eye colour etc, the blending of characteristics from both parents, I'm talking of kicking to the process of long term life form changes into action. For example, the lobe fin fish which started all life on Earth must have undergone many errors in its DNA.
If I have a data file on my PC and constantly check it for errors, correcting them, how can I possibly find the file corrupted? It would take hacking or a sudden power surge while I was using the file. We do know radiation damages DNA, but that would be too harsh to make the changes required. Perhaps viruses could be a culprit, replacing some of the original DNA with their own? How else can DNA become so corrupt to eventually turn a fish into a Cow? Oh and PLEASE, before anyone says it doesn't work like that, it's natural selection, no matter how you look at it, you need those mutations first, whether they fit the environment or not.

Here is an article that can answer your questions:


Errors in DNA Replication | Learn Science at Scitable

From the article:

. Successful organisms have thus evolved the means to repair their DNA efficiently but not too efficiently, leaving just enough genetic variability for evolution to continue.

 

[Aman777]

Originally Posted by nuttypiglet

All the Jews I know believe in Micro Evolution, simple adaptation, but not Macro. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe in macro evolution. I think it's a false religion but I admit it does take a strong faith to accept it.
There are too many other factors aiming at ID, which are conveniently forgotten by the false religion. Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist. Even if the expansion rate at the beginning was slightly faster or slower, it would have altered everything too much. So, admitting this problem, science comes up with a great fairy tale "THE MULTIVERSE". Oh yes, of course, there are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere and it just so happens ours formed correctly for life.
​

Your personal experiences clearly do not count. The U.S. is one of the few majority Christian countries that has a problem with evolution. Fundamentalism is mostly an American misinterpretation of the Bible.

Dear Readers, Forgive SZ and nuttypiglet for not understanding the facts. Scripture clearly shows that God made at least 3 Universes within the Multiverse of His Creation. The first was destroyed in the Flood. The second is the present Universe. The third is the Multiverse, which contains ALL 3 in 1. What a Unique concept. Don't you think? It's kinda like God. Isn't it? God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

 

[Subduction Zone]

Originally Posted by nuttypiglet

All the Jews I know believe in Micro Evolution, simple adaptation, but not Macro. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe in macro evolution. I think it's a false religion but I admit it does take a strong faith to accept it.
There are too many other factors aiming at ID, which are conveniently forgotten by the false religion. Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist. Even if the expansion rate at the beginning was slightly faster or slower, it would have altered everything too much. So, admitting this problem, science comes up with a great fairy tale "THE MULTIVERSE". Oh yes, of course, there are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere and it just so happens ours formed correctly for life.
​

Dear Readers, Forgive SZ and nuttypiglet for not understanding the facts. Scripture clearly shows that God made at least 3 Universes within the Multiverse of His Creation. The first was destroyed in the Flood. The second is the present Universe. The third is the Multiverse, which contains ALL 3 in 1. What a Unique concept. Don't you think? It's kinda like God. Isn't it? God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

Scripture is myth.

Please try to find some evidence that supports it.

Until then I will point out that you only have empty claims that not even your fellow Christians believe.

 

[bhsmte]

Originally Posted by nuttypiglet

All the Jews I know believe in Micro Evolution, simple adaptation, but not Macro. I'm a Christian and I certainly don't believe in macro evolution. I think it's a false religion but I admit it does take a strong faith to accept it.
There are too many other factors aiming at ID, which are conveniently forgotten by the false religion. Science knows how finely tuned the Universe is, and without this fine tuning, life couldn't exist. Even if the expansion rate at the beginning was slightly faster or slower, it would have altered everything too much. So, admitting this problem, science comes up with a great fairy tale "THE MULTIVERSE". Oh yes, of course, there are an infinite number of Universes out there somewhere and it just so happens ours formed correctly for life.
​

Dear Readers, Forgive SZ and nuttypiglet for not understanding the facts. Scripture clearly shows that God made at least 3 Universes within the Multiverse of His Creation. The first was destroyed in the Flood. The second is the present Universe. The third is the Multiverse, which contains ALL 3 in 1. What a Unique concept. Don't you think? It's kinda like God. Isn't it? God's Truth is the Truth in EVERY way.

In Love,
Aman

Aman,

How is the work going on producing the verifiable evidence to support your claims?

Can we expect it soon?

 

[nuttypiglet]

Whoa, whoa, whoa - stop.

Before we address anything else, who ever - EVER - said that the lobefinned fish started all life on Earth?

Not ALL life, just life on land
SCIENCE did

 

[lasthero]

Not ALL life, just life on land

Nope, fruityloops.

Insects didn't come from it.
Plants didn't come from it.
Fungi didn't come from it.
Bacteria didn't come from it.

All that would be life on land, and none of them are remotely related to a lobefinned fish.