Is God a liar?

[Abraxos]

Because they are adapted to their environment.

Usually in science there are needs for consistency and that little thing called evidence.

But lets run through this logic that it had adapted to it's environment and see if it is reasonable.

When something is well adapted to its environment it doesn’t need to change, this would mean the environment would need to be constant for the supposed period of time - in this case 3.5 billion years. That's a long time for essentially no radical or gradual change to take place in the alleged evolutionary time-frame. According to what we see today is a good indication that there are many radical environmental changes that have supposedly occurred over the supposedly 3.5 billions of years, including the arrival of new predators and parasites.

No consistency on the evolutionary theory. What's the alternative?

 

[Abraxos]

Mutations happen. Sometimes the mutations are adaptive. Given enough time (the earth is ancient) enough mutations accumulat to form a new species. IOW the ONLY difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time.

That's not entirely correct. Mutations occur, but not the ones evolutionists hope for.

An animal cannot gain new information that wasn't already there. Sure we have small changes, but these are merely variants in the genetic code from parents to child. No new information was added other than what was already present in the parents.

For example: dad dog with long hair and sharp teeth + mom dog with short hair and long legs = pup with either long hair and long legs or short hair and sharp teeth.

The type of mutations you're hoping for are called "beneficial" mutations, and they simply do not exist. In fact, mutations corrupt the DNA resulting in a lost of information, or a deformity. This is in no way a beneficial or positive mutation in any sense. In fact it's devolution. The type of mutations evolutionists are hoping for just doesn't exist. Variations and adaptations exist, of course. Who has argued that? There is simply zero evidence of a mutation that causes a fish to grow toes.

 

[Speedwell]

That's not entirely correct. Mutations occur, but not the ones evolutionists hope for.

An animal cannot gain new information that wasn't already there. Sure we have small changes, but these are merely variants in the genetic code from parents to child. No new information was added other than what was already present in the parents.

For example: dad dog with long hair and sharp teeth + mom dog with short hair and long legs = pup with either long hair and long legs or short hair and sharp teeth.

The type of mutations you're hoping for are called "beneficial" mutations, and they simply do not exist. In fact, mutations corrupt the DNA resulting in a lost of information, or a deformity. This is in no way a beneficial or positive mutation in any sense. In fact it's devolution. The type of mutations evolutionists are hoping for just doesn't exist. Variations and adaptations exist, of course. Who has argued that? There is simply zero evidence of a mutation that causes a fish to grow toes.

Where do you guys get this stuff? Have you ever taken a real college-level biology or genetics class?

 

[Abraxos]

Where do you guys get this stuff? Have you ever taken a real college-level biology or genetics class?

This is texbook stuff.

Let me simplify:

Evolution in the sense that things change, is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation and natural selection)

Evolution in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms, this is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, measured, or tested. This is what Darwinian evolution claims.

 

[Speedwell]

This is texbook stuff.

Let me simplify:

Evolution in the sense that things change, is evident because we can observe change. (microevolution, adaptation, variation and natural selection)

Evolution in the sense that all life originated from a single molecular cell and gradually changed into more complex organisms, this is not evident (macroevolution). It cannot be observed, measured, or tested. This is what Darwinian evolution claims.

I mean what you said about no new information, about mutations, devolution, deformity, etc. That's not "textbook stuff," It's pure hokum.

 

[Hieronymus]

Mutations happen. Sometimes the mutations are adaptive. Given enough time (the earth is ancient) enough mutations accumulat to form a new species. IOW the ONLY difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution is time.

Yes, good parrot...

Problem is though, you can not introduce new traits gradually, because this would mean incomplete systems (that can not work yet) hampering survival.

The other obvious problem is that mutations are data corruption.
Evolutionists believe in data writing itself by accident.

Ask yourself seriously why you as a theist, would subscribe to problematic (as in impossible) naturalistic models?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, good parrot...

Problem is though, you can not introduce new traits gradually, because this would mean incomplete systems (that can not work yet) hampering survival.

That is not what the theory of evolution proposes. Evolution does not necessarily lead directly to "new systems." Each step in the evolutionary process must, in itself, increase fitness. Sometimes the route to what you would call a "complete system" is quite roundabout. There are no half-formed, useless appendages waiting for the right mutation to come along and complete them.

The other obvious problem is that mutations are data corruption.
Evolutionists believe in data writing itself by accident.

Not "data" but information. Mutation is part of the process which produces the random variation of a trait which is then presented to the environment for selection. Natural selection depletes the information content of the gene pool. Random inputs increase it.

Ask yourself seriously why you as a theist, would subscribe to problematic (as in impossible) naturalistic models?

For the same reason I subscribe to a naturalistic model of gravity, electromagnetism or thermodynamics--because they are plausible and well-evidenced. What has being a theist got to do with it?

 

[Hieronymus]

That is not what the theory of evolution proposes. Evolution does not necessarily lead directly to "new systems." Each step in the evolutionary process must, in itself, increase fitness.

And that's why it doesn't explain reality.

Sometimes the route to what you would call a "complete system" is quite roundabout.

Then my argument stands.

There are no half-formed, useless appendages waiting for the right mutation to come along and complete them.

So then you suggest complete systems are there at once AND will somehow dominate the gene pool.

Not "data" but information.

Is there really a difference? No...

Mutation is part of the process which produces the random variation of a trait which is then presented to the environment for selection.

Mutations are data (or information if you insist) corruptions.

Natural selection depletes the information content of the gene pool. Random inputs increase it.

And you really believe this?
How about hereditary diseases?
Indeed, they are mutations that somehow survived.

It's simple.
You believe that messing up the DNA blindly can bring forth purposeful traits.
That's like changing letters in a book and expecting it will still make sense and tell a different story than the original.

For the same reason I subscribe to a naturalistic model of gravity, electromagnetism or thermodynamics--because they are plausible and well-evidenced.

Seriously, think about what you're comparing here.
Apples and oranges.
You just repeat the naturalistic fairytales and then think you're smart.

What has being a theist got to do with it?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

 

[Hieronymus]

I mean what you said about no new information, about mutations, devolution, deformity, etc. That's not "textbook stuff," It's pure hokum.

Maybe you have the wrong textbook.
Either way, you can't refute it.

 

[Hieronymus]

Where do you guys get this stuff? Have you ever taken a real college-level biology or genetics class?

Look who's talking...

 

[Abraxos]

I mean what you said about no new information, about mutations, devolution, deformity, etc. That's not "textbook stuff," It's pure hokum.

I don't understand what you're saying. Why do you think everyone refers to DNA as a code? Because it is, that's why.

Damaging DNA = Lost of information. I don't know how any simpler I can articulate that to the simpleton.

Lost of information = Devolution, deformities. Probably not terms you are familiar with in your kindergarten booklet, but essentially mutations more often than not are baddies. Anyone with a slight interest in this subject should be aware of this.

I think you watch too many X-men movies, because there is no evidence to suggest a mutation can cause an extrapolated claim of a fish into a human.

"To believe that such drastic mutations would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." Populations, Species, and Evolution p.253. Dr. Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard

 

[Abraxos]

For the same reason I subscribe to a naturalistic model of gravity, electromagnetism or thermodynamics--because they are plausible and well-evidenced. What has being a theist got to do with it?

The theory of gravity has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. A theory should be able to stand on it's own merits.

 

[Speedwell]

Mutations are data (or information if you insist) corruptions.

"Information" as defined in Information Theory is a statistical measure of the randomness of a signal. the more randomness, the more information. You are confusing it with "message."

It's simple.
You believe that messing up the DNA blindly can bring forth purposeful traits.

Random variation and selection as a mechanism for adaptation is very productive. That is why it is used in many industrial and engineering applications.

You just repeat the naturalistic fairytales and then think you're smart. WHAT DO YOU THINK?

I can't tell if you have a problem with the methodological naturalism of science generally or only when it interferes with your interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Information" as defined in Information Theory is a statistical measure of the randomness of a signal. the more randomness, the more information. You are confusing it with "message."

That's why i call it data.
because it is data.
It is read and implemented, it has meaning.
It's a four letter language.
Changing it randomly causes problems and loss of data.
Yes, many mutations do survive, because there are systems to compensate present in the organisms.

Random variation and selection as a mechanism for adaptation is very productive. That is why it is used in many industrial and engineering applications.

Incomparable because it has to survive procreate and thrive by itself.
And there are no beings to help it along (in the naturalistic model).

I can't tell if you have a problem with the methodological naturalism of science generally or only when it interferes with your interpretation of Genesis.

You don't need Genesis to see intelligent design in our reality (universe and life).
It is naturalism that won't allow 'a divine foot in the door'.
And that's why it's silly to subscribe to it as a theist.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't understand what you're saying. Why do you think everyone refers to DNA as a code? Because it is, that's why.

Damaging DNA = Lost of information. I don't know how any simpler I can articulate that to the simpleton.

Lost of information = Devolution, deformities. Probably not terms you are familiar with in your kindergarten booklet, but essentially mutations more often than not are baddies. Anyone with a slight interest in this subject should be aware of this.

I'm not such a simpleton that I would throw around technical terms of Information Theory without having the least idea of what I was talking about.

I think you watch too many X-men movies, because there is no evidence to suggest a mutation can cause an extrapolated claim of a fish into a human.

"To believe that such drastic mutations would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles." Populations, Species, and Evolution p.253. Dr. Ernst Mayr Professor of Zoology at Harvard

And the late Dr. Mayr, one of the leading evolutionary scientists of recent times, was correct. No one who knows anything about the theory of evolution would believe such a thing.

 

[Speedwell]

That's why i call it data.
because it is data.
It is read and implemented, it has meaning.
It's a four letter language.
Changing it randomly causes problems and loss of data.
Yes, many mutations do survive, because there are systems to compensate present in the organisms.Incomparable because it has to survive procreate and thrive by itself.
And there are no beings to help it along (in the naturalistic model).

You don't need Genesis to see intelligent design in our reality (universe and life).
It is naturalism that won't allow 'a divine foot in the door'.
And that's why it's silly to subscribe to it as a theist.

All I can say to that is that my God must be a better designer than yours--He doesn't need to be continually tinkering with His work.

 

[Hieronymus]

All I can say to that is that my God must be a better designer than yours--He doesn't need to be continually tinkering with His work.

That doesn't even make sense.

 

[Abraxos]

I'm not such a simpleton that I would throw around technical terms of Information Theory without having the least idea of what I was talking about.



And the late Dr. Mayr, one of the leading evolutionary scientists of recent times, was correct. No one who knows anything about the theory of evolution would believe such a thing.

Okay what?

 

[Speedwell]

That doesn't even make sense.

Of course it does. "Intelligent Design" as the term is generally understood is the notion that certain biological structures exhibit a property called "irreducible complexity" and are beyond the power of random variation and selection to create, thus requiring direct divine intervention.

If, instead, what you man by "intelligent design" is merely the notion that God designed the universe, then I have no argument with it. I believe He designed the process of evolution, too.

 

[Speedwell]

Look who's talking...

No, I'm serious. It's clear that you don't understand the theory of evolution very well or you wouldn't say the things you do about it, wouldn't think that a quote from Ernst Mayr supported your case. I'm not going to talk you out of it--you have too much fun bashing your straw-man version of the theory to give it up for the real thing.

I'm just curious as to how such a high level of misinformation gets circulated.

(Looking back, I see that it was Abraxos who quoted Mayr, but you are taking much the same line and so I will ask you, too: where do you get it?)