Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Speedwell]

well I honestly don't know what you don't know

you surely recognize that DNA contains information, (in a quaternary (v binary) code) right?

'specified' or 'specifying' or 'functional' information merely differentiates between information which specifies something v Shannon information which does not- e.g. words in a book v radio static.

Words in a book are also Shannon information but with an encoded message. If you think there is a message encoded in the Shannon information of DNA then why don't you decode it and tell us what it is.

To use an entirely secular example:
SETI searches Shannon information for the existence of specified information, it considers the latter such a strong objective indicator of the presence of intelligence, that a sequence of merely 6 (I think) anomalous amplitudes was enough to write 'WOW' in the margin.

I would argue that DNA is a tad more compelling than that -

What SETI is actually looking for is a narrow-band microwave signal of a kind not thought to be produced naturally--evidence of design.

 

[pitabread]

But random copying errors do not produce volumes of new specified information, that has not been shown, and we know a little bit more about hierarchical digital information systems such as DNA than in Darwin's time..

In the context of meaningful definitions of "information" as applied to genetics, the evolutionary processes do produce new genetic information.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand the premise, but at some point we need to try to put figures on the 'large number' and 'only a few'- do they fall within reasonable ranges of probability or not?

When you understand something of the way the genetic code is organised, you should be able to see how a small number of changes can effect significant change. Two out of many significant features are that a single amino acid change in a protein generally modifies its shape and function just a little, so that it may be slightly more or less efficient, but it may change its shape significantly so that it takes on different function; and much of the genome is structured in units or modules of functionality whose organisation is controlled by regulatory genes, so small changes in regulatory genes can have significant effects on the way the 'building blocks' or 'toolkits' are arranged.

The idea that you need a lot of unlikely events to occur in the right order is mistaken; evolution builds on and extends what already exists, so, for example, a single primitive skin structure can be a foundation that gives rise to scales, hair, and feathers.

 

[pitabread]

But same response as before; if you propose that the typewriter was somehow constrained to type War and Peace, no matter what keys the monkeys hit, you are just shifting the explanation elsewhere.
The same argument is used to say that the laws of nature were constrained to produce a life sustaining universe- how? why?

In the grand scheme of the universe as a whole, we just don't know (yet). Part of the challenge is we only have a sample size of 1.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

SETI is not looking for specified information. Rather, SETI is looking for indications of artificial signal sources based on relative comparison to natural signals.

The information content of such a signal is irrelevant.

Exactly- you do not need to know what the content is to identify specification and hence an intelligent/artificial source.

e.g. hieroglyphs- you know without translation that you are looking at artificial/specified information- not wind erosion.

In the case of DNA, we not only know that it IS specified information, we can translate some of it

 

[Guy Threepwood]

In the grand scheme of the universe as a whole, we just don't know (yet). Part of the challenge is we only have a sample size of 1.

i would agree there- and so we have no frame of reference, no precedent to tell us how universes are 'usually' made, right? But we do know how certain phenomena are created, what is required and why.

There are things creative intelligence can achieve which nature cannot, because of it's unique capacity for acting on anticipation of the future events rather than mere reaction to past events.

Information is merely a consequence of this anticipation, if the WOW signal was from an intelligent source, it was for a purpose, and would not, could not exist without it.

Arguably, nothing can exist without that anticipation, or you are left with only reaction- to what past??

 

[Speedwell]

Exactly- you do not need to know what the content is to identify specification and hence an intelligent/artificial source.

e.g. hieroglyphs- you know without translation that you are looking at artificial/specified information- not wind erosion.

In the case of DNA, we not only know that it IS specified information, we can translate some of it

So what's the message say?

 

[Job 33:6]

i was gonna say...



fair enough, there is some categorization wiggle room, though I don't think Wikipedia is accused of skewing things to an anti-Darwinian perspective:

"The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was an event approximately 541 million years ago in the Cambrian period when practically all major animal phyla started appearing in the fossil record."

But give or take a few features, it's an explosion of new forms requiring a lot of new information.

One aspect little discussed also is the crucial symbiotic timing of various stages- bacteria, gasses, laying down the conditions necessary for more complex life to appear later- more coincidence perhaps- but they sure add up!

It doesn't really matter what wikipedia says, I just gave you the science. Shrugs*

Contrary to laymen opinion, most phyla of the fossil record don't actually appear in the cambrian explosion. Now 20 years ago, it may have appeared to be the case. But we have to keep up with the times here. 20 years ago your suggestion might pass, but you have to keep up with us if you want to critique our work.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Words in a book are also Shannon information but with an encoded message. If you think there is a message encoded in the Shannon information of DNA then why don't you decode it and tell us what it is.

? instructions on how to build biological forms...

What SETI is actually looking for is a narrow-band microwave signal of a kind not thought to be produced naturally--evidence of design.

right, a signal produced artificially is probably for a purpose, is hence specified information- no matter if it is rocks in the sand spelling 'HELP' or pits on a CD describing Tom Hanks' face- information that specifies something indicates intelligence. I see no objective reason to exclude DNA from this empirical observation- however profound the implications may be:

6 anomalous amplitudes from Pleiades (or wherever it was) are considered a 'WOW' signal for alien intelligence.. But vast volumes of specified info, math, engineering , permeating the entire universe- blueprints for biological life in every cell, can be safely assumed to have spontaneously fallen out of chance for no particular reason? Based on what precedent?

 

[pitabread]

Exactly- you do not need to know what the content is to identify specification and hence an intelligent/artificial source.

e.g. hieroglyphs- you know without translation that you are looking at artificial/specified information- not wind erosion.

We don't know that we're looking at artificial/specified information. We might deduce we are looking at something that has an artificial source, but that doesn't say anything about its information content.

I don't think the term "specified information" has any value here because it is too nebulous. And assuming you are getting this from Meyer, I know for a fact he doesn't define it in a useful manner either.

In the case of DNA, we not only know that it IS specified information

But we don't know that. At least not in the context of what you are describing above.

 

[Job 33:6]

It doesn't really matter what wikipedia says, I just gave you the science. Shrugs*

Contrary to laymen opinion, most phyla of the fossil record don't actually appear in the cambrian explosion. Now 20 years ago, it may have appeared to be the case. But we have to keep up with the times here. 20 years ago your suggestion might pass, but you have to keep up with us if you want to critique our work.

In fact, the Cambrian explosion is really becoming harder and harder to define as far as exactly what 5-10 million years range it occurred within. As more and more fossils are being uncovered, the range has really expanded to something more like a 30-40 million year long explosion.

But it won't be for another 20 years before cdesignproponentists pick up on this one.

@Guy Threepwood

 

[pitabread]

right, a signal produced artificially is probably for a purpose, is hence specified information

The purpose is irrelevant. We don't need to even assume a purpose to infer whether something may have an artificial source.

 

[Speedwell]

? instructions on how to build biological forms...

Instructions? No. That's a (rather poor) analogy at best. "Pattern" is closer to it. It's basically just a chemical reaction.

 

[coffee4u]

This is what I find so contradictory about creationist views. On the one hand, I see creationists lauding the amazing designs of life as we know it (design flaws and all).

On the other hand, you're claiming that life as we know it wasn't life as we know it.

Creation seems to be whatever creationists want it to be depending on the argument they are trying to make. Which, ironically, seems to always fall back to apologizing for why life appears evolved.

Life is still amazing with many beautiful things and amazing design, but this current world is nothing but a corrupted shadow of what it was. The creation model is perfection-coruption-perfection that cannot be corrupted. Saying "Creation seems to be whatever creationists want it to be" shows you have no understanding of the model at all. Not that you need to but if you are going to argue what we believe it would be helpful to actually know what that is, don't you think?

Genesis 3:17-19
cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”

Romans 8:21
That the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

God is going to remake the world back to what it was and it won't be corruptible.
Revelation 21:1-7
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more.

Isaiah 11:6

6 The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling together;
and a little child will lead them.

It won't be by flood this time but fire.
2 Peter 3:10
But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a roar, and the heavenly bodies will be burned up and dissolved, and the earth and the works that are done on it will be exposed.

 

[pitabread]

Saying "Creation seems to be whatever creationists want it to be" shows you have no understanding of the model at all. Not that you need to but if you are going to argue what we believe it would be helpful to actually know what that is, don't you think?

Yes, I know what the Bible says in that regard. There's little point in quoting that at me, because it's entirely beside my point.

The problem is the lack of objective criteria or consistency in trying to make such evaluations of what is deemed miraculous and amazing examples of creation versus things that are corrupted and degenerated.

For example, I've had my eyes described as miraculous examples of design. Yet when I point out their various design flaws (e.g. lack of perfect vision), I'm told my eyes are "corrupted".

Without a way to objectively measure any of this, such claims seem to be little more than whatever an individual wants them to be.

 

[Shemjaza]

Good and evil, as left and right- literally define each other, one has no meaning without the other does it?

& from a physical standpoint; our weaknesses are the reason, that right now we are sitting comfortably in front of a computer pondering the meaning of our existence, perhaps with a nice 'quarantinee', rather than scampering about in the woods on all fours, sneaking up on bugs with our awesome night vision!

Nah, our strengths are why we are in front of computers. Our ability to communicate, intelligence and tool use.

I'll give you left and right, but good and evil aren't so clear... and none of that actually answers the question about the necessity of imperfection.

Not sure if it is by constraint or choice? Second guessing God is pretty tough, kind of like a caveman criticizing a smart phone- 'I could make a way better arrow head than that' many features once held up as 'bad design' have proven otherwise.

Other than that it gets to the above post's 'imperfection logic', it is part of being human, and learning about how nature works, what better way to appreciate it?

That's a meaningless statement.

You are just assuming that you are right and things are well designed. Your definition can't be tested and just falls back on "it must be a good idea".

 

[Astrophile]

I'm just curious, were the laws of gravity inherently deceptive before people knew the earth was a sphere, or did people just have incomplete data to properly understand it?

At that very remote time, people did not have enough data to understand the laws of gravity. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) knew that the Earth was a sphere, but he had no conception of gravitation as a universal force associated with matter; that conception had to wait until the 17th century and for scientists like Kepler, Galileo, Hooke and Newton.

 

[Astrophile]

6 anomalous amplitudes from Pleiades (or wherever it was) are considered a 'WOW' signal for alien intelligence..

Let's nip this one in the bud before it goes viral. The 'WOW' signal, whatever it was, did not come from the Pleiades; it came from the direction of the constellation Sagittarius, more precisely from Right Ascension 19h05m to 19h09m, Declination -26°57'. Also the Pleiades is a young star cluster, only 115±40 million years old; there has probably not been time for even simple life-forms to develop on any planets orbiting the stars of the Pleiades.

 

[BNR32FAN]

At that very remote time, people did not have enough data to understand the laws of gravity. Aristotle (384-322 BCE) knew that the Earth was a sphere, but he had no conception of gravitation as a universal force associated with matter; that conception had to wait until the 17th century and for scientists like Kepler, Galileo, Hooke and Newton.

Yes and as a result people’s theories appeared to be sound until more evidence was found disproving them. As for me I’ll keep on believing what is written in the Bible. If the universe is inherently deceptive so what, it really doesn’t matter.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

as you said, all kinds of hard body parts appeared that did not exist before, this requires a lot of new information from somewhere.

Sure they may have been 'built on what came before', as a new car still reflects some design principles established by Henry Ford- though even then, many seem unrelated:

as Dawkins put it: "It is as though they [fossils] were just planted there, without any evolutionary history"

That is a popular creationist quote-mine that actually refers to the existence of a significant gap in the fossil record (subsequently partly filled) relevant to a debate about punctuated equilibrium:

"... it needs to be pointed out specifically that this is a discussion of Dawkins' disagreements with Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge over Punctuated Equilibrium and Dawkins is here discussing the fact that Gould and Eldredge would agree with him that the "sudden appearance" of animals in the Cambrian Explosion is really the result of the imperfections of the fossil record."​

"Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago. One good reason might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize."
TalkOrigins​