Why I do not accept evolution part one

[Ophiolite]

If the universe is inherently deceptive so what, it really doesn’t matter.

I would have thought there was some relevance in the fact that God had created something that was inherently deceptive. You don't find that even a little troubling?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would have thought there was some relevance in the fact that God had created something that was inherently deceptive. You don't find that even a little troubling?

Well, GWIMW (God Works In Mysterious Ways). The catch-all that explains everything

 

[pitabread]

If the universe is inherently deceptive so what, it really doesn’t matter.

It makes creationism indistinguishable from Last Thursdayism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

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

you don't believe that information in DNA specifies any biological form? try altering it- this has been known for decades- there is also epigenetics of course, but DNA without doubt specifies biological features

fdhfdgdfljsfhicnioeucjaiusfhpsiuhvoi
^Shannon information

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
^ specified/ functional/ determining information- whatever word you prefer or source you don't trust, it's a pretty cut and dry distinction

For convenience I'd just call it 'information' as we all understand it- but then some will then point to Shannon 'information' so I only make the distinction to try to save back and forth (no such luck!)

static on an old TV versus the TV show when it is tuned to a transmission of 'information'
that's not a confusing principle is it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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​

exactly, no argument here. And no surprise that creationists would refer to it- since that's what they and other skeptics predicted all along.

Of course I could quote a 'creationist' for the same observation (and then have the source attacked), so Dawkins being a staunch Darwinist- just highlights the bi-partisan agreement here does it not?

 

[Speedwell]

static on an old TV versus the TV show when it is tuned to a transmission of 'information'
that's not a confusing principle is it?

No, but you're trying to make it one. It's a standard ID rhetorical ploy.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

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

our relative strengths. Fast, strong, physically dominant species have little need for tool use-
gathering in shelter around fires at night and developing tools and language etc, was a direct result of being at a physical disadvantage in the dark

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.

think of it this way, if you could force somebody to be 'good' by implanting a chip- are they really 'good' if they have no ability to be 'bad'? Without that choice, the distinction has no meaning.

One neurologist put it in an interesting way- that 'bad temptations' seem to appear automatically in brain activity, before being actively suppressed by more conscious thought.
i.e. we don't so much have 'free will' as 'free won't'

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".

God created a world with no challenges, no fear, hate, grief, pain, and that world still exists today- for Jellyfish, and hence no joy, love, growth, meaning either- would you trade? me neither

 

[pitabread]

you don't believe that information in DNA specifies any biological form? try altering it- this has been known for decades- there is also epigenetics of course, but DNA without doubt specifies biological features

fdhfdgdfljsfhicnioeucjaiusfhpsiuhvoi
^Shannon information

The quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog
^ specified/ functional/ determining information- whatever word you prefer or source you don't trust, it's a pretty cut and dry distinction

For convenience I'd just call it 'information' as we all understand it- but then some will then point to Shannon 'information' so I only make the distinction to try to save back and forth (no such luck!)

static on an old TV versus the TV show when it is tuned to a transmission of 'information'
that's not a confusing principle is it?

You're equivocating with terms like "specify" and "information". This is exactly the same problem with Meyer's writings on the subject.

(It's also where arguments-via-analogy break down. DNA is not a written language and written languages are not DNA.)

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You're equivocating over terms like "specify" and "information".

This is exactly the same problem in Meyer's writings on the subject.

Unfortunately a lot of these debates devolve into semantics. But we both understand the substance of the point.

radio static does not communicate/ get across/ tell you/ inform you of/ anything beyond being radio static

pick whatever term you personally prefer- 'specified' is just for convenience to save space- and avoid confusion with 'shannon' or 'unspecified' information- not really mind stretcher!

a tuned in radio show does, of course specify something beyond merely radio waves- we both understand the substance here perfectly well

And this is what we see in DNA, not random static, but information which is used to inform our bodies how to grow-
This is hardly a controversial observation is it?

 

[Speedwell]

Unfortunately a lot of these debates devolve into semantics. But we both understand the substance of the point.

radio static does not communicate/ get across/ tell you/ inform you of/ anything beyond being radio static

pick whatever term you personally prefer- 'specified' is just for convenience to save space- and avoid confusion with 'shannon' or 'unspecified' information- not really mind stretcher!

a tuned in radio show does, of course specify something beyond merely radio waves- we both understand the substance here perfectly well

And this is what we see in DNA, not random static, but information which is used to inform our bodies how to grow-
This is hardly a controversial observation is it?

But it's not an encoded message. Cute idea though, trying to convince people that Shannon information is "random static."

 

[BNR32FAN]

I would have thought there was some relevance in the fact that God had created something that was inherently deceptive. You don't find that even a little troubling?

The Mosaic law was inherently deceptive. Perhaps the Mosaic law was not the only stumbling block God placed in the way.

 

[Speedwell]

The Mosaic law was inherently deceptive.

How?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Unfortunately a lot of these debates devolve into semantics. But we both understand the substance of the point.

radio static does not communicate/ get across/ tell you/ inform you of/ anything beyond being radio static

pick whatever term you personally prefer- 'specified' is just for convenience to save space- and avoid confusion with 'shannon' or 'unspecified' information- not really mind stretcher!

a tuned in radio show does, of course specify something beyond merely radio waves- we both understand the substance here perfectly well

And this is what we see in DNA, not random static, but information which is used to inform our bodies how to grow-
This is hardly a controversial observation is it?

And this is only one of literally hundreds of aspects that are necessary for life to exist on this planet that all came together in such perfect harmony despite the astronomically overwhelming odds against each one of them happening by mere chance. Every time another aspect comes into play it compounds the odds against it happening and this happened hundreds of times. The positioning of the planets, the atmosphere, the correct elements, the ecosystem, the ability for these new life forms to survive, thrive, and reproduce and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of what all is necessary for life to exist on earth. It’s not proof it’s just extremely strong evidence.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And this is only one of literally hundreds of aspects that are necessary for life to exist on this planet that all came together in such perfect harmony despite the astronomically overwhelming odds against each one of them happening by mere chance. Every time another aspect comes into play it compounds the odds against it happening and this happened hundreds of times. The positioning of the planets, the atmosphere, the correct elements, the ecosystem, the ability for these new life forms to survive, thrive, and reproduce and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of what all is necessary for life to exist on earth. It’s not proof it’s just extremely strong evidence.

True, & this has all accelerated enormously in the last couple of decades, the compounded odds have gone hyper-exponential. it is what essentially made me and many others become skeptical of atheism. I truly believe it's just a matter of looking deeply enough with an open heart- which is easier said than done if, like me, you spent years dismissing an intelligent creator as inherently 'supernatural' and hence 'inadmissible' in science

 

[BNR32FAN]

True, & this has all accelerated enormously in the last couple of decades, the compounded odds have gone hyper-exponential. it is what essentially made me and many others become skeptical of atheism. I truly believe it's just a matter of looking deeply enough with an open heart- which is easier said than done if, like me, you spent years dismissing an intelligent creator as inherently 'supernatural' and hence 'inadmissible' in science

I haven’t decided if it’s science or supernatural. I think both possibilities are plausible so I don’t rule out either one.

 

[Speedwell]

True, & this has all accelerated enormously in the last couple of decades, the compounded odds have gone hyper-exponential. it is what essentially made me and many others become skeptical of atheism. I truly believe it's just a matter of looking deeply enough with an open heart- which is easier said than done if, like me, you spent years dismissing an intelligent creator as inherently 'supernatural' and hence 'inadmissible' in science

Still following the ID playbook, I see--equating rejection of ID with atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I haven’t decided if it’s science or supernatural. I think both possibilities are plausible so I don’t rule out either one.

Right, 'science' or 'not science' gets quickly mired in semantics also- arguably if we are looking for an explanation for nature itself 'super-natural' is a box we want to be able to check!

A more definitive question might be: is it true or not true?

 

[Speedwell]

Right, 'science' or 'not science' gets quickly mired in semantics also- arguably if we are looking for an explanation for nature itself 'super-natural' is a box we want to be able to check!

A more definitive question might be: is it true or not true?

Given the kind of argumentation you have been engaging in I wouldn't have thought that mattered to you.

 

[Job 33:6]

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

@Guy Threepwood

I went ahead and grabbed some more details on the Cambrian explosion for you.

Prior to the Cambrian explosion, a popular group of fossils have been gaining traction, known as small shellies or small Shelly fossils.

Small shelly fauna - Wikipedia

And among these micro fossils, are micro shelled molluscs, sponges (spicules), worm-like invertebrates, corals, anabarites, there is. Cloudina and sinotubulites, other archaeocyathans and brachiopods, etc.

All of these, collectively predating the Cambrian explosion, suggest quite the opposite of an instantaneous appearance of fauna, but I'll continue.

It is also known that things like trilobite trackways, rusophycus, diplichnites etc. Actually first appear in the nemakitdaldynian, some 10 million years prior to the appearance of trilobite shelled fossils of the Cambrian explosion. Suggesting that these life forms additionally predated the Cambrian explosion, but rather simply aren't observed within it in-part because many life forms hadn't evolved hard shells.

Now, darwin of course wouldn't have known all this, as microscopic fossils are difficult to find. But over time they have been discovered across the world none the less. Imagine what darwin would have thought of he was aware that trilobite trackways predated the Cambrian explosion by 10 million years, or that worms, sinotubulites and cloudina predate the explosion by 20 million, or that Brachiopods, archaeocyathans, anabarites, corals and sponges exists before the explosion as well?

The explosion, when considering the above, in reality spans at least 30 million years or more depending on what fossils we want to include.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And this is only one of literally hundreds of aspects that are necessary for life to exist on this planet that all came together in such perfect harmony despite the astronomically overwhelming odds against each one of them happening by mere chance. Every time another aspect comes into play it compounds the odds against it happening and this happened hundreds of times. The positioning of the planets, the atmosphere, the correct elements, the ecosystem, the ability for these new life forms to survive, thrive, and reproduce and this doesn’t even scratch the surface of what all is necessary for life to exist on earth. It’s not proof it’s just extremely strong evidence.

There are soooooo many things wrong with this it's hard to pick a starting point, and seems pointless to make detailed responses. But here are a few quick hits:

Life formed and thrived on the one planet in the system with liquid water and not the colder or hotter ones. Color me surprised! (Not!)

The oxygen-rich atmosphere is a *product* of life, not a prerequisite. Thank your local chloroplast owners.

Wow, life formed using the elements most common in the Universe that can condense into a planet (O,C, etc.). Shocking!

Yes, ecosystems are cool, but they change a lot when organisms change. New organisms take advantage of the byproducts of others (for example us oxygen breathers arose *after* blue-green algae spit out enormous amounts of oxygen as waste products).