For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Well yes, you might invalidate the belief that Roman architecture was designed.. but only if you followed the same rationale as ToE.

i.e. since we can directly observe Roman architecture changing over time through destructive natural forces, we can extrapolate this over thousands of years, to conclude that Pompeii was probably originally constructed by volcanoes, earthquakes and erosion.

No, not the same thing at all.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, not the same thing at all.

If we're talking about reconstructing history by extrapolating small scale present day observed destructive natural mechanisms- into hypothetical comprehensive creative explanations- you tell me, is that referring to natural history or ancient architecture?

 

[coffee4u]

so according to that logic- variations of dogs (speciations)+time = non dog. but its more logical to conclude that variations of dogs+time= a variation of dog.

Who asked you?

No one has to ask him, he has as much right to post his opinion here as anyone else.

"For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is..."

The machinations of deluded people.

And I have just as much right to post my opinion here too.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If we're talking about reconstructing history by extrapolating small scale present day observed destructive natural mechanisms- into hypothetical comprehensive creative explanations- you tell me, is that referring to natural history or ancient architecture?

Well, since no-one is actually doing that, then it's neither.

If we're talking about biological evolution based on the actual evidence, then it's natural history.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Well, since no-one is actually doing that, then it's neither.

Both theories face the same problem.

Like weathering, random mutations are overwhelmingly destructive as observed, birds lose flight, fish lose sight, pigment is lost in fur etc. And in the right environment, this might well be an advantage.
Just as an ancient wall falling down, might help by giving you more sunlight when defense is no longer needed. But you see the problem re. macroevolution; you cannot turn a bacteria into a human by simply breaking stuff.

i.e. microevolution as observed and macroevolution as necessitated by the ToE, are actually two entirely opposing processes.

destructive v creative.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Both theories face the same problem.

Like weathering, random mutations are overwhelmingly destructive as observed, birds lose flight, fish lose sight, pigment is lost in fur etc. And in the right environment, this might well be an advantage.
Just as an ancient wall falling down, might help by giving you more sunlight when defense is no longer needed. But you see the problem re. macroevolution; you cannot turn a bacteria into a human by simply breaking stuff.

i.e. microevolution as observed and macroevolution as necessitated by the ToE, are actually two entirely opposing processes.

destructive v creative.

Except that it's not destruction when it benefits an animal. A mutation is harmful when it does damage the animal, but if a mutation benefits the animal, allowing the species to reproduce, then it's not destruction.

But still: ancient architecture is not comparable to evolutionary biology, no matter how you try and twist it.

Seriously: macroevolution is just microevolution stacked up on top of microevolution stacked up on top of microevolution and so on.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that it's not destruction when it benefits an animal. A mutation is harmful when it does damage the animal, but if a mutation benefits the animal, allowing the species to reproduce, then it's not destruction.

as above, by that rationale- if an unnecessary wall falls down in an earthquake, it is not 'destruction' if you prefer the better view it gives you...

That's a semantic debate, but the substantive problem remains- you cannot explain the creation of the wall by the same destructive mechanism.

Seriously: macroevolution is just microevolution stacked up on top of microevolution stacked up on top of microevolution and so on.

And you have precisely the same quandary in biology- of course there are destructive mutations that can benefit an organism in a certain environment. But no matter how you twist it, you cannot present the destruction of a function as a mechanism for the creation of that same function.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

as above, by that rationale- if an unnecessary wall falls down in an earthquake, it is not 'destruction' if you prefer the better view it gives you...

That's a semantic debate, but the substantive problem remains- you cannot explain the creation of the wall by the same destructive mechanism.

And you have precisely the same quandary in biology- of course there are destructive mutations that can benefit an organism in a certain environment. But no matter how you twist it, you cannot present the destruction of a function as a mechanism for the creation of that same function.

The only person arguing needless semantics here is you. Architecture is not the same as evolutionary biology. Want to argue they're the same, you need to show that biological life was designed, which is something that can easily be done with historical architecture.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The only person arguing needless semantics here is you. Architecture is not the same as evolutionary biology. Want to argue they're the same,

The problem of explaining creation through destruction is the same regardless.

Sticking strictly to biology though, biological form is determined by DNA, a hierarchical digital information system- that's not an analogy but a literal description.

And again, of course destroying digital information can be a benefit in certain circumstances, but this process does nothing to explain the creation of that same information.

in microevolution we can only verify destructive forces at work, they cannot be extrapolated into creative forces.

you need to show that biological life was designed, which is something that can easily be done with historical architecture.

That's the whole point of the analogy. Of course we know that architecture was designed, and yet we can make precisely the same statements of observed 'microevolution' at work:

small and large random mutation events that clearly change the subject's form, and in some situations, do provide benefit.

So we can conclude, that these observations in themselves do not denote a creative mechanism- we need something more to establish that.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The problem of explaining creation through destruction is the same regardless.

Sticking strictly to biology though, biological form is determined by DNA, a hierarchical digital information system- that's not an analogy but a literal description.

And again, of course destroying digital information can be a benefit in certain circumstances, but this process does nothing to explain the creation of that same information.

in microevolution we can only verify destructive forces at work, they cannot be extrapolated into creative forces.



That's the whole point of the analogy. Of course we know that architecture was designed, and yet we can make precisely the same statements of observed 'microevolution' at work:

small and large random mutation events that clearly change the subject's form, and in some situations, do provide benefit.

So we can conclude, that these observations in themselves do not denote a creative mechanism- we need something more to establish that.

So you can't show that biological life was designed, am I reading that right?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you can't show that biological life was designed, am I reading that right?

I am only addressing the topic of micro v macroevolution, in saying that direct observation of change through chaotic entropy, in itself, cannot be extrapolated into a comprehensive creative process.

There are alternatives to both design and Darwinism, natural engineering/ a form of epigenetic Lamarckism even. My money would be on design, but I don't think there is any single 'slam dunk' argument.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am only addressing the topic of micro v macroevolution, in saying that direct observation of change through chaotic entropy, in itself, cannot be extrapolated into a comprehensive creative process.

There are alternatives to both design and Darwinism, natural engineering/ a form of epigenetic Lamarckism even. My money would be on design, but I don't think there is any single 'slam dunk' argument.

Except that macroevolution can be observed. It has been observed in the fossil record, and has been observed in the DNA of extant animal lifeforms.

If you want to argue for design, you need to show design, which for biological organisms is incredibly hard to do.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that macroevolution can be observed. It has been observed in the fossil record, and has been observed in the DNA of extant animal lifeforms.

The fossil record shows only that change occurred, but not how it occurred- We certainly see further clear examples of destructive processes, cataclysmic events that destroyed life. We all understand and agree on how you turn a dinosaur into a muddy puddle- the opposite process is not so clearly demonstrated.

If you want to argue for design, you need to show design, which for biological organisms is incredibly hard to do.

I think that was a far stronger argument in Darwin's day- when biology was still rather 'magical' the cell was an indistinct blob of 'protoplasm' which just seemed to naturally replicate itself by some mysterious (& presumably simple) process.

But biology is no longer entirely mysterious, it is observably physics & chemistry organized by a hierarchical digital information system we call DNA. This absolutely does allow us to apply our scientific knowledge regarding what such systems can achieve through random corruption, and what they simply cannot.

i.e. it's not that we have no idea how such systems can be created, we just don't know how they could be created by naturalistic mechanisms

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The fossil record shows only that change occurred, but not how it occurred- We certainly see further clear examples of destructive processes, cataclysmic events that destroyed life. We all understand and agree on how you turn a dinosaur into a muddy puddle- the opposite process is not so clearly demonstrated.

Seeing you refer to the original state of the Earth as a 'muddy puddle' does not fill me with confidence that you are arguing from a place of sincerity.

I think that was a far stronger argument in Darwin's day- when biology was still rather 'magical' the cell was an indistinct blob of 'protoplasm' which just seemed to naturally replicate itself by some mysterious (& presumably simple) process.

But biology is no longer entirely mysterious, it is observably physics & chemistry organized by a hierarchical digital information system we call DNA. This absolutely does allow us to apply our scientific knowledge regarding what such systems can achieve through random corruption, and what they simply cannot.

i.e. it's not that we have no idea how such systems can be created, we just don't know how they could be created by naturalistic mechanisms

"Don't know how it could be created by naturalistic mechanism"? There's been reams of hypothesis and papers written on the subject. There's also the Miller-Uray experiment too.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Seeing you refer to the original state of the Earth as a 'muddy puddle' does not fill me with confidence that you are arguing from a place of sincerity.

"Don't know how it could be created by naturalistic mechanism"? There's been reams of hypothesis and papers written on the subject. There's also the Miller-Uray experiment too.

That would be a case in point, we can recreate some relatively small crude steps with the benefit of anticipation and generous application of intelligent design from the likes of Miller & Uray, but in doing so we increasingly discover ever more hurdles facing blind natural processes in achieving the same.

Like everything else, it boils down to an information problem.

The more information 'informs' the future, the more it denotes that capacity for anticipation used by Miller and Uray- the ability to act according to anticipated future events rather than merely re-acting to past ones, a phenomenon unique to a creative mind- with the power to achieve what the laws of nature never could.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That would be a case in point, we can recreate some relatively small crude steps with the benefit of anticipation and generous application of intelligent design from the likes of Miller & Uray, but in doing so we increasingly discover ever more hurdles facing blind natural processes in achieving the same.

Like everything else, it boils down to an information problem.

The more information 'informs' the future, the more it denotes that capacity for anticipation used by Miller and Uray- the ability to act according to anticipated future events rather than merely re-acting to past ones, a phenomenon unique to a creative mind- with the power to achieve what the laws of nature never could.

Except that it's impossible to say, as I have been saying, that the world and everything in it was designed because it's virtually impossible to show design in biological nature.
It's one thing to say 'design!' and another thing to show it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that it's impossible to say, as I have been saying, that the world and everything in it was designed because it's virtually impossible to show design in biological nature.
It's one thing to say 'design!' and another thing to show it.

And likewise for naturalism..

But I don't think we are at a complete loss for an objective scientific measure.

Archeologists, anthropologists, forensic scientists routinely identify the fingerprints of intelligence without any appeal to the 'supernatural'. Because as above, creative intelligence leaves unique objective fingerprints by it's actions, results which natural mechanisms are not known to be capable of producing.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And likewise for naturalism..

But I don't think we are at a complete loss for an objective scientific measure.

Archeologists, anthropologists, forensic scientists routinely identify the fingerprints of intelligence without any appeal to the 'supernatural'. Because as above, creative intelligence leaves unique objective fingerprints by it's actions, results which natural mechanisms are not known to be capable of producing.

Except that there's significantly more evidence for a natural cause for everything than there is evidence for intelligent design.

And what is one such 'unique objective fingerprint', pray tell?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Except that there's significantly more evidence for a natural cause for everything than there is evidence for intelligent design.

as you say there is a difference between declaring something and demonstrating it

And what is one such 'unique objective fingerprint', pray tell?

The same thing that applies to all the above examples and what we are creating right now, information.

If we see writing in the sand, we can explain the medium of sand itself perfectly well by naturalistic processes- and we can observe the slow 'microevolution' degradation of the information by naturalistic processes also.

What we cannot explain by nature is the origination of the information itself.

i.e. information transcends the medium in which it is stored, be it marks in sand, ink on paper, nucleotides in DNA or electrical impulses in a computer chip.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

as you say there is a difference between declaring something and demonstrating it

The same thing that applies to all the above examples and what we are creating right now, information.

If we see writing in the sand, we can explain the medium of sand itself perfectly well by naturalistic processes- and we can observe the slow 'microevolution' degradation of the information by naturalistic processes also.

What we cannot explain by nature is the origination of the information itself.

i.e. information transcends the medium in which it is stored, be it marks in sand, ink on paper, nucleotides in DNA or electrical impulses in a computer chip.

To both of these, as you so correctly and ironically say: there is a difference between saying something is intelligently designed and showing that it is intelligently designed.

Your choice of information is just such an example. It's one thing to say that DNA is intelligently designed information, but it's a whole other thing to show that it is intelligently designed information.