Evolution Is Religion, Not Science

Originally posted by Morat
 Was that sarcasm? All four are applications of evolution. Antiobiotic resistance is an excellent example of mutation and selection (a mutuation confers resistance, and selection rapidly spreads it). Breeding is artificial selection. I'm not sure about the link with hybrids, other than genetics. And, of course, mutating viruses and bacteria are the same as antibiotic resistance.

 

Click to expand...

What causes mutations?

Well Occam's Razor would imply it simply doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

What I asked for is any real, hypothetical, or imagined changes in an organism that can would serve as evidence for increase in genetic information.

You're saying that it's not possible for ANY change to increase genetic information? You do realize how foolish this argument is?

Originally posted by bluetrinity
What causes mutations?

Click to expand...

Errors in DNA replication.

Originally posted by Pete Harcoff
Errors in DNA replication.

Click to expand...

Why are there errors in DNA replication? What causes them?

Originally posted by bluetrinity
Why are there errors in DNA replication? What causes them?

Click to expand...

The instability of certain components of the DNA.


Edit: there are more causes for mutations than replication errors. Chemical mutagens and radiation can damage DNY as well.
  

 

Originally posted by bluetrinity
How does evolution explain any of these? It doesn't.

Click to expand...

Wrong,,,break open the books.

Originally posted by Morat
 Was that sarcasm? All four are applications of evolution. Antiobiotic resistance is an excellent example of mutation and selection (a mutuation confers resistance, and selection rapidly spreads it). Breeding is artificial selection. I'm not sure about the link with hybrids, other than genetics. And, of course, mutating viruses and bacteria are the same as antibiotic resistance.

 

Click to expand...

Hybrid speciation to be more exact.

Originally posted by XtremeVision
I was never arguing against you specifically (therefore I made no assumptions against you), just against the idea of how evolution, as propagated today, tries to imply life without a Intelligent Designer.  This is the whole center of popular evolutionary dogma!  I've asked several scientists, "Why don't you believe that God created everything?" and the typical response is "Because the evidence for evolution shows otherwise."

Click to expand...

1. Not all that accept the science of evolution deny a creator.  Why can't some Christians accept the fact that science and theology are two TOTALLY different topics.

2.  Your poll...what was your sample size? what was your demographics?  Conduct a REAL scientific poll...THEN publish your results.  And your question is severly misleading.  Scientists that accept the existance of a creator would NEVER state he/she created EVERYTHING.  Would any thinking person ACTUALLY claim that the creator is responsible for ALL breeds of dogs present today? ummmm...NO.  Selective Breeding is responsible.

Originally posted by XtremeVision

Tell me (scientifically) how your understanding of evolution points to an intelligent designer, because obviously you are somehow coming to a completely different conclusion based on the exact same data and interpretation as the secular.  This is a great conflict.  If this is so viable, then why can you not convince the unbelieving scientists that God must be the first cause (implying intelligent design)?

Click to expand...

1. Science is not secular.  Hammer that into your brain.

2. Noone can show you scientific proof of a creator.  Again, you're confusing science and theology.  My personal beliefs of a creator are a matter of faith.  My knowledge of science is based upon published scientific findings which are repeatable in the laboratory.

3. The conflict is within yourself.  Study and differentiate the difference sciences...and the principles of theology.

4.  Freedom of religion/non-religion is a basic human right.  If one chooses not to believe, that is their constitutional right.  I served and fought for this notion.  I value the principles of our freedoms.

 

Originally posted by armageddonman
The instability of certain components of the DNA.


Edit: there are more causes for mutations than replication errors. Chemical mutagens and radiation can damage DNY as well.
  

 

Click to expand...

I'd also suspect that cat of yours is capable as well....

Originally posted by XtremeVision


Actually, evolutionary thinking goes like this.

 
-One observes present life.
-One then assumes that it arose in a natural way.
-One then concocts a theory (e.g., the NDT) to account for the observation, given the assumption. 

Click to expand...

Actually...you need to go back to the books.  This is not how scientists think.  You're logic could ALSO be used against you.  (Before I proceed, note that I am a Christian, before you start sticking 'labels' on me)

- One observes life

- One then assumes it was created

- A group of people get together and document their assumptions

 

If you'd bother studying basic biology (or even talk to nurserymen {tree farmers} in my area)....you'd realize how evolution is responsible for most of the fruit and vegetables you purchase in the supermarket.  AND is responsible for most of the landscaping in your yard (assuming you have a landscaped yard)

Gimme a break on the whole 'evolution' is a religion idea.  Science is not a religion.

 

Originally posted by chickenman
the creationist definition of information will change as often as it has to to avoid admitting that increases in information in the genome are possible and have happened

I'm still waiting for an explanation for why my example is either impossible or isn't an increase in information xtreme vision

Click to expand...

My references (the Creationists’ arguments) have not changed - ever.  The references I’ve posted are the same ones from my first few posts and beyond.  It’s not my fault you refuse to read them or cannot understand my posts.

Why is it so hard to understand our position concerning information increase? (Which requires a certain type (qualitative) and amount (quantitative) held to evolution’s own standards, not just a general content [volume] increase) This is really getting too redundant.

Originally posted by Morat
Progress! Now, here's a question. I work with genetic algorithms, mostly on a "for fun" basis. I have documented increases in "meaningful" information. Dawkin's Weasel Program does that, for a simple example, although the fitness function is rather narrow (a specific string).

Click to expand...

There are several references available showing the error of Dawkin’s program (let alone his general argument).

Here is an excerpt from one:

“A genetic algorithm (GA) is a computer program that supposedly simulates biological evolution.  GAs have found limited application in generating novel engineering solutions—for example, an electronic circuit that filters out a particular frequency.  GAs use mathematical constructs that parallel mutations (random changes in the variables/coefficients), natural selection (elimination of variations in a circuit, for example, that do not move toward the objective of a response to a particular frequency), and even some type of ‘recombination’ (as happens in sexual reproduction).  Because of this, some apologists for evolution claim that these programs show that biological evolution can create the information needed to proceed from less complex to more complex organisms (i.e. with more genetic information).
However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:
…
[lists many problems with GA applied to biological evolution]
…
Note that we are not saying that mutations and natural selection cannot generate information (see Spetner’s book, Not by Chance for example).  It’s just that with real world generation times, real-world sized genomes and real-world organisms which have to survive through multi-dimensional adaptive traits, there has not been enough time to generate even a tiny amount of the biological information seen in living things.”

http://www.trueorigin.org/geneticalgorithms1.asp

More available upon request.

Originally posted by Morat
  But examples of broader GA applications abound, including open-ended pseudo-life examples whose only goal is enviromental fitness.

Click to expand...

Natural selection and adaptation alone are not evolution in the sense we are arguing and, as shown above, do not accurately portray biological evolution as popularized by the secular (http://www.trueorigin.org/spetner2.asp).

Originally posted by Morat
It frankly seems indisputable, in the light of genetic algorithms, that natural selection and mutation can and do add information.

Click to expand...

There’s something to be said about quality and quantity.   I can only assume you’ve been ignoring or misunderstand my previous postings and their references.  I never intended to argue a simple increase in information CONTENT (volume).

Originally posted by Morat
Secondly, if we're not using Shannon, what definition of information are we using? And has it been as rigorously defined (and as well tested) as Shannon's?

Click to expand...

It’s called Information Theory for a reason.  Shannon’s application as defined by the ISO was never meant to be for a biological application despite the fact that they are trying to push it as so.  Besides, the whole foundation of these debates is that the standards/fundamentals between the two groups are incongruous.

 

Originally posted by Morat
Thirdly,  I am unsure exactly why a transmitter and reciever have anything to do with information, in this context.

A beam of sunlight contains the same information, whether it is trapped by an astronomer and spectrum information extracted or falls on a sleeping cat.

The information content remains the same.

Click to expand...

Well, perhaps you are trying to limit the context in a divide and conquer manner, where as I have distinctly shown that our argument for information increase is not limited to simple increases in content/volume.

Your mistake here is failure to acknowledge application of information.  If you lack a transmitter, receiver, or medium then the information is useless (it essentially does not exist).  The results of the information are dependent on these three basic elements.

 

Originally posted by Morat
Finally, if you're not using standard information theory (which it appears you are not), why is your version superior to the standard, and where has it been examined and tested? Has your definition been subject to the same level of scrutiny and use that Shannon's has?

Click to expand...

There’s more to Information Theory (and the standards) and it’s application than you try to put forth. Asking this is the same as “has Creation been examined and put to the test as much as Evolution”, which is what we are arguing in the first place.  This is circular and quite redundant.

Originally posted by Morat
New species arise all the time. It has happened in the lab, and in the wild. Unless you're postulating that God is finicking the genomes real-time, I'd say you've something of a problem.

Click to expand...

No, they do not “arise” all the time, they are discovered and many that are considered to be new species are not new species in the sense of the distinction between an ape and a human, but rather variations of existing ones (defined by their respective ecological environment and their adaptation).  For example: a mutated fruit-fly, as much as some evolutionary scientists do not want to believe, is still a fruit fly whether they give a new name or not.

Originally posted by Morat
Unless, of course, you have a different definition of species than biologists.

Click to expand...

I have no quarrels with special classification requirements. But trying to make an adapted variation parallel to an ape becoming a man is quite ridiculous.

Originally posted by Morat
Which, if you do, leads to something of a quandry. Because you are no complaining that, for a special definition of information not standard to information theory, evolution cannot create new species, for a definition of species not standard to biology.

Click to expand...

The problem is science today tries to reconcile variations and mutations as new species similar to the distinction between apes and man or a lizard and a bird.

Originally posted by Morat
I am not trying to simplify anything. I have simply asked for examples of new information, asked why you reject Shannon information and thus modern Information Theory (instead replacing it with your own version, which is not tested or accepted), and then asked if you were discussing information over a individual genome, or a population's.

There is no "simplification" of the idea, merely three questions designed to garner more information.

Click to expand...

First, yes you are simplifying it and dividing up the argument by requiring a distinct example of something we are actually NOT arguing. What it all means and the application cannot be simplified by an example, unless you are willing to accept my requirement of information increase showing how a lizard can become a bird (which is a simple request idea in words, but not in fulfilling) – but you will not accept this because you cannot reason with this, so you try to back me into a corner by throwing up a strawman by a loaded-question (but if founded upon ignorance of our position in the first place).


1) You argue natural process give information increases due to random mutations, replication, and natural selection and bring about new complex species from old simple ones, and can explain the diversity in all ecological systems.

2) We argue: No, the new information you would need does not and cannot happen (quantity and quality).  Although we do acknowledge mutations, replication and natural selection, you’ve adapted improper and exclusive reasoning of the observations, which are presupposed from the conclusions, which is a fallacy.

3) You reply: how do mutations, replication, and natural selection NOT increase information?

4) We say: This was not our argument and it implies a simplicity that is not there.  This is like asking “Is 'a' greater than 'b'?” where ‘a’ and ‘b’ themselves are being argued.

BTW, here are some quite interesting articles if anyone is interested:

http://www.trueorigin.org/camplist.asp#origin

Originally posted by Smilin
1. Not all that accept the science of evolution deny a creator. Why can't some Christians accept the fact that science and theology are two TOTALLY different topics.

2. Your poll...what was your sample size? what was your demographics? Conduct a REAL scientific poll...THEN publish your results. And your question is severly misleading. Scientists that accept the existance of a creator would NEVER state he/she created EVERYTHING. Would any thinking person ACTUALLY claim that the creator is responsible for ALL breeds of dogs present today? ummmm...NO. Selective Breeding is responsible.



1. Science is not secular. Hammer that into your brain.

2. Noone can show you scientific proof of a creator. Again, you're confusing science and theology. My personal beliefs of a creator are a matter of faith. My knowledge of science is based upon published scientific findings which are repeatable in the laboratory.

3. The conflict is within yourself. Study and differentiate the difference sciences...and the principles of theology.

4. Freedom of religion/non-religion is a basic human right. If one chooses not to believe, that is their constitutional right. I served and fought for this notion. I value the principles of our freedoms.


Actually...you need to go back to the books. This is not how scientists think. You're logic could ALSO be used against you. (Before I proceed, note that I am a Christian, before you start sticking 'labels' on me)

- One observes life

- One then assumes it was created

- A group of people get together and document their assumptions


If you'd bother studying basic biology (or even talk to nurserymen {tree farmers} in my area)....you'd realize how evolution is responsible for most of the fruit and vegetables you purchase in the supermarket. AND is responsible for most of the landscaping in your yard (assuming you have a landscaped yard)

Gimme a break on the whole 'evolution' is a religion idea. Science is not a religion.

Click to expand...

This is ridiculous. You are going in circles, please stop. Ok, I’ll go slowly:

-IF there is a Creator, then we should expect that all his creations would help us to see that. Science itself would reflect appropriately on a Creator.

-IF there is no Creator, science would reflect a independent, purely natural and random means to everything.

Again, science and the observations themselves are not argued, and not necessarily the facts, but the assumptions and interpretation used as part of some science. This means Creationists and Non-Creationists can both try to use “science”, but their conclusions will be different. Science itself is a process – a means – not a grouping of conclusions. I differentiate between the two scientific approaches by referring to the secular as those who deny God and religion and rely on pure worldly means.

-A believer, i.e. a Creationist, will make scientific observations and those observations will point to an intelligent design and imply a Creator.

-Secular people use these observations to show that we must have risen from natural processes and this universe is void of any Creator and will not see intelligent design.

I quarrel with the latter, because it DENIES my God’s rightful existence in this universe. If you are of the former, fine; move on once you realize that God and science MUST go hand-in-hand because all things related to science itself must have been created by God. So the popular evolutionary dogma has an underlying ideology it wants to reveal to the world that we do not need God because He doesn’t exist (which is against our beliefs). Therefore, if you believe in God, then it is impossible for you to believe in evolution the way it is taught because the way it is taught inevitably denies God. I suggest you find a better way to reconcile evolution and God. (read this for more info: http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp )

Because of this, the whole argument of evolution being a religion is that evolution itself relies on unempirical means, assumptions and requires “faith” in their knowledge because there are no ultimate absolutes to them. You need to differentiate between “science”, the universal process in general, and the application of “evolution” (origins science) specifically.

Are you just flat-out ignoring all these post?

Originally posted by XtremeVision
This is ridiculous. You are going in circles, please stop. Ok, I’ll go slowly:

-IF there is a Creator, then we should expect that all his creations would help us to see that. Science itself would reflect appropriately on a Creator.

-IF there is no Creator, science would reflect a independent, purely natural and random means to everything.

Again, science and the observations themselves are not argued, and not necessarily the facts, but the assumptions and interpretation used as part of some science. This means Creationists and Non-Creationists can both try to use “science”, but their conclusions will be different. Science itself is a process – a means – not a grouping of conclusions. I differentiate between the two scientific approaches by referring to the secular as those who deny God and religion and rely on pure worldly means.

-A believer, i.e. a Creationist, will make scientific observations and those observations will point to an intelligent design and imply a Creator.

-Secular people use these observations to show that we must have risen from natural processes and this universe is void of any Creator and will not see intelligent design.

I quarrel with the latter, because it DENIES my God’s rightful existence in this universe. If you are of the former, fine; move on once you realize that God and science MUST go hand-in-hand because all things related to science itself must have been created by God. So the popular evolutionary dogma has an underlying ideology it wants to reveal to the world that we do not need God because He doesn’t exist (which is against our beliefs). Therefore, if you believe in God, then it is impossible for you to believe in evolution the way it is taught because the way it is taught inevitably denies God. I suggest you find a better way to reconcile evolution and God. (read this for more info: http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp )

Because of this, the whole argument of evolution being a religion is that evolution itself relies on unempirical means, assumptions and requires “faith” in their knowledge because there are no ultimate absolutes to them. You need to differentiate between “science”, the universal process in general, and the application of “evolution” (origins science) specifically.

Are you just flat-out ignoring all these post?

Click to expand...

Since I need a sandwich...I'll make it short and speek slowly as well...

YOUUUUUU DOOOOOOO NOOOTTTTT UNNNNDERRRSTTANNNDDDD THEEEEE DIFFFERRREEENNNCESS BEEETTWWWEEEENNNNN SCIIENCE AND THEEEEEOOOOLLLLOOOOGYYYY....

 

Originally posted by XtremeVision
This is ridiculous. You are going in circles, please stop. Ok, I’ll go slowly:

-IF there is a Creator, then we should expect that all his creations would help us to see that. Science itself would reflect appropriately on a Creator.

-IF there is no Creator, science would reflect a independent, purely natural and random means to everything.

Again, science and the observations themselves are not argued, and not necessarily the facts, but the assumptions and interpretation used as part of some science. This means Creationists and Non-Creationists can both try to use “science”, but their conclusions will be different. Science itself is a process – a means – not a grouping of conclusions. I differentiate between the two scientific approaches by referring to the secular as those who deny God and religion and rely on pure worldly means.

-A believer, i.e. a Creationist, will make scientific observations and those observations will point to an intelligent design and imply a Creator.

-Secular people use these observations to show that we must have risen from natural processes and this universe is void of any Creator and will not see intelligent design.

I quarrel with the latter, because it DENIES my God’s rightful existence in this universe. If you are of the former, fine; move on once you realize that God and science MUST go hand-in-hand because all things related to science itself must have been created by God. So the popular evolutionary dogma has an underlying ideology it wants to reveal to the world that we do not need God because He doesn’t exist (which is against our beliefs). Therefore, if you believe in God, then it is impossible for you to believe in evolution the way it is taught because the way it is taught inevitably denies God. I suggest you find a better way to reconcile evolution and God. (read this for more info: http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp )

Because of this, the whole argument of evolution being a religion is that evolution itself relies on unempirical means, assumptions and requires “faith” in their knowledge because there are no ultimate absolutes to them. You need to differentiate between “science”, the universal process in general, and the application of “evolution” (origins science) specifically.

Are you just flat-out ignoring all these post?

Click to expand...

Well lets see here, hmm well a creator you mean god well you can't put god and science together, god is supernatural, science is natural/logic you. Science will never be able to accept god or any god cause a god breaks the laws of nature (physics).

Yes, science only deals with the natural. God is supernatural, so God is outside of science.

When you bring the supernatural into science, it ceases to be science.

Originally posted by seesaw
Well lets see here, hmm well a creator you mean god well you can't put god and science together, god is supernatural, science is natural/logic you. Science will never be able to accept god or any god cause a god breaks the laws of nature (physics).

Click to expand...

God is not limited by His creation (to assume this is absolutely RIDICULOUS and a fallacy in itself) and this blatantly ignores my reasoning in the last post (science should show intelligent design, implying a Creator must exist- if God created it. It DOES NOT have to show God directly, duh).


Smilin, you are so lost in this buddy. I guess you just don't understand my argument or you totally ignore it!

 

Originally posted by XtremeVision
God is not limited by His creation (to assume this is absolutely RIDICULOUS and a fallacy in itself) and this blatantly ignores my reasoning in the last post (science should show intelligent design, implying a Creator must exist- if God created it. It DOES NOT have to show God directly, duh).


Smilin, you are so lost in this buddy. I guess you just don't understand my argument or you totally ignore it!

 

Click to expand...

It's like this there is no evidence anywhere is the world only in the bible for god, and science will never accept that.

Does nature show an intelligent design in the complexity or does it show 100% natural, random processes void of intentional design?  This is the problem.  God is nowhere in this (yet), just science.


Then, if science can show the first part, we must be forced to accept a Creator (outside of science) must be responsible.  If it shows the second, then we are forced to believe a Creator does not exist OR that a Creator exists and simply does not involve Himself in the affairs of His creation in real-time (which both are obviously anti-Biblical).

 

There are several references available showing the error of Dawkin’s program (let alone his general argument).

Here is an excerpt from one:

“A genetic algorithm (GA) is a computer program that supposedly simulates biological evolution.  GAs have found limited application in generating novel engineering solutions—for example, an electronic circuit that filters out a particular frequency.  GAs use mathematical constructs that parallel mutations (random changes in the variables/coefficients), natural selection (elimination of variations in a circuit, for example, that do not move toward the objective of a response to a particular frequency), and even some type of ‘recombination’ (as happens in sexual reproduction).  Because of this, some apologists for evolution claim that these programs show that biological evolution can create the information needed to proceed from less complex to more complex organisms (i.e. with more genetic information).
However, GAs do not mimic or simulate biological evolution because with a GA:
…
[lists <B>many</B> problems with GA applied to biological evolution]

Click to expand...

&nbsp; Oh good lord. That's bad. I doubt Batten is even a computer scientist.&nbsp;That entire list of "problems" is hogwash.&nbsp;I know you're not going to want to accept that.

&nbsp; So pick one objection at a time, and we'll deal with it. I'll let you pick, so you can't claim I was choosing the easy ones. Fair enough?

&nbsp;&nbsp;
…
Note that we are not saying that mutations and natural selection cannot generate information (see Spetner’s book, Not by Chance for example).&nbsp; It’s just that with real world generation times, real-world sized genomes and real-world organisms which have to survive through multi-dimensional adaptive traits, there has not been enough time to generate even a tiny amount of the biological information seen in living things.”

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; I'd love to see that calculation. First, I'd like to see a calculation of how much information there is in any genome.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Pick one. You can't claim "We can't generate enough" if you can't tell me the information content of a living thing. I'm sure Spetner had to calculate it for something, right?

Natural selection and adaptation alone are not evolution in the sense we are arguing and, as shown above, do not accurately portray biological evolution as popularized by the secular.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; You don't know much about Genetic Algorithms, do you? Mutation, Natural selection, even drift can be modeled. And has been.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Feel free to point out what "secular evolution" has that cannot be modeled with GA's.

There’s something to be said about quality and quantity.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can only assume you’ve been ignoring or misunderstand my previous postings and their references.&nbsp; I never intended to argue a simple&nbsp;increase in information CONTENT (volume).

Click to expand...

&nbsp; I'd sue my mouth for slander, if I were you, as you stated "Show me evidence directly showing an INCREASE in <B>genetic</B> information" in your very first post on this thread.

&nbsp;&nbsp; Change your goals, much?

&nbsp; I wonder, does Spetner understand parallel processing?

It’s called Information Theory for a reason.&nbsp; Shannon’s application as defined by the ISO was never meant to be for a biological application despite the fact that they are trying to push it as so.&nbsp; Besides, the whole foundation of these debates is that the standards/fundamentals between the two groups are incongruous.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; Great. So has the definition you (and Spetner) use been subject to the same sorts of verification and testing that Shannon has?

&nbsp; To be blunt: Why is your definition (which is horribly vague) worth a hill of beans? How do I know it's not another version of the truly gawdawful version of "Thermodynamics" so popular with Creationsts a decade ago?

Your mistake here is failure to acknowledge application of information.&nbsp; If you lack a transmitter, receiver, or medium then the information is useless (it essentially does not exist).&nbsp; The results of the information are dependent on these three basic elements.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; Now you're arguing utility, a far cry from your initial request. To restate: Move your goalposts much?

&nbsp;&nbsp; So, how much information exists in a single molecule of H20?

There’s more to Information Theory (and the standards) and it’s application than you try to put forth. Asking this is the same as “has Creation been examined and put to the test as much as Evolution”, which is what we are arguing in the first place.&nbsp; This is circular and quite redundant.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; Let me be blunt: Is yours (and Spetner's) version of "Information" been subject to peer review by information theoriests, in peer-reviewed non-Creationist journals?

No, they do not “arise” all the time, they are discovered and many that are considered to be new species are not new species in the sense of the distinction between an ape and a human, but rather variations of existing ones (defined by their respective ecological environment and their adaptation).&nbsp; For example: a mutated fruit-fly, as much as some evolutionary scientists do not want to believe, is still a fruit fly whether they give a new name or not.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; So your problem is you don't know the difference between 'species' and 'genus'? Humans and apes are in the same family, but different genus.

&nbsp;&nbsp; So, is it now your argument that new information can be added in sufficient quanties to create a new genus but not family?

&nbsp;&nbsp; What stops it at family?

I have no quarrels with special classification requirements. But trying to make an adapted variation parallel to an ape becoming a man is quite ridiculous.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; Apparantly you do. You can't tell species from genus.

The problem is science today tries to reconcile variations and mutations as new species similar to the distinction between apes and man or a lizard and a bird.

Click to expand...

&nbsp;&nbsp; Why not? What stops it? (And, by the way, men are much closer to apes than lizards are to birds. However, alligators are closer to birds than turtles are to alligators.). Further, we wouldn't need to show you "lizards to birds", but only half that. After all, modern lizards are equally divurged from their common ancestor as birds are.

&nbsp;&nbsp; If sufficient information can (and you admit this) create new species, why cannot new species ultimately create new a new genus? You do realize that once speciation occurs, both lines will divurge?

&nbsp; It's telling, by the way, that you have retreated from "Show me evidence of new information" to "Show me evidence of enough new information to go from lizard to bird". Of course, you can't tell me how much information difference there is between the two.

1)&nbsp;You argue natural process give information increases due to random mutations, replication, and natural selection and bring about new complex species from old simple ones, and can explain the diversity in all ecological systems.

Click to expand...

&nbsp; New, complex? Old, simple? Boy you really do keep to the third grade view of evolution. You do realize that the "ladder of life" isn't a good analogy, right?

&nbsp; It's worth noting that you still refuse to answer the question:

&nbsp;What, to you, would be a sufficient example of an increase in information?

&nbsp;&nbsp; Until you answer it, you're free to move your goalposts everytime we talk. Which, as I might add, you've done throughout this conversation, moving from "Show me an increase in information" to "show me lizards to bird increase in information".

Originally posted by XtremeVision
Does nature show an intelligent design in the complexity or does it show 100% natural, random processes void of intentional design?&nbsp; This is the problem.&nbsp; God is nowhere in this (yet), just science.


Then, if science can show the first part, we must be forced to accept a Creator (outside of science) must be responsible.&nbsp; If it shows the second, then we are forced to believe a Creator does not exist OR that a Creator exists and simply does not involve Himself in the affairs of His creation in real-time (which both are obviously anti-Biblical).

&nbsp;

Click to expand...

LOL dude you can never have evidence of a god only faith and faith isn't evidence. You can't have scientific evidence based on faith.