Vox Day's demolition of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
So, you think that an effect is greater than its potential? Hmmm, I truly find this interesting.

I state that the effect's potential can absolutely be no greater than the cause. I agree that the effect's potential is realized and transferred into kinetics via all factors within the 'open' environment surrounding it, but there is absolutely no way, in this reality, that the potential of the effect can possibly be greater than its cause. None. Simply because an effect has access to more food, shelter, clothing, etc. than its cause and thus 'appears' to have greater potential than its cause does not override scientific reality. All effects are less than the cause.

Therefore, I assume that your 'more fit' is some type of relative standard which can change depending upon the viewer. Can you 'prove' that an effect is 'more fit?' Sure, with a relative standard; however, is it true that the effect is greater than its cause....cannot be. (If it was true in this reality, a dropped ball would return higher.)

If the "cause" has an incredible amount of energy, such as energy from the sun, then the effect will be able to thrive so long as the sun burns. Beyond that, fluctuations of success are less than their cause and simply fluctuate.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
There might well be -- and maybe we could find out if you didn't keep refusing to answer basic questions. Does the creation of antibodies create new information in DNA or not? Is it meaningful information or not? (And no, the bulk of mutations are not deleterious. If they were you'd be dead.)

And I've been trying to get you to do more than make that assertion.
I thought I answered before, but to clarify - I do not believe it is new information when an antibody is created. To illustrate how I view this: If I were to take an exam over material I've been taught/learned, and I'm asked a question and give a response during the exam, have I created new information or did I respond based upon what I already knew from what I was taught/learned? The bacteria is the question on the exam that is posed to the body. The body can only answer the question (respond to the bacteria) because God has already created within our DNA the information to respond to the question (bacteria). Further, there yet remains to be seen how the same processes that create antibodies actually has been observed leading to a new body plan, like developing wings, feathers or flippers, etc... fighting against a disease is not the same as developing new appendages and losing others - though I think this tends to be viewed homogeneously.

I think what is getting called a 'mutation' needs clarification and/or distinction. For example, cancer is a cell whose DNA has 'mutated' and now has out-of-control cell division. This is bad, this is a loss of healthy/optimal function and if left unaddressed the host will likely eventually die. In the case of antibody creation, you are calling this a mutation, but when this occurs, the body does not necessarily die. Further, if I were to live closer to the equator and have generations that follow after me, those generations would progressively have darker and darker skin in time. These 3 examples (cancer / antibody / skin melanin) are all generalized as 'mutations' of DNA, but are they really all the same phenomenon?

There are theological considerations to your antibody scenario that need to be understood as well. Do you think our body having to create antibodies to deal with disease or deal with cancer are a part of God's original design or His ultimate plan for our lives? I would hope not. That said; however, evolutionists assert that mutations, which I don't believe God originally intended (at least against things that lead to cancer and disease... even too much sun exposure can lead to skin cancer) is the same process by which He in fact created/progressed life over billions of years.

Axe did one study, the only study the IDists ever point to about how hard it is for a random protein to achieve some kind of function. How often have you seen them cite the studies that show that the same function Axe studied can be detected in random proteins quite easily -- 68 orders of magnitude more frequently than Axe's study supposedly showed. In short, you're basing your conclusions about evolution on a wildly skewed understanding of the actual scientific situation. That's a problem if you're relying on the ID people as your source of information.
So now the creationist scientists AND the ID scientists AND any other scientists who also reject evolution are all wrong... I'm just keeping a list here for reference since it keeps growing and I can see myself losing track.

No, that doesn't answer the question at all. The question was, "what is your explanation for this fact?"
Why do new proteins always look like they derive from something old by mutation?
It is a fallacy to assume that similarities in two points of comparison are the result of one becoming the second and that this change just continues to accumulate/aggregate in an additive way over billions of years--this way of reasoning is a significant contributor to the evolution worldview.

What is My Explanation:
Caveat - this is largely going to derive from my worldview and is not a solely naturalistic explanation (as it robs God of the glory and honor due him when He and His word have no say regarding His creation). My explanation is that God created all life, and it was complex life, from the beginning and what we call "DNA" represents the language (yes, still made up of proteins, made up of nucleotides) upon which God created life. I believe God used a common pattern for all life... and as a geneticist, I'm sure you see many of these patterns in your work. From God's command to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth, I believe God gave the life He created (for animals/insects, on days 5 and 6 of creation) the ability for life to adapt and be suited to the environment (because the environment is not the same across the entire globe).

Given this brief backdrop, could the patterns God created explain why there are similarities in DNA among me and a chimp, me and a fish, me and a horse - yes (in fact it would seem bizarre/inefficient to have completely different languages/patterns for life all intended for the same planet). Could these patterns explain why a new protein would look like that of an older protein that has undergone some kind of mutation without having gradually stepped along over billions of years of mutation/natural selection - yes (and to clarify, I'm not saying proteins do not ever undergo a mutation, just that they do not do so to the extent that they lead to a new animal as a random happy accident... and this is not new information)<--this is the answer. I wouldn't dispute the idea that God may have created a body plan then patterned it into other similar body plans during the days of creation - scripture doesn't provide those details, but it does appear there is a pattern to created kinds.

The DNA you were born with had the ability to produce some antibodies. You now have DNA that has the ability to produce many other antibodies, tuned to the pathogens you've actually faced. Are you claiming that the DNA coding for those antibodies doesn't contain information?
I believe it contains information, but not new information, it is a response to an external bacteria.

What thread are you reading? I have never claimed that a universal common ancestor either is a fact, or is accepted as a fact.
No disagreement - you indicated life from a universal common ancestor it is strongly supported, right? To clarify, volumes of research of inferences and assumptions with no observable evidence does not qualify as 'strong support' in my opinion. I can appreciate that it is your view that universal common ancestry is not a fact, but I know better that this is not the shared consensus of everyone here on CF and especially not the shared consensus within the scientific community at large--there are many that accept it blindly as fact.

So why not focus on the issue where it matters and where we have better information -- on the common ancestry of humans and chimpanzees, rather than on the origin of body plans in the distant past? Humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan.
My only point here would be to clarify that saying humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan does not mean we are evolutionarily related from some [never found] common ancestor. Clearly there are major differences between humans and everything else, including chimps, but I do think there may be a connection between humans and the non-human beasts of the field classified as 'hominids'... outside of evolution and it may come back to patterns of created kinds. I cannot presume to know the mind of God, but when God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them" (Genesis 1:26-27), I believe He may have patterned us from what He had already created, choosing a form that could carry out His will, be something that is pleasing to Him and be able to give glory, honor and praise to him, and have the capacity for His characteristics (His "likeness" or His "image")--something no other created kind will possess.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
"My only point here would be to clarify that saying humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan does not mean we are evolutionarily related"-noblemouse

And is this to say that life forms cannot evolve within body plans either? Or are you saying that it is possible, but you just don't believe that it is the case?
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"Only the mind of an intelligent being can create new information. Natural processes can only transmit already existent information. "- @NobleMouse

Could you define "information"?
In the context I used the term information would be the same as it is viewed by the ID community. There is, of course, no simple one-sentence answer; however, the following article had a fairly good (what I suspect is an overview) explanation around what is "information":

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

In the article, you will see a distinction called CSI (Complex Specified Information). They also get into how information is determined to be complex and this is in relation to the existence of what is termed an 'excluded scenario'.

In it's context, the simplified view that I would relate to is: what is the probability that computer systems with 1's and 0's occasionally experiencing glitches and errors, while connected to the internet across the globe, would transmit these occasional glitches/errors over the internet, all to the appropriate location, in a sequenced logical response to my post with the letters, "Could you define "information?" such that it would accidentally produce meaningful words, in proper grammar, that I would recognize and be able respond? The answer is: it could not happen by natural glitches/errors (glitches/errors do not produce complex specified information... in this case, the number of alpa-numeric combinations that exist in combination with the enormous number of possible scenarios precludes getting it accidentally right), but only could derive from an intelligent mind, in this case, your mind--you would get it right in one try.
 
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
"My only point here would be to clarify that saying humans and chimpanzees have the same body plan does not mean we are evolutionarily related"-noblemouse

And is this to say that life forms cannot evolve within body plans either? Or are you saying that it is possible, but you just don't believe that it is the case?
I just happened to see this and assume it is addressed to me.

I don't believe, and being very specific to humans and chimps, that humans/chimps are an example of 'evolution' within the same body plan. I reject that idea on the basis of what God's word says - where humans were made distinctly separate (in the image/likeness of God from the dust of the ground), and the observable differences between humans and non-human hominids such as chimps. That said, I do believe it may be possible that God could have chosen the form He would use for humans, as a form God had already used in creating non-human hominids--again, going back to apparent patterns in created kinds (post #142).

In other examples I've used, such as hares, I believe it is certainly possible for the variety of hares to have all arrived from a common "hare" body plan... or all variety of canines from a common "canine" body plan. In the case of humans specifically, we will always be unique/different because of what is known to be true from Genesis 1:26-27.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In the context I used the term information would be the same as it is viewed by the ID community. There is, of course, no simple one-sentence answer; however, the following article had a fairly good (what I suspect is an overview) explanation around what is "information":

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory

In the article, you will see a distinction called CSI (Complex Specified Information). They also get into how information is determined to be complex and this is in relation to the existence of what is termed an 'excluded scenario'.

In it's context, the simplified view that I would relate to is: what is the probability that computer systems with 1's and 0's occasionally experiencing glitches and errors, while connected to the internet across the globe, would transmit these occasional glitches/errors over the internet, all to the appropriate location, in a sequenced logical response to my post with the letters, "Could you define "information?" such that it would accidentally produce meaningful words, in proper grammar, that I would recognize and be able respond? The answer is: it could not happen by natural glitches/errors (glitches/errors do not produce complex specified information... in this case, the number of alpa-numeric combinations that exist in combination with the enormous number of possible scenarios precludes getting it accidentally right), but only could derive from an intelligent mind, in this case, your mind--you would get it right in one try.

This sounds like meaningless jargon. Where is the substance? What is information?

Are you saying that information is a question of probability?
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I just happened to see this and assume it is addressed to me.

I don't believe, and being very specific to humans and chimps, that humans/chimps are an example of 'evolution' within the same body plan. I reject that idea on the basis of what God's word says - where humans were made distinctly separate (in the image/likeness of God from the dust of the ground), and the observable differences between humans and non-human hominids such as chimps. That said, I do believe it may be possible that God could have chosen the form He would use for humans, as a form God had already used in creating non-human hominids--again, going back to apparent patterns in created kinds (post #142).

In other examples I've used, such as hares, I believe it is certainly possible for the variety of hares to have all arrived from a common "hare" body plan... or all variety of canines from a common "canine" body plan. In the case of humans specifically, we will always be unique/different because of what is known to be true from Genesis 1:26-27.

So when it comes to evolution, it sounds like animals being of the same body type, really is irrelevant. Because even if a human and chimpanzee have the same body type, you still think it's impossible for them to have shared a common ancestor.

In this case, even evolution within a single body type, is impossible.

But it isn't impossible for other beings to evolve within a body type, such as rabbits.

This difference in what is and is not possible regarding evolution and to what extent it can or cannot ccur, isn't based on any particular concept observed in physical reality, rather it is based on an interpretation of scripture.

And in this case, regarding your denial of human and chimpanzee evolution within a single body plan from a common ancestor, there isn't anything physically impossible about it, because you recognize that evolution within a single body plan can occur (such as in rabbits or dogs).

Rather your outright denial comes from your interpretation of scripture.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
The Bible still exists today and so does the God that gave it to us.

It does, and the issue is, it's hard to get a majority of Christians backing any particular interpretation of so much of it. Agreement is pretty much the Nicene creed, and even there, there are some differences.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
In genetics, how would someone identify an increase or decrease in information?

In population genetics, it's Shannon information. So the negative sum of (frequencies of each allele times log of the frequency of that allele).
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
In population genetics, it's Shannon information. So the negative sum of (frequencies of each allele times log of the frequency of that allele).

Is this as stated by a young earth creationist of the ID group?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Is this as stated by a young earth creationist of the ID group?

No. Actually, that's how population geneticists measure it. Pretty much the way any other information is measured. Claude Shannon's work on information made the internet possible, and allows low-powered radios to communicate reliably over billions of kilometers of space.

And it can find the information of a particular gene locus in a population of living things.

Because a gene locus with more alleles in a population has more information than one with fewer alleles, it's obvious that "information" is not a requirement for evolution. In fact, since most speciation occurs in smaller, isolated populations, there's generally less information in such populations.

I think because "information" sounds trendy and sort-of-sciencey, creationists often cite it, without understand anything about it.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,216
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟292,947.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
No. Actually, that's how population geneticists measure it. Pretty much the way any other information is measured. Claude Shannon's work on information made the internet possible, and allows low-powered radios to communicate reliably over billions of kilometers of space.

And it can find the information of a particular gene locus in a population of living things.

Because a gene locus with more alleles in a population has more information than one with fewer alleles, it's obvious that "information" is not a requirement for evolution. In fact, since most speciation occurs in smaller, isolated populations, there's generally less information in such populations.

I think because "information" sounds trendy and sort-of-sciencey, creationists often cite it, without understand anything about it.

I think we have to let the IDers define information themselves, else they will just deny anything else.
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
I think we have to let the IDers define information themselves, else they will just deny anything else.

Never going to happen. They just go back to "you know, information, Everyone knows what that is."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,916
11,303
76
✟363,228.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Claude Shannon was a biologist...:scratch:
IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2006; 25(1): 30–33
Claude Shannon: Biologist
The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
Claude Shannon founded information theory in the 1940s. The theory has long been known to be closely related to thermodynamics and physics through the similarity of Shannon's uncertainty measure to the entropy function. Recent work using information theory to understand molecular biology has unearthed a curious fact: Shannon's channel capacity theorem only applies to living organisms and their products, such as communications channels and molecular machines that make choices from several possibilities. Information theory is therefore a theory about biology, and Shannon was a biologist.
Claude Shannon: Biologist: The Founder of Information Theory Used Biology to Formulate the Channel Capacity
 
  • Like
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

NobleMouse

We have nothing, if not belief in the Lord
Sep 19, 2017
662
230
47
Mid West
✟47,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This sounds like meaningless jargon. Where is the substance? What is information?

Are you saying that information is a question of probability?
Wow. Well I guess you summed up those nonsense ID scientists that everything they've been researching is based on meaningless jargon. Hey if you don't want to agree with their research and every other scientist that rejects evolution you are free to do so and for any reason you want. Ha ha...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RC Tent

Active Member
Jan 28, 2019
218
20
53
South
✟13,000.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It does, and the issue is, it's hard to get a majority of Christians backing any particular interpretation of so much of it. Agreement is pretty much the Nicene creed, and even there, there are some differences.

That does not mean that it is "subjective" - just that when we do not know everything about a thing, we end up with various possibilities. The same applies to science, where a thing is unknown we have various possibilities. Objectivity versus subjectivity is not the difference.
 
Upvote 0