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

RC Tent

Active Member
Jan 28, 2019
218
20
53
South
✟13,000.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
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...

One of my biggest reasons for doubting evolution is exactly this - "everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong" - if they could really prove it, why do they need the mantra? Why fear those who doubt?

What if to get the most accurate sense of reality we need to go with a blend from different sources? Objective, subjective, physical realm, spiritual realm, experience, theory and art and science?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: NobleMouse
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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.

The difference is, we have an agreed objective means of settling these issues in science, but not in religion. Theology is not faith.

Objectivity versus subjectivity is not the difference.

I wish that were so.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Job 33:6
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
One of my biggest reasons for doubting evolution is exactly this - "everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong"

That is the creationist argument. Science depends on evidence.

if they could really prove it,

Science doesn't work on proof. It depends on the evidence, from which we infer what is correct. And that depends on new evidence continuing support the inference. The mantra of the creationists depends not on evidence, but whatever they want to be true. Why do they need the mantra? Because neither evidence nor scripture supports their new beliefs.

Why fear those who doubt?

As noted earlier, a YE creationist can be accepted in a university, and even get tenure,if his scholarship is good. On the other hand, one can't even apply to the ICR graduate school without a loyalty oath to YE. This is a key difference between science and YE creationism.

What if to get the most accurate sense of reality we need to go with a blend from different sources?

Modern medicine, homeopathy, witch doctors, etc. Sounds like a good blend to you?

Objective, subjective, physical realm, spiritual realm, experience, theory and art and science?

So far, that approach has been an utter failure. Until someone can figure out how to make it actually produce usable results, people will depend on science to understand nature, and faith/theology to understand the spiritual.

And art will continue to investigate the two in a subjective manner.

Results matter. There is an objective truth that we can know.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
One of my biggest reasons for doubting evolution is exactly this - "everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong, everyone who disagrees is wrong" - if they could really prove it, why do they need the mantra? Why fear those who doubt?

What if to get the most accurate sense of reality we need to go with a blend from different sources? Objective, subjective, physical realm, spiritual realm, experience, theory and art and science?

If you disagree with my response, why don't you try to explain what he was talking about?

Here are his words:
"NobleMouse said:
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."

Nothing In blue actually answers the question. So the first hand full of sentences, truly are without meaning. All they do is suggest that the answer is difficult to provide.

The following words in red, also do not tell me what information is. "how information is determined to be complex" also does not tell me what information is.

And the last words in green basically just pose the question "what is the probability that a computer could generate meaningful language".

But again, even the words in green do not actually provide any sort of answer as to what information is, or how we would observe an increase or decrease in information in genetics.

How response literally did not answer my question, it was just meaningless talk.

Can you explain what information is? Is it a probability? That's what it sounds like mouse is suggesting. And how can we observe an increase or decrease of information in genetics?
 
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
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'.

The problem is that no one can show this in biological systems. And it's based on a "looks designed to me" criterion. Dembski (who invented the concept) says that dealing out an five cards from a deck is random, unless it produces something like a royal flush. Then it's CSI. The mathematical problem is that a royal flush has exactly the same probability of being dealt as any other combination. Dembski finds an arrow in a tree, draws a bulls-eye around it, and is stunned by the accuracy.

And while Dembski is unable show this in the real world, he's tried to make it work in computer simulations. Scientists, working with simulations, have shown that "complex specified information" can develop as a result of random variation and natural selection, which mirrors what we see happening in nature.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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":
No, you're not using it the same way as ID people. According to this definition, DNA coding for hundreds of new proteins would contain not merely new information, but complex, specified information (where "complex" just means "improbable" in Dembski-speak). According to you, it's the same information as DNA that codes for some other protein. You are, in fact, using "information" in a way that has no coherent meaning at all.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
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).
This seems to be a long way of not saying anything. It takes information to specify a protein -- a specific string of DNA bases. Is that true or not?
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?
Yes, they are exactly the same phenomenon: a change to DNA, made by a stochastic process.
So now the creationist scientists AND the ID scientists AND any other scientists who also reject evolution are all wrong.
Those are all the same people. ID, at least in its anti-evolution version, is just a form of creationism, and there really aren't any other scientists who reject evolution besides creationists. And of course they're wrong -- when you reject the overwhelming consensus of scientists about their field, the odds are excellent that you're going to be wrong.
Could these patterns explain why a new protein would look like that of an older protein that has undergone some kind of mutation
You're explaining the wrong thing. I want to know why a new gene looks like DNA in a closely related species that is not a gene at all.
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...
You seem to have been given a highly distorted understanding of the basic situation here. ID and evolutionary biology are not two rival scientific research programs slugging it out in the scientific arena. Evolutionary biology is the core of the science of biology. ID is a handful of well-funded fringe people trying and failing to come up with a scientific argument to support their intuition of design. What they've produced largely is meaningless jargon. There are lots and lots of Christians among biologists, and virtually none of them have any use for ID.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

The Barbarian

Crabby Old White Guy
Apr 3, 2003
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
ID is a very mixed bag, ranging from YE creationists, to people like Michael Behe, who aknowledges evolution as a fact (with a little tinkering by God) to Michael Denton, who correctly points out that ID is logically inconsistent with YE creationism.

The single uniting idea is "the designermustadunnit." I'm not sure how Denton reconciles his ideas with the Discovery Institute's self-described "governing goal" as establishing that everything was designed by God.
 
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
No, you're not using it the same way as ID people. According to this definition, DNA coding for hundreds of new proteins would contain not merely new information, but complex, specified information (where "complex" just means "improbable" in Dembski-speak). According to you, it's the same information as DNA that codes for some other protein. You are, in fact, using "information" in a way that has no coherent meaning at all.
I believe that that the ID definition of information is reasonable/applicable here. As you know, the complexity of DNA is not just getting the linear sequencing correct, but that there is a 3-dimensional component, as well as a 4th dimension of time that is involved in DNA with gene regulatory networks, which help with the timing of expression of certain genes at the appropriate times... again, all things that naturalistic causes cannot accomplish.

I can tell from both your and @KomatiiteBIF 's responses that neither of you have a real good argument backed by scientific observation in favor of naturalistic evolution and the apparent lack of creative power ascribed to naturalistic processes (nor have either of you given a synthesis for theistic evolution that overcomes the challenges faced by purely naturalistic processes, if that is a view either of you have). The reason I know this is because you don't actually respond to the work being done by ID, creation, and other scientists who reject evolution, but instead aim your responses on my ability to explain/synthesize their work (like as if it's my job to do that for you... are either/both of you without access to internet search engines such that you cannot find/learn this stuff on your own but instead require me to explain it to you?), or you attempt to minimize their work as if it is some obscure "startup" that will soon die off.

How odd that after all the years of education, all the work, after having scaled the "mountains of ignorance" that you would resort to this method of trying to uphold evolution... if it weren't true that the position in favor for evolution is an indefensible one and the ground upon which you stand is eroding beneath you. Why do you think the Royal Society called a meeting on the issues surrounding evolution back in 2016 and why at that meeting many alternatives were discussed, but none of the naturalistic alternatives were able to satisfactorily account for the issue of needing new information in order to allow for evolution? It's not because a few creationists in Kentucky and a handful of ID folks in Washington find issue - there are obviously major, widely recognized issues with the conventional view of evolution. This is true.
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.
Do you not see the same pattern with rabbits, dogs, cats, bears, apes, etc...? I do. I can see they are all animals, that they have variations within each of their created kinds, but that there is not just a visual pattern but also a behavioral pattern within each group. Why humans stand alone is not just an interpretation of scripture, but is observable. The research by Todd Wood (most notably in my mind), but others as well, shows that there are also consistent physical distinctions between humans and apes.

Like usual for you, when you're not employing ad hominem attacks, you will often invoke ad absurdum techniques like making it seem like I just "refuse" to see the same similarity between humans/chimps like with rabbits even though there are obvious and very clear distinctions beyond a simplistic "body plan equals linked by evolution" view.

Why is there this pattern where all varieties of rabbits act like... rabbits, all apes/chimps/monkeys/orangutans/... all act the same... then there are humans, who both look and behave very differently--though we all have heads with two eyes, two arms, two legs, two hands, etc.... What would be really ideal for evolution is if we found an ape walking around more upright and properly like a human, maybe building crude tools and furniture, creating fire pits and basic ways to cook/prepare food, developing a simplistic character- or image-based form of written communication... basically doing things to simulate what are distinctly human behaviors, but on a lower level where we might say, "well they're definitely quite a few notches above the typical ape... but definitely still quite a few notches below human... something that helped bridge the gap where we could say, "yeah we're probably all related and connected by evolution". Unfortunately the fossil record forbids such a find and no life forms alive today indicate such a link or fill such a gap.

Where would you like to turn to from here, do we just chalk it up to the missing artifact hypothesis? Can't say scientists aren't looking hard enough now that it's been over 150 years since Darwin's Origin of Species. Conveniently inconvenient for evolution, this is the bane for every life form in existence or once existed. With the exception of a few [often-cited] "alleged" transitional forms, the pattern (as is recognized by pretty much every paleontologist - whether proponent of evolution or not) is the lack of transitions in the fossil record. The fossil record is made up of complex life forms at the lowest levels found and is complex throughout, and there are just abrupt appearances and abrupt disappearances. You can balk all you want about the usage of the term "abrupt" but is going to fall on deaf ears as "abrupt" is not my description, but those used by creation scientists, ID scientists, paleontologists of every stripe, etc... It's not called "abrupt" to be in contrast with what you perceive to be a long period of time from your worldview of slow geological processes; it is called "abrupt" because of the apparent lack of transitional forms leading up to it's first appearance in the record - you just need to deal with it.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I believe that that the ID definition of information is reasonable/applicable here. As you know, the complexity of DNA is not just getting the linear sequencing correct, but that there is a 3-dimensional component, as well as a 4th dimension of time that is involved in DNA with gene regulatory networks, which help with the timing of expression of certain genes at the appropriate times... again, all things that naturalistic causes cannot accomplish.

I can tell from both your and @KomatiiteBIF 's responses that neither of you have a real good argument backed by scientific observation in favor of naturalistic evolution and the apparent lack of creative power ascribed to naturalistic processes (nor have either of you given a synthesis for theistic evolution that overcomes the challenges faced by purely naturalistic processes, if that is a view either of you have). The reason I know this is because you don't actually respond to the work being done by ID, creation, and other scientists who reject evolution, but instead aim your responses on my ability to explain/synthesize their work (like as if it's my job to do that for you... are either/both of you without access to internet search engines such that you cannot find/learn this stuff on your own but instead require me to explain it to you?), or you attempt to minimize their work as if it is some obscure "startup" that will soon die off.

How odd that after all the years of education, all the work, after having scaled the "mountains of ignorance" that you would resort to this method of trying to uphold evolution... if it weren't true that the position in favor for evolution is an indefensible one and the ground upon which you stand is eroding beneath you. Why do you think the Royal Society called a meeting on the issues surrounding evolution back in 2016 and why at that meeting many alternatives were discussed, but none of the naturalistic alternatives were able to satisfactorily account for the issue of needing new information in order to allow for evolution? It's not because a few creationists in Kentucky and a handful of ID folks in Washington find issue - there are obviously major, widely recognized issues with the conventional view of evolution. This is true.

Do you not see the same pattern with rabbits, dogs, cats, bears, apes, etc...? I do. I can see they are all animals, that they have variations within each of their created kinds, but that there is not just a visual pattern but also a behavioral pattern within each group. Why humans stand alone is not just an interpretation of scripture, but is observable. The research by Todd Wood (most notably in my mind), but others as well, shows that there are also consistent physical distinctions between humans and apes.

Like usual for you, when you're not employing ad hominem attacks, you will often invoke ad absurdum techniques like making it seem like I just "refuse" to see the same similarity between humans/chimps like with rabbits even though there are obvious and very clear distinctions beyond a simplistic "body plan equals linked by evolution" view.

Why is there this pattern where all varieties of rabbits act like... rabbits, all apes/chimps/monkeys/orangutans/... all act the same... then there are humans, who both look and behave very differently--though we all have heads with two eyes, two arms, two legs, two hands, etc.... What would be really ideal for evolution is if we found an ape walking around more upright and properly like a human, maybe building crude tools and furniture, creating fire pits and basic ways to cook/prepare food, developing a simplistic character- or image-based form of written communication... basically doing things to simulate what are distinctly human behaviors, but on a lower level where we might say, "well they're definitely quite a few notches above the typical ape... but definitely still quite a few notches below human... something that helped bridge the gap where we could say, "yeah we're probably all related and connected by evolution". Unfortunately the fossil record forbids such a find and no life forms alive today indicate such a link or fill such a gap.

Where would you like to turn to from here, do we just chalk it up to the missing artifact hypothesis? Can't say scientists aren't looking hard enough now that it's been over 150 years since Darwin's Origin of Species. Conveniently inconvenient for evolution, this is the bane for every life form in existence or once existed. With the exception of a few [often-cited] "alleged" transitional forms, the pattern (as is recognized by pretty much every paleontologist - whether proponent of evolution or not) is the lack of transitions in the fossil record. The fossil record is made up of complex life forms at the lowest levels found and is complex throughout, and there are just abrupt appearances and abrupt disappearances. You can balk all you want about the usage of the term "abrupt" but is going to fall on deaf ears as "abrupt" is not my description, but those used by creation scientists, ID scientists, paleontologists of every stripe, etc... It's not called "abrupt" to be in contrast with what you perceive to be a long period of time from your worldview of slow geological processes; it is called "abrupt" because of the apparent lack of transitional forms leading up to it's first appearance in the record - you just need to deal with it.

Nothing in this post says anything about how we could observe an increase or decrease in information in genetics.

Every idea you have is based on personal incredulity without an objective or clear argument.

You had a problem with body types evolving, and now you have a problem with evolution within body types as well.

You claim that evolution cannot produce information, but you have yet to clarify on what you even mean because you're unable to point out how information increases or decreases may be observed.
 
Last edited:
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
25,918
11,305
76
✟363,350.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
It's not because a few creationists in Kentucky and a handful of ID folks in Washington find issue - there are obviously major, widely recognized issues with the conventional view of evolution. This is true.

If one compares the creationist lists, with data from Project Steve, it becomes clear that about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt evolutionary theory.

Not 3%, 0.3%. Doesn't seem much like "widely recognized", does it?
 
Upvote 0

RC Tent

Active Member
Jan 28, 2019
218
20
53
South
✟13,000.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
If one compares the creationist lists, with data from Project Steve, it becomes clear that about 0.3% of people with doctorates in biology or a related field, doubt evolutionary theory.

Not 3%, 0.3%. Doesn't seem much like "widely recognized", does it?

Citation needed.
 
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 seems to be a long way of not saying anything. It takes information to specify a protein -- a specific string of DNA bases. Is that true or not?
I do believe it takes information to specify a protein as a specific string of DNA bases. What I don't agree with is that somehow new information arose from the creation of an antibody. The information already in the DNA bases may not have been "expressed" in such a way to deal with the bacteria, but already had the information to allow for the expression to deal with it once it was came in contact.

Yes, they are exactly the same phenomenon: a change to DNA, made by a stochastic process.
No, they are not the result of random (stochastic) processes. If they were truly stochastic, the response would be so as well, and people consistently react in a similar fashion to exposure to sun with the creation of additional melanin. Are you basically saying God had no intervention? If so, this may have answered my question from another post about whether you believe in a type of theistic evolution...

Those are all the same people. ID, at least in its anti-evolution version, is just a form of creationism, and there really aren't any other scientists who reject evolution besides creationists. And of course they're wrong -- when you reject the overwhelming consensus of scientists about their field, the odds are excellent that you're going to be wrong.
No they are not all the same people. Stephen Meyer has made it quite clear that ID proponents are not the same as creationists. Stephen Meyer, himself has even gone on to say he does not believe in a young earth and believes the earth is old. Meyer has also indicated that not all the people on his team even believe in a deity. You clearly aren't watching the videos or looking at their work... and this is not a critique of your character - I understand you are busy and would expect so as a PhD geneticist... so no foul on your part, but wanted to clarify this point.

You're explaining the wrong thing. I want to know why a new gene looks like DNA in a closely related species that is not a gene at all.
Why would it look different if God created complex life to begin and if He used DNA as a common language to create life forms that did not mutate into one another by way of the process of evolution? Is God required to have completely distinct characteristics in life forms such as there is no common DNA characteristics between life forms He created to have similar physical characteristics?

You seem to have been given a highly distorted understanding of the basic situation here. ID and evolutionary biology are not two rival scientific research programs slugging it out in the scientific arena. Evolutionary biology is the core of the science of biology. ID is a handful of well-funded fringe people trying and failing to come up with a scientific argument to support their intuition of design. What they've produced largely is meaningless jargon. There are lots and lots of Christians among biologists, and virtually none of them have any use for ID.
Thank you. Given your worldview [that unfortunately cannot corroborated by actual scientific observation... and that seems to be the rules of acceptance by which science plays], having a view that God created a vast variety of already-complex life as is written in the Bible would probably seem like a distorted view of the history of life.

I may be changing my opinion on evolution as it appears you guys are evolving into some kind of ostrich-like creature keeping your heads buried in the sand.
 
Upvote 0

RC Tent

Active Member
Jan 28, 2019
218
20
53
South
✟13,000.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The difference is, we have an agreed objective means of settling these issues in science, but not in religion.

What you have in science is a standard whereby, by definition, all possibilities except for those that are entirely physical must be excluded. That is exclusively physical, it is not more objective.
 
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

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
Nothing in this post says anything about how we could observe an increase or decrease in information in genetics.

Every idea you have is based on personal incredulity without an objective or clear argument.

You had a problem with body types evolving, and now you have a problem with evolution within body types as well.

You claim that evolution cannot produce information, but you have yet to clarify on what you even mean because you're unable to point out how information increases or decreases may be observed.
Everybody else seems to understand what the ID scientists are bringing to light, not least of all those in attendance at the Royal Society meeting discussing the issues of evolution. Again, feel free to balk at this to your heart's content.
 
Upvote 0

sfs

Senior Member
Jun 30, 2003
10,679
7,745
64
Massachusetts
✟339,555.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
I do believe it takes information to specify a protein as a specific string of DNA bases. What I don't agree with is that somehow new information arose from the creation of an antibody. The information already in the DNA bases may not have been "expressed" in such a way to deal with the bacteria, but already had the information to allow for the expression to deal with it once it was came in contact.
Well, you can believe that all you want, but you're wrong. You are not born with the DNA sequence to deal with all the different bacteria you encounter. You generate new antibodies when your body randomly mutates DNA in certain of your cells and selects DNA that happens to produce proteins (i.e. antibodies) that bind to the new invader. If a DNA sequence does indeed represent information, you did not have the information needed to make all of your antibodies. It just wasn't present in your body.
No, they are not the result of random (stochastic) processes.
Again, at this point you're just making assertions that have nothing to do with reality. Which mutations are not the result of random processes?
If they were truly stochastic, the response would be so as well, and people consistently react in a similar fashion to exposure to sun with the creation of additional melanin.
Uh, what? This is so confused that it's hard to unpack. We have similar pigmentation response to the sun because we share a small number of mutations that happened a long time ago; we don't all evolve new traits on the spot.
Are you basically saying God had no intervention?
I'm basically saying that you're talking nonsense about known biology in an attempt to tear down evolution. I haven't said anything about God or interventions.
[
Why would it look different if God created complex life to begin and if He used DNA as a common language to create life forms that did not mutate into one another by way of the process of evolution?
Because then he would have created the gene out of, you know, nothing, not out of similar but nonfunctional DNA.
Thank you. Given your worldview [that unfortunately cannot corroborated by actual scientific observation... and that seems to be the rules of acceptance by which science plays], having a view that God created a vast variety of already-complex life as is written in the Bible would probably seem like a distorted view of the history of life.
I wasn't talking about your view of the history of life (which is of course also distorted), but your view of the ID movement. They are completely negligible.
 
Upvote 0

Job 33:6

Well-Known Member
Jun 15, 2017
7,243
2,786
Hartford, Connecticut
✟293,074.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Everybody else seems to understand what the ID scientists are bringing to light, not least of all those in attendance at the Royal Society meeting discussing the issues of evolution. Again, feel free to balk at this to your heart's content.

You're continuing to avoid answering.
 
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
You claim that evolution cannot produce information, but you have yet to clarify on what you even mean because you're unable to point out how information increases or decreases may be observed.
Also, my worldview doesn't require that information increase/decrease. It assumes God created all the information needed at the time of creation. Your worldview is the on that requires new information to come from somewhere because it assumes all life has a universal ancestor. That is your problem to deal with and explain, not mine. Go deal with it.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: RC Tent
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

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
You're continuing to avoid answering.
Not my responsibility. You can go looking to me for answers that only others can provide, but that is your own foolishness. When do the bears come out on the tricycles with the little hats with tassels on this clown show where NobleMouse has to answer questions where it would make more logical sense to go directly to the source to find them? I'm willing to look at the scientifically observed evidence if you or @sfs have some to show, but so far all I've gotten are inferences, assumptions, and typical debate tactics. I mean, the one is a PhD in genetics and the other has a Masters (I think) In geology, so can't you guys come up with anything more concrete? I think you're both due for a relaxing break and getting some fresh air.
 
Upvote 0