De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

Frank Robert · Feb 25, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Yet, when one field of science seems to question another...

Then the theory that best fits the evidence wins out. Basic science that is taught in the 6th grade.

When solid intermediate fossil forms are presented to fill in the evolutionary gaps, then and only then will these arguments cease.

Every fossil that show the intermediate states is transitional and fills in gaps. Again 6th grade science. A fossil that will fill in gaps of million of years of evolutionary gaps is not possible so you argument is vacuous.

May the facts be with you · Feb 25, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Argument from authority. Just because a person can quote a physicist saying that evolution can't happen, that doesn't invalidate anything about evolution, which is biology.
It's a simple rhetorical question but you don't go to a car mechanic to find out what's wrong with your heart, do you?

We do have intermediate fossil forms, it's just that when they are present to Creationists, you lot go "Well, show us the others!"
As very well shown by this clip from the Futurama episode, A Clockwork Origin.

Basically, you can cry "missing link! Intermediate fossils!" till the cows come home. They exist, but you refuse to recognize them as such.

Most of the "so-called links" are not links at all, but whatever, this is totally irrelevant. Evolution requires a process, a few disparate fossils don't provide evidence of that.

It doesn't prove that model #1 turned into model #2; it simply shows that you are good at lining things up in a long line. As a thought experiment, if we lined up all the worlds cars in a parking lot from small to big we've done the same. The Ford looks very similar to a Toyota or GM car from the same class and era. But Ford parts don't fit the GM car. That's because both were designed (in secrecy) by two different teams of engineers to the same set of specifications. Outwardly, they look the same but inwardly there is nothing in common. The Ford will never become a GM. A small number of basic parts might be exchangeable because the designers picked components build to a 3rd party specification (eg the tyres), but that's merely proof of design to standards and nothing else.

Evolutionists have always confused things that look similar with things that are the same.

Estrid · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
QED.
based on the maths, the maths which is accepted by those sympathetic to TOE, I have not yet been born. Neither-the-less, I exist. I am thus forced to agree with Anthony Flew who after 50 years of championing the cause of Atheism concluded that DNA and the complexity of information it encodes for were terminally fatal to TOE and naturalism. He concluded that from sheer logic one is forced him to accept the only possible conclusion is that without God life is impossible.

I also fully agree with you on your point that TOE is unchanged ... TOE cannot and does not explain life since it hasn't even begun. Of course in much the same way as there are many who believe Donald Trump won, and that the election was stolen there are many who think TOE must be true despite the evidence, the recounts and attempts to "find" some extra anything to support this position.

Given that the TOE is discounted since it has yet to start we have to say the concept of God and a created universe is the only explanation, unless of course a 3rd option is available, for which I am all ears on.

Don't claim I agree with your nonsense.

Speedwell · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
QED.
based on the maths, the maths which is accepted by those sympathetic to TOE, I have not yet been born. Neither-the-less, I exist. I am thus forced to agree with Anthony Flew who after 50 years of championing the cause of Atheism concluded that DNA and the complexity of information it encodes for were terminally fatal to TOE and naturalism. He concluded that from sheer logic one is forced him to accept the only possible conclusion is that without God life is impossible.

I also fully agree with you on your point that TOE is unchanged ... TOE cannot and does not explain life since it hasn't even begun. Of course in much the same way as there are many who believe Donald Trump won, and that the election was stolen there are many who think TOE must be true despite the evidence, the recounts and attempts to "find" some extra anything to support this position.

Given that the TOE is discounted since it has yet to start we have to say the concept of God and a created universe is the only explanation, unless of course a 3rd option is available, for which I am all ears on.

I think you may be in the wrong forum. This forum is about creationism v. evolution, not about the existence of God or the truth of the Christian faith.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
Most of the "so-called links" are not links at all, but whatever, this is totally irrelevant. Evolution requires a process, a few disparate fossils don't provide evidence of that.

It doesn't prove that model #1 turned into model #2; it simply shows that you are good at lining things up in a long line. As a thought experiment, if we lined up all the worlds cars in a parking lot from small to big we've done the same. The Ford looks very similar to a Toyota or GM car from the same class and era. But Ford parts don't fit the GM car. That's because both were designed (in secrecy) by two different teams of engineers to the same set of specifications. Outwardly, they look the same but inwardly there is nothing in common. The Ford will never become a GM. A small number of basic parts might be exchangeable because the designers picked components build to a 3rd party specification (eg the tyres), but that's merely proof of design to standards and nothing else.

Evolutionists have always confused things that look similar with things that are the same.

And apart from a very old and cliched diatribe that could almost be taken word for word from a creationist website... you have absolutely nothing to show that you are correct or that I am wrong.

The process of evolution is known, it has been studied and validated with genetics, biology and also paleontological evidence, hence why there is a scientific theory of evolution. You and the others who claim to support ID have nothing.

Estrid · Feb 25, 2021

Speedwell said:
I think you may be in the wrong forum. This forum is about creationism v. evolution, not about the existence of God or the truth of the Christian faith.

Who wouldn't give five American dollars for a creationist
who would try to talk about science instead of their
chosen Bible- reading, AND, not just make things up?

Frank Robert · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
Most of the "so-called links" are not links at all, but whatever, this is totally irrelevant. Evolution requires a process, a few disparate fossils don't provide evidence of that.

The evolutionary process never ends. Every new fossil provides evidence of the process. If you have a better hypothesis, please share what exactly is it and what methods are being used to test it.

It doesn't prove that model #1 turned into model #2

A species does not turn into another species it evolves over time often over tens of millions of years. Even those who believe in kinds accept that species evolve though they purpose only so far without any evidence.

it simply shows that you are good at lining things up in a long line. As a thought experiment, if we lined up all the worlds cars in a parking lot from small to big we've done the same. The Ford looks very similar to a Toyota or GM car from the same class and era. But Ford parts don't fit the GM car. That's because both were designed (in secrecy) by two different teams of engineers to the same set of specifications. Outwardly, they look the same but inwardly there is nothing in common. The Ford will never become a GM. A small number of basic parts might be exchangeable because the designers picked components build to a 3rd party specification (eg the tyres), but that's merely proof of design to standards and nothing else.

Nice word salad. What dressing do you suggest?

Evolutionists have always confused things

Now you are projecting.

inquiring mind · Feb 25, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Yes, soft bodied organisms have a harder time fossilizing because... well, they're softer bodies with hardly any bones.

I don't get what you're saying by "many transitional forms are only comparative" though.

Just that many arguments seem to be, yes, they are comparable (similar in ways), but proof of some type linear progression, no. And, since there is no evidence left from soft bodies at all, well taking it all together, there are gaps. Yes, to convince non-evolutionists there would have to be many, many more transitional stages. Sort of what your video was making fun of.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 25, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Just that many arguments seem to be, yes, they are comparable (similar in ways), but proof of some type linear progression, no. And, since there is no evidence left from soft bodies at all, well taking it all together, there are gaps. Yes, to convince non-evolutionists there would have to be many, many more transitional stages. Sort of what your video was making fun of.

Except that we have enough fossils to show that intermediate forms between organisms do exist, and yes, while they are comparative forms, that does not invalidate what they show.
It's nitpicking at its finest.

inquiring mind · Feb 25, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Except that we have enough fossils to show that intermediate forms between organisms do exist, and yes, while they are comparative forms, that does not invalidate what they show.

That's what they say.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
It's nitpicking at its finest.

Makes the world go around.

May the facts be with you · Feb 25, 2021

Estrid said:
Who wouldn't give five American dollars for a creationist
who would try to talk about science instead of their
chosen Bible- reading, AND, not just make things up?

I've yet to mention the bible; it would be better we debated that under a different conversational thread. It seems clear to me that everyone in this thread is in agreement that the debate ultimately ends up with addressing the existence of God.

I surmise that the reason such a conversation can get rather heated is because it touches on the most important question anyone can every ask. Is there a God, and if so, what is he like? Does that God have an interest in his creation and can we discover more about this. If, like Richard Dawkins, we've decided that they is no God, even though that is not provable, then one has to make evolution true because a created world falsifies that position. Warden of the storms strapline includes the following "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." I wouldn't disagree with him/her. Each of us is navigating our soul to its final destination.

So long and signing off.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 25, 2021

inquiring mind said:
That's what they say.

It's what the evidence shows.

inquiring mind said:
Makes the world go around.

No, it's nit picking because you don't like what the evidence tells us.

essentialsaltes · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
Outwardly, they look the same but inwardly there is nothing in common. The Ford will never become a GM.

Interestingly enough, what we've discovered is that living things are pretty much the opposite of automobiles. Outwardly they look very different, but inwardly their genetics and biochemistry is very similar. This is one of the facts that leads us to a conclusion of common ancestry.

May the facts be with you · Feb 25, 2021

inquiring mind said:
Just that many arguments seem to be, yes, they are comparable (similar in ways), but proof of some type linear progression, no. And, since there is no evidence left from soft bodies at all, well taking it all together, there are gaps. Yes, to convince non-evolutionists there would have to be many, many more transitional stages. Sort of what your video was making fun of.

That's not quite true, most of these fossils do still have soft tissues remaining. Of course the preferred route by those who understand the implications is to suppress the facts. No doubt the half-baked iron theory will shortly be trotted out, refuted by the fact that these tissue remains unaltered, simply decayed.

Realistically, these fossils cannot be millions of years old, several 10's thousands is a boundary.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
That's not quite true, most of these fossils do still have soft tissues remaining. Of course the preferred route by those who understand the implications is to suppress the facts. No doubt the half-baked iron theory will shortly be trotted out, refuted by the fact that these tissue remains unaltered, simply decayed.

God, not this PRATT (Point Refuted A Thousand Times).
Soft-tissue in fossils, while extremely rare, is not unexpected but it's also not soft tissue like you think it would be.
And this fact is not suppressed, otherwise you wouldn't have articles like this from History.

May the facts be with you · Feb 25, 2021

essentialsaltes said:
but inwardly their genetics and biochemistry is very similar. This is one of the facts that leads us to a conclusion of common ancestry.

Which is why humans have more in common with pigs than apes, why we use pigs to test medicines and pig organs can be transplanted into humans but ape organs aren't used. Maybe then that famous ascent of man diagram should start with pigs, although how we get from a pig to hominoid isn't clear.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
Which is why humans have more in common with pigs than apes, why we use pigs to test medicines and pig organs can be transplanted into humans but ape organs aren't used. Maybe then that famous ascent of man diagram should start with pigs, although how we get from a pig to hominoid isn't clear.

You're not even trying at this point, are you?

Estrid · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
I've yet to mention the bible; it would be better we debated that under a different conversational thread. It seems clear to me that everyone in this thread is in agreement that the debate ultimately ends up with addressing the existence of God.

I surmise that the reason such a conversation can get rather heated is because it touches on the most important question anyone can every ask. Is there a God, and if so, what is he like? Does that God have an interest in his creation and can we discover more about this. If, like Richard Dawkins, we've decided that they is no God, even though that is not provable, then one has to make evolution true because a created world falsifies that position. Warden of the storms strapline includes the following "I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my soul." I wouldn't disagree with him/her. Each of us is navigating our soul to its final destination.

So long and signing off.

To you it is an important question.
It isn't to me. Of all the spirits and
"gods" ever invented, all the roles they
might play and zero actual evidence
that any is real, its flat out stupid to
waste time on it.

The existence or lack of "god" has zero (0)
to do with whether ToE is valid.
As one "trained in science " you should
be aware of that, and that science does not
do "truth". Or proof. Why don't you knw such basics?

IF its a '"created world" that does not mean
Created as is, or at what stage or to what
extent this "god" meddles after it was created.

The actual data, the history written right into
the earth itself completely contradicts the
literally interpreted story from the Bible.

Such "god" as that aint worth any thought.
The little god who thinks he is gifted with infallible
Bible- reading and thus knows more than any
scientist on earth despite not knowing the
simplest basics of science is still less
worthy.

That said, we find your announced parting is well made.

Shemjaza · Feb 25, 2021

May the facts be with you said:
Which is why humans have more in common with pigs than apes, why we use pigs to test medicines and pig organs can be transplanted into humans but ape organs aren't used. Maybe then that famous ascent of man diagram should start with pigs, although how we get from a pig to hominoid isn't clear.

That is almost completely false.

Pigs are significantly more different from humans than apes.

Pigs are however, big, easy to breed, easy to care for, cheaper and less problematic from an environmental and public relations perspective.

essentialsaltes · Feb 25, 2021

Shemjaza said:
Pigs are however, big, easy to breed, easy to care for, cheaper and less problematic from an environmental and public relations perspective.

Tastier than apes, too.

So I've heard.

(shifty eyes)

De novo genes and the "no new information" argument

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Well-Known Member

and a discerning heart

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Stranger in a Strange Land

Similar threads