Answering any questions on Evolution

[NailsII]

Maybe I confused you here… you expect affirmation of the consequent by assuming again that common descent is real. Common descent is untenable because it is contrary to evolutionist’s own evidence. The postulate that God created the diversity of life is the only acceptable conclusion.

How so?
Even if your first assertion is correct (common descent is untenable), you have an amazing leap to make to insert god into the equation.
A leap of faith perhaps?
Given your first point, you can only reach your conclusion if you actually work it in reverse - ie belief in god comes first, then you decide that common descent can't be true.
Otherwise you have a whole host of gods to choose from, or even intelligent non-gods.

I don’t know if you intentionally obscuring the fact that the “genetic code” (even you use the term) can be considered information.

DNA is a chemical which can self-replicate.
Over time it has become ever more complicated.
Would a 30-base length of DNA contain information, if it lacked the ability to produce a functional protein?
What about a self-replicating protein, is that information?

Information can be derived from DNA, such as evolutionary history in the form of active and inactive genes, switches and regulatory sections.

But is DNA really information?

I don't think so, it is only in retrospect that we can identify it as such.
Much like a hand of five cards is just five cards, unless you have a royal flush and play a game that rewars such a hand.

Hiding behind the mechanics of the DNA does not help your unsupportable position.

lol.
< staff edit >
< staff edit >

 

[Zaius137]

Double post

 

[Zaius137]

DNA is a chemical which can self-replicate.

Yes&#8230; Except maybe DNA in viruses.

Over time it has become ever more complicated.

That is unsupportable and assumes common descent.

Would a 30-base length of DNA contain information, if it lacked the ability to produce a functional protein?

Maybe it is regulatory in function&#8230; It would contain information to regulate functions.

What about a self-replicating protein, is that information?

Self replication proteins can be created by intent to do so using information.

Information can be derived from DNA, such as evolutionary history in the form of active and inactive genes, switches and regulatory sections.

Again you presuppose common descent. You are begging the question when you make such statements.

But is DNA really information?

I don't think so, it is only in retrospect that we can identify it as such.
Much like a hand of five cards is just five cards, unless you have a royal flush and play a game that rewars such a hand.

Many competent scientists believe it is. It posses information to construct living creatures.

 

[SkyWriting]

But is DNA really information?

Experts think so:

The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA.

A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: an examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA.

 

[verysincere]

[/color]

Information can be derived from DNA, such as evolutionary history in the form of active and inactive genes, switches and regulatory sections.
​

Again you presuppose common descent. You are begging the question when you make such statements.

False. It is not begging the question because presupposition of common descent is not required for this statement to be viable.

You are pretending that just because he mentioned a word you don't like, it is question-begging. (Are all the bad habits on this forum coming from too much mimicry of Ken Ham & Co.?)

 

[SkyWriting]

(Are all the bad habits on this forum coming from too much mimicry of Ken Ham & Co.?)

It's just that when you've been misled by so many for so long, your self loathing
see's your illusionists's logic tricks under every bush. I went to one Young
Earth Seminar and spotted the problems with the first argument they made.
Maybe that's why I don't hate them so much. I was never in so deep.

 

[SkyWriting]

So are you saying we need look no further because we will always end up with the answer 'Goddidit'?

What you "see" about the past is just an illusion of fiction until you can repeat the event yourself. But fantasy is fun.

 

[Zaius137]

False. It is not begging the question because presupposition of common descent is not required for this statement to be viable.

You are pretending that just because he mentioned a word you don't like, it is question-begging. (Are all the bad habits on this forum coming from too much mimicry of Ken Ham & Co.?)

True, presupposing there is any history laid down in the DNA presupposes common descent and begs the question of how it got there; common descent is fantasy.

How is it that you can refute posts by being purposefully obtuse?

 

[SkyWriting]

True, presupposing there is any history laid down in the DNA presupposes common descent and begs the question of how it got there; common descent is fantasy. How is it that you can refute posts by being purposefully obtuse?

First by claiming to be an expert in language.
Then proving otherwise by restating everyone's points incorrectly.

 

[SkyWriting]

Does that include the stories in the Bible? the miracles? are they fantasy?

They are unprovable by science. So they are entirely matters of faith.
At least until you experience God first hand. Then you find out that
God does exist, and you also see how his work is invisible to others.

 

[fschmidt]

thompsonb24, if you are still around, I would appreciate your opinion of an article I wrote about human evolution explaining why religion is required for positive human evolution. Please note that I am not Christian, but that I do avoid secular forums because secular people are generally so hateful and intolerant.

 

[NailsII]

You are pretending that just because he mentioned a word you don't like, it is question-begging. (Are all the bad habits on this forum coming from too much mimicry of Ken Ham & Co.?)

lol.

Please note that I am not Christian, but that I do avoid secular forums because secular people are generally so hateful and intolerant.

Yeah, i suppose you're right.
Most secularists discriminate against fringe groups in society because it makes them feel good, and then claim it is the only moral course of action.

Yes… Except maybe DNA in viruses.

OK, DNA is a chemical which, under certain circumstances, can sometimes self-replicate.
If it doesn't, does it still contain information?

That is unsupportable and assumes common descent.

Actually, wrong way round.
Common descent assumes that DNA has increased in complexity over time, from a very 'simple' molecule which, once it could self replicate, has become more complicated.

Maybe it is regulatory in function… It would contain information to regulate functions.

You can assume that it does not perform any known function; it is purely a length of DNA bases. It could be completely random or a long repetition.
Does it contain information?

Self replication proteins can be created by intent to do so using information.

Is that the only way they can form?

Again you presuppose common descent. You are begging the question when you make such statements.

Not at all
Even if you take one group of individuals as the starting point of the entire human race (this could be in the last 6,000 years if you so desire), you would still be able to see the change in genes (by comparing DNA from different populations) as waves of humans migrated across the earth and formed distinct genetic groups in isolation of each other.
For clarity, you do not need to compare DNA as we all know that you can observe phenotypic variation just by looking at people across the world - and we all agree that Europeans look slightly different compared with native Americans, Aboriginies, Chinese/Japanese and African people.

BTW, still waiting for a reply here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7645240-33/#post60311094

The prebiotic evolutionary advantage of transferring genetic information from RNA to DNA.

A comparative approach for the investigation of biological information processing: an examination of the structure and function of computer hard drives and DNA.

I think you missed my point.
I referred to looking backwards as DNA being a carrier of information, in the same way that you look at a winning poker hand.
In reality it is only one combination of cards, the relevance is added later by human minds.

 

[NailsII]

Yes I did know that God only shows himself to believers, like the kings new clothes, invisible.

In the bible I read, god showed himself to unbelievers.

 

[Zaius137]

How so?
Even if your first assertion is correct (common descent is untenable), you have an amazing leap to make to insert god into the equation.
A leap of faith perhaps?
Given your first point, you can only reach your conclusion if you actually work it in reverse - ie belief in god comes first, then you decide that common descent can't be true.
Otherwise you have a whole host of gods to choose from, or even intelligent non-gods.

Here are the logical steps of my conclusion.

Premise 1: LIFE has occurred.
Premise 2: LIFE is specified.
Premise 3: If LIFE is due to chance, then LIFE has small probability.
Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.
Premise 5: LIFE is not due to regularity.
Premise 6: LIFE is due to regularity, chance, or design.
Conclusion: LIFE is due to design.

http://talkdesign.org/cs/theft_over_toil


Premise 6a: A design by all evidence of human reason necessitates a designer (God) which is antithesis to chance.

Despite what other religions claim, they do not posses the truth of the Bible. Hence the pagan has no claim on a god.

 

[NailsII]

Here are the logical steps of my conclusion.

Premise 1: LIFE has occurred.

I'd agree with that.

Premise 2: LIFE is specified.

You might have to explain this one a bit, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Premise 3: If LIFE is due to chance, then LIFE has small probability.

Again, I agree.

Premise 4: Specified events of small probability do not occur by chance.

Like flipping a coin and it lands on its side, in a lecture on probabilty?

Premise 5: LIFE is not due to regularity.

Again, you need to explain this one to me. It doesn't make any sense.

Premise 6: LIFE is due to regularity, chance, or design.

If only things were that simple.

Conclusion: LIFE is due to design.

Your conclusion would only be valid if your previous steps are correct, and you have supporting evidence to coroborating evidence.

Premise 6a: A design by all evidence of human reason necessitates a designer (God) which is antithesis to chance.

Even if design was the only viable option, you have absolutely no way of linking that to any particular being or god or intelligence.
That is a logical error, or a leap of faith.

Despite what other religions claim, they do not posses the truth of the Bible. Hence the pagan has no claim on a god.

They have claims on many gods, as the early Hebrews did.
They worshipped them just the same, they had holy rituals and possesed their own 'truths'.
from a neutral point of view, the only things that makes the bible (or Koran, or Tanakh) any different from other religions is that it is still widely read and practiced today..

 

[SkyWriting]

'Showed' being the operative word, not any more, you must believe before you can see God today.

My experience is the same, faith is needed to see what God has already done for us.

 

[Zaius137]

Even if design was the only viable option, you have absolutely no way of linking that to any particular being or god or intelligence.
That is a logical error, or a leap of faith.

The premises that I gave in my last post, they come from “The Design Inference” “Eliminating chance through small probabilities by William A. Dembski”.

Divining design


Here is the definition of “regularity” given in the review article:

“regularity admits only one possible consequence for a given antecedent circumstance”.

“Regularity” infers a natural given from a natural circumstance.


Here is the term he used “specified”:

Specified in the sense of specified complexity or specified patterns.

“According to Dembski, the concept is intended to formalize a property that singles out patterns that are both specified and complex, in specific senses defined by Dembski.”

Specified complexity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Methodological naturalism is disputed by Dembski on the basis of probabilities but his approach is somewhat novel…

‘Thus, whereas statistical hypothesis testing eliminates chance because divergence from mathematical expectation is too great, the design inference eliminates chance because the fit with mathematical expectation is too close. We may therefore think of design and chance as competing modes of explanation for which design prevails once chance is exhausted’ (p. 8).

Divining design


I was hoping you might have picked up on a distinction I implied between evolution and common descent.

• Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life.
• Evolution relies on common descent of previous or existing species.
• Ultimately common descent would need a UCA (universal common ancestor or ancestors).
• A UCA according to a materialistic view would have to arise from natural chemistry or natural circumstance.

So evolution has divorced itself from the explanation of the origin of life giving up a comprehensive understanding of where different species originated. Thus evolution is a weak and ineffectual hypothesis.

 

[verysincere]

The premises that I gave in my last post, they come from “The Design Inference” “Eliminating chance through small probabilities by William A. Dembski”.

I'm always amazed when anyone chooses to rely upon Wm. Dembski for any sort of viable argument or evidence. Putting aside for the moment a career-long propensity toward the absurd ---and clinging to the Irreducible Complexity examples of Michael Behe long after they were debunked --- Dembski's last possible shred of credibility was lost when he protested the Dover Trial verdict by posting a website which produced flatulence sounds when you clicked on the photos of various "evil evolutionists" including the presiding Judge Jones.

Dembski eventually removed that sound effect when he realized what wiser minds could have told him in advance: some types of mockery deprecate the mocker far more than the person being mocked.

You may consider Dembski a wise, knowledgeable, and credible source. Most of us do not.

The premises that I gave in my last post, they come from “The Design Inference” “Eliminating chance through small probabilities by William A. Dembski”.

My point exactly.

So evolution has divorced itself from the explanation of the origin of life giving up a comprehensive understanding of where different species originated. Thus evolution is a weak and ineffectual hypothesis.

How can a theory "divorce itself" from a separate topic which was NEVER a part of the theory???

I'm amazed at (and wonder why) anybody would insist on confusing the theory of evolution with various modern-day hypotheses about abiogenesis. A scientific theory always focuses on explaining the answer to a particular question, that is, making sense out of the data surrounding a single issue. Surely any rational individual can understand the difference between:

1) Explaining changes over time in life forms which already exist....

versus

2) Explaining how life first came into existence.


To call a theory "weak and ineffectual hypothesis" because it somehow fails to address TWO questions involving different topics and data/evidence seems not just bizarre. It seems ridiculous. Moreover, as worded, it suggests a failure to understand the meaning of a "scientific theory" and a "scientific hypothesis."

Somehow the only people insisting that abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution should be merged into a single........something (??)......stand outside the field of evolutionary biology [usually holding protest signs, figuratively speaking] and constantly confuse many other foundational concepts and basic scientific vocabulary.

And that's kind of interesting. Don't you think?

.

 

[Zaius137]

I'm always amazed when anyone chooses to rely upon Wm. Dembski for any sort of viable argument or evidence. Putting aside for the moment a career-long propensity toward the absurd ---and clinging to the Irreducible Complexity examples of Michael Behe long after they were debunked --- Dembski's last possible shred of credibility was lost when he protested the Dover Trial verdict by posting a website which produced flatulence sounds when you clicked on the photos of various "evil evolutionists" including the presiding Judge Jones.

Dembski eventually removed that sound effect when he realized what wiser minds could have told him in advance: some types of mockery deprecate the mocker far more than the person being mocked.

You may consider Dembski a wise, knowledgeable, and credible source. Most of us do not.




My point exactly.




How can a theory "divorce itself" from a separate topic which was NEVER a part of the theory???

I'm amazed at (and wonder why) anybody would insist on confusing the theory of evolution with various modern-day hypotheses about abiogenesis. A scientific theory always focuses on explaining the answer to a particular question, that is, making sense out of the data surrounding a single issue. Surely any rational individual can understand the difference between:

1) Explaining changes over time in life forms which already exist....

versus

2) Explaining how life first came into existence.


To call a theory "weak and ineffectual hypothesis" because it somehow fails to address TWO questions involving different topics and data/evidence seems not just bizarre. It seems ridiculous. Moreover, as worded, it suggests a failure to understand the meaning of a "scientific theory" and a "scientific hypothesis."

Somehow the only people insisting that abiogenesis and the Theory of Evolution should be merged into a single........something (??)......stand outside the field of evolutionary biology [usually holding protest signs, figuratively speaking] and constantly confuse many other foundational concepts and basic scientific vocabulary.

And that's kind of interesting. Don't you think?

.

Any real viewpoints from science rather than your same old ad-hominem critique?

The statement that abiogenesis was not a formal theory of evolution is an equivocation. The fact is that evolution without a source organism makes it incomplete.

Thomas Henry Huxley knew this and was disturbed by Darwin’s omission to the “Origin of Species”.

“In 1871, when he was 62 years old, and twelve years after publication of the first edition of the Origin, Darwin wrote15:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phospheric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a prutcine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.””
Clark, Robert T., and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1967. (113 p.) Pp. 44, 45; 80, 81. I do not comment on whether spontaneous generation at the first form of life is contrary to Genesis, since this question is a matter of theological opinion.

Science in Christian Perspective

 

[RickG]

Any real viewpoints from science rather than your same old ad-hominem critique?

The statement that abiogenesis was not a formal theory of evolution is an equivocation. The fact is that evolution without a source organism makes it incomplete.

Thomas Henry Huxley knew this and was disturbed by Darwin’s omission to the “Origin of Species”.

“In 1871, when he was 62 years old, and twelve years after publication of the first edition of the Origin, Darwin wrote15:

“It is often said that all the conditions for the first production of a living organism are now present, which could ever have been present. But if we could conceive in some warm little pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phospheric salts, light, heat, electricity, etc., present, that a prutcine compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes, at the present day such matter would be instantly devoured or absorbed, which would not have been the case before living creatures were formed.””
Clark, Robert T., and James D. Bales, Why Scientists Accept Evolution, Grand Rapids, Baker Book, 1967. (113 p.) Pp. 44, 45; 80, 81. I do not comment on whether spontaneous generation at the first form of life is contrary to Genesis, since this question is a matter of theological opinion.

Science in Christian Perspective

Intersting! Do you recommend American Scientific Affiliation to learn about Christian views on science?