Creationists: Explain your understanding of microevolution and macroevolution

[pitabread]

Hierarchical: meaning information is organized in a hierarchy where key segments of information (e.g. Hox genes which are in turn a subset of homeobox genes/ gene regulatory network) control how other genetic code lower in the hierarchy is applied.

Let's explore this then: how do Hox genes work? When you say that genetic code is "lower in the hierarchy", what do you mean specifically?

Go through a specific example.

And once again, I don't care about your analogies with computers. Don't bring up computing, GUIs, languages, alien signals from space, or any other non-biological stuff. I don't care about that. I care about the biology.

Tell me how you think the biology works.

 

[pitabread]

No matter the mediums we wish to compare and contrast, there is a core/minimum logical process required to direct a functional information system, which does not just fall out of the sky.

There are always going to be an infinitely greater number of ways to arrange chemicals or base pairs or binary bits or pits on a DVD that will fail to produce anything, far less an information system which can contemplate it's own existence... that needs more than a little engineering skill

And thus it boils down to an ID argument based on equivocation and/or false equivalence fallacy.

These discussions always end up in the same place.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Let's explore this then: how do Hox genes work? When you say that genetic code is "lower in the hierarchy", what do you mean specifically?

Go through a specific example.

And once again, I don't care about your analogies with computers. Don't bring up computing, GUIs, languages, alien signals from space, or any other non-biological stuff. I don't care about that. I care about the biology.

Tell me how you think the biology works.

And I care about information systems, we have lots of unambiguous verified examples of these being produced through creative intelligence, none by unguided natural mechanisms

If it helps clarify the point; I tried to solder a connection on the points on my tractor a couple of days ago and fried everything, I'm completely useless at electronics. But I don't find this to be any handicap whatsoever when it comes to software programming. (which obviously relies on sophisticated electronics)

Likewise as fascinating as the biological hardware is, that processes the digital information of DNA, it's entirely beside the point of acknowledging the information processing logic they actually support.

On Hox genes

the Hox genes control where other genes are applied to grow limbs etc, not vice versa
this is a clear hierarchy in the information system, just as there are in our software systems- it's an information architecture strategy shared by both, regardless of different mediums

i.e. NOT a mere analogy

 

[Guy Threepwood]

If you can't describe how they function, how can you know what they do?

You can answer this one yourself

How can you drive a car without being a mechanic?

And this seems to be the core issue here: you're just drawing up inaccurate similarities based on questionable comparisons between unrelated things.

For example, your claim about telomeres isn't really correct. Telomeres don't exist to separate DNA sequences per se. They exist to prevent degeneration (loss) of DNA coding sequences during replication.

.Yes they sure do, by clearly defining them as separate segments of information (sometimes called buffers in computing) , to avoid them getting confused/ intermingled


"Telomeres are the caps at the end of each strand of DNA that protect our chromosomes, like the plastic tips at the end of shoelaces" What is a Telomere? | Human Cellular Aging | TA-65 TA Sciences[/QUOTE]

 

[Speedwell]

actually the transcription process involves what is called messenger RNA because it carries information to be read in the Ribosome.

Again we can debate semantics all day- if you want to lobby for having the terminology 'messenger RNA' changed to something else- that's not changing the actual substance of what is going on in DNA, digital information processing- including sending/receiving of digital messages, replication and error checking.

What in the world does "messenger DNA" have to do with the question. Are you going to argue that use of the term "messenger" supports your contention that there is a message encoded in DNA?

 

[Speedwell]

And I care about information systems, we have lots of unambiguous verified examples of these being produced through creative intelligence, none by unguided natural mechanisms

If it helps clarify the point; I tried to solder a connection on the points on my tractor a couple of days ago and fried everything, I'm completely useless at electronics. But I don't find this to be any handicap whatsoever when it comes to software programming. (which obviously relies on sophisticated electronics)

Likewise as fascinating as the biological hardware is, that processes the digital information of DNA, it's entirely beside the point of acknowledging the information processing logic they actually support.

On Hox genes

the Hox genes control where other genes are applied to grow limbs etc, not vice versa
this is a clear hierarchy in the information system, just as there are in our software systems- it's an information architecture strategy shared by both, regardless of different mediums

i.e. NOT a mere analogy

So your argument is that biological information processing systems cannot have evolved naturally be cause they resemble human-designed information processing systems?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What in the world does "messenger DNA" have to do with the question. Are you going to argue that use of the term "messenger" supports your contention that there is a message encoded in DNA?

RNA- that's messenger RNA,

message, instruction, direction, description, information, denotation, order, request, - pick whatever term you prefer, the substance is the same, digitally coded functional information complying to a common code convention and hierarchical structure.

Not the sort of thing you see spontaneously jumping out of a muddy puddle! not in a trillion years of Sundays

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So your argument is that biological information processing systems cannot have evolved naturally be cause they resemble human-designed information processing systems?

It would be improbable in the extreme, yes

 

[Speedwell]

RNA- that's messenger RNA,

message, instruction, direction, description, information, denotation, order, request, - pick whatever term you prefer, the substance is the same, digitally coded functional information complying to a common code convention and hierarchical structure.

Not the sort of thing you see spontaneously jumping out of a muddy puddle! not in a trillion years of Sundays

Now it's the argument from incredulity?

 

[pitabread]

Yes they sure do, by clearly defining them as separate segments of information (sometimes called buffers in computing) , to avoid them getting confused/ intermingled

"Telomeres are the caps at the end of each strand of DNA that protect our chromosomes, like the plastic tips at the end of shoelaces" What is a Telomere? | Human Cellular Aging | TA-65 TA Sciences

Buffering in computing tends to refer to temporary storage of data, not necessarily defining segments of information.

In regards to what you are quoted re: telomeres, they're creating a very loose analogy with regards to telomere function during cellular reproduction. Which as I said is for the purpose of preventing degradation of functional genetic material during DNA replication.

The particular citation that is assigned what you quoted describes exactly what I was talking about:

A peculiarity of the DNA-replication mechanism causes telomeres to shorten as cells divide. Sometimes the enzyme telomerase can replenish the lost DNA, but as we age, our telomeres dwindle. If they get too short, through ageing or because telomere maintenance goes awry, cells can stop dividing. Such cells also become malfunctional. For instance, they can start secreting factors that cause inflammation or trigger the development of tumours.​

Too toxic to ignore

That's the "protection" they are referring to in this context. Without telomeres cellular DNA would degrade that much faster.

This is why trying to draw similarities based on ad hoc terminology and no understanding of the functions of respective systems just doesn't work. There is no similarity here.

 

[Speedwell]

It would be improbable in the extreme, yes

So you reject the possibility that there will be engineering imperatives which will result in similarities between information-processing systems regardless of their origin--much as airplanes and birds both have wings?

 

[pitabread]

Are you going to argue that use of the term "messenger" supports your contention that there is a message encoded in DNA?

That seems to be the playbook:

1) Use equivocation of terminology to claim similarities between functionally different things (e.g. biological organisms vs designed objects).
2) Invoke false equivalence to assume other similarities (e.g. intelligent design).
3) Invoke argument from incredulity to rule out any natural origins for anything.

Conclusion: Goddidit.

This is arguments for Intelligent Design 101.

Meanwhile I'm still no closer to knowing what creationists mean when they talk about "genetic information". And I'm convinced they don't know either.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Now it's the argument from incredulity?

I don't find it credible that these systems were created by any naturalistic coincidence, no
But it's also an argument in the affirmative:

we DO have a known & proven mechanism by which such systems can be created

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you reject the possibility that there will be engineering imperatives which will result in similarities between information-processing systems regardless of their origin--much as airplanes and birds both have wings?

I agree there, design constraints demand certain similarities- & this is an argument against many assumed Darwinian links- form follows function, not necessarily ancestry

 

[Speedwell]

I don't find it credible that these systems were created by any naturalistic coincidence, no
But it's also an argument in the affirmative:

we DO have a known & proven mechanism by which such systems can be created

Yes, it's called evolution by random variation and natural selection.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That seems to be the playbook:

1) Use equivocation of terminology to claim similarities between functionally different things (e.g. biological organisms vs designed objects).
2) Invoke false equivalence to assume other similarities (e.g. intelligent design).
3) Invoke argument from incredulity to rule out any natural origins for anything.

Conclusion: Goddidit.

This is arguments for Intelligent Design 101.

Meanwhile I'm still no closer to knowing what creationists mean when they talk about "genetic information". And I'm convinced they don't know either.

Identifying creative intelligence is not unique to genetic information, but any functional information-

Ask any forensic scientist or archeologists what the playbook is- specifying information denotes intent and hence intelligence

to look at the Rosetta stone or genetic information and conclude :flukedunnit, is to ignore a scientific method that is already in common effective use.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, it's called evolution by random variation and natural selection.

information systems created through intelligence are proven- you are using one right now

Not to say random chance is technically impossible, and I've nothing against the idea- it is just highly speculative- as yet it cannot be observed, repeated, measured, i.e. verified to anything like the same scientific standards as creative intelligence.

If one day it can be, that's great- I'd like to know the truth either way, whatever the implications

 

[pitabread]

Identifying creative intelligence is not unique to genetic information, but any functional information-

Ask any forensic scientist or archeologists what the playbook is- specifying information denotes intent and hence intelligence

to look at the Rosetta stone or genetic information and conclude :flukedunnit, is to ignore a scientific method that is already in common effective use.

Once again you're using analogies to create invalid comparisons for the purpose of argument. The methods by which forensic scientists and archeologists use is not the same methods that are purported for detecting design in living organisms.

This is an example of #2 (e.g. false equivalence) on my list.

If your entire form of argument involves argument-via-analogy by way of equivocation and false equivalence, I'm not interested. We've had these conversations before and they go absolutely no where.

 

[Speedwell]

information systems created through intelligence are proven- you are using one right now

Not to say random chance is technically impossible, and I've nothing against the idea- it is just highly speculative- as yet it cannot be observed, repeated, measured, i.e. verified to anything like the same scientific standards as creative intelligence.

If one day it can be, that's great- I'd like to know the truth either way, whatever the implications

The evolutionary mechanism has been observed in action up to and including the level of speciation. It is consistent with such of the fossil record as we have discovered and can be mathematically modeled successfully. That's certainly enough to be going on with, especially as there is no competing explanation for the diversity of life anywhere near as plausible. That's one of the serious problems with ID--it has no proposed mechanism, just God must have done it somehow. But at the same time IDists seem to take the position that a natural explanation for a phenomenon rules out divine causality. The metaphysics of such a view are hopeless, which is why many Christian denominations have rejected ID.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Once again you're using analogies to create invalid comparisons for the purpose of argument. The methods by which forensic scientists and archeologists use is not the same methods that are purported for detecting design in living organisms.

This is an example of #2 (e.g. false equivalence) on my list.

If your entire form of argument involves argument-via-analogy by way of equivocation and false equivalence, I'm not interested. We've had these conversations before and they go absolutely no where.

an archeologist might observe specifying information in many forms; carvings in stone, cave paintings, rocks placed in formations-
we can observe information in radiowaves, DVDs, DNA, print, online, etc etc

all are forms of information, no equivocation or analogies necessary.

The question at hand is how such information is produced, we only have one proven source so far