Evolution/Creation on Trial

[justlookinla]

Just to name two prominent examples: Francis Collins and Ken Miller are both devout Christians and staunch advocates of evolution. As recently as 2005, more than half of biologists believed in god. There is no inherent divide between evolution and god, only between evolution and a literalist interpretation of the bible.

This is misleading. Francis Collins is not an adherent of the form of evolution (evolution isn't a monolithic term) which eliminates God from the creation of humanity. Peruse his website and you'll find that particular position he labels as "evolutionism" and is totally against it.

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't think so. Every time science throws up junk or vestigial, they are saying we don't know and we don't want to look.

We conclude that it is junk or vestigial because we do know what it does. We know that the human tailbone is vestigial because the same bone in other primates is important for moving the tail. We know that they human appendix is vestigial because it is vitally important in plant digestion in other species.

We also know that DNA is junk because it is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with sequence that doesn't have function. If a stretch of DNA has selectable function then there will be deleterious mutations. Those will be selected against and removed. This results in DNA changing less over time. Therefore, we have a valid test for detecting junk DNA, and it is based on what we know, not on what we don't know. Also, we are looking for it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Oh so when the scientific evidence goes against the "blind watchmaker" then obviously the science is wrong. They are just beginning to understand the loads of information contain in the DNA. The more they learn the more they find the DNA is not haphazardly slap together and the phenotype can move DNA around called "jumping genes."

The more they study the more they find that 90% of the human genome is accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with no selectable function. If those regions had function, then we would see selection against deleterious mutations in the form of sequence conservation. We don't see that.

The problem with the ENCODE project is that their definition of "functional DNA" includes junk DNA. They defined functional as doing something. It didn't matter what, as long as it did something other than just sit there. If we use your kitchen as an analogy, they would argue that the trash in your trash can is functional. Why? It releases odor molecules into the air and reacts with the oxygen in the air. That is the low bar they set for functional. For junk DNA, we would expect that relaxed RNA transcriptase binding would produce rare mRNA's from junk DNA. ENCODE calls this function. Most geneticists do not, and for good reason.

Junk DNA is an argument of ignorance.

It is based on the positive evidence of accumulated mutations.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes there were some scientist who didn't jump of the Junk DNA bandwagon but the majority did.

The didn't jump on the ENCODE bandwagon because the evidence demonstrates that it is junk.

"Thus, according to the ENCODE Consortium, a biological function can be maintained indefinitely without selection, which implies that at least 80 - 10 = 70% of the genome is perfectly invulnerable to deleterious mutations, either because no mutation can ever occur in these "functional" regions or because no mutation in these regions can ever be deleterious. This absurd conclusion was reached through various means . . ."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23431001

 

[Oncedeceived]

@stevevw

You coming back any time soon?

Or not. Because, you know, the designer could make all flight apparatuses the same way... Or it could make some one way, some another way, and some yet another different way. So while the design hypothesis accommodates a situation where all eyes are formed the exact same way, it equally accommodates a situation where each species has a completely distinct, completely non-homologous eye that did not form any sort of nested hierarchy. If your hypothesis can equally accommodate both a prediction and that prediction's negation, then it does not make that prediction.

OH! You mean like the way evolution and common ancestry explains why all organisms who have a common ancestor will have similar features except of course when they have similar features and they don't have a common ancestor? Or that evolution explains the evolution of the eye by a gradual step by step progression from the light sensitive eye patch each and every time and independently dozens of times; although, none of this evidence is objective because complex eyes just happen to suddenly exist in the Cambrian fossils with no precursors in evidence at all? You mean like if the nested common ancestry which predicts that features should be found in organisms most closely related by common ancestry except when they don't and it is just horizontal transfer or convergent evolution?

Or not. I'm sure you'd posit that it is not somehow beyond your "designer" (read: YHWH) to create a taxon of beings with a different information system. Ergo, while the design hypothesis accommodates a situation where all living things have the same information system, it equally accommodates a situation where some species have different systems. Again, your hypothesis accommodates both the prediction and its negation, and thus it cannot be said that intelligent design makes this prediction.

Claiming that the "designer" could have designed a different way is really not a valid argument against how a "designer" has designed.

This may or may not be relevant to the topic, but...

Got the claws out huh? Nice.

As far as predictions go, this one has been falsified. Or maybe not; I'm honestly not sure what you're trying to say here.

Congratulations, the first real prediction of intelligent design! So... how do we test this? How could we falsify it? How could we find corroborating evidence for it?

...

...

...Get back to me on that one, will you?



And that's another proposition that is either false or so widely drawn as to be meaningless.



Chemistry? Constantly? I mean, if we want to stretch DNA to be a language with "information" (rather than a series of chemical interactions), then why not refer to all of chemistry as a "language"? After all, 4H+O2 -> 2H2O + E is just as easily understood as a language or code or "instruction" as DNA is. Do you disagree? Because what's going on in DNA is exactly that. Every single interaction taken by DNA can be boiled down to chemical reactions of that sort.

But of course, the mechanics of DNA is only very loosely analogous to language. It's a useful analogy in some regards, but in this regards, it leads us down the wrong road. There is no reason to believe that DNA arose through anything other than random processes.

Loosely analogous to language? Do you know that one human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill a million-page encyclopaedia, or to fill about 1,000 books. This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains as much information as would fill a one-million-page encyclopaedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body.

DNA can give us information from the information within it that allows us to determine if someone will be likely to have a form of disease. The letters within DNA give information as to how a feature or function will develop. DNA has meaning and that meaning can be known and understood.

The fact that you "think" that there is no reason to believe DNA could not have arisen by chance and random processes illuminates either your personal materialistic worldview or an underestimation of DNA itself.

My computer died and didn't save the other half of this post. I will need to go back and address the ones that were lost later.

 

[Loudmouth]

Loosely analogous to language? Do you know that one human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill a million-page encyclopaedia, or to fill about 1,000 books.

So would a rock of equal mass.

DNA can give us information from the information within it that allows us to determine if someone will be likely to have a form of disease.

Rocks can give us information of how they formed, weather patterns, temperature variations, etc.

The fact that you "think" that there is no reason to believe DNA could not have arisen by chance and random processes illuminates either your personal materialistic worldview or an underestimation of DNA itself.

Evolution isn't random or chance.

 

[justlookinla]

Loosely analogous to language? Do you know that one human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill a million-page encyclopaedia, or to fill about 1,000 books. This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains as much information as would fill a one-million-page encyclopaedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body.

DNA can give us information from the information within it that allows us to determine if someone will be likely to have a form of disease. The letters within DNA give information as to how a feature or function will develop. DNA has meaning and that meaning can be known and understood.

The fact that you "think" that there is no reason to believe DNA could not have arisen by chance and random processes illuminates either your personal materialistic worldview or an underestimation of DNA itself.

It's all an illusion!! I can't prove it with evidence, you'll have have to take my word for it.

 

[justlookinla]

So would a rock of equal mass.



Rocks can give us information of how they formed, weather patterns, temperature variations, etc.



Evolution isn't random or chance.

Rocks and rivers.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Rocks and rivers.

Rocks and Rivers...

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is misleading. Francis Collins is not an adherent of the form of evolution (evolution isn't a monolithic term) which eliminates God from the creation of humanity. Peruse his website and you'll find that particular position he labels as "evolutionism" and is totally against it.

Yep.

 

[justlookinla]

Evolution isn't random or chance.

According to UC-Berkley it is.

 

[Loudmouth]

Rocks and Rivers...

Information, all matter has it.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

 

[Subduction Zone]

When determining ERV's in chimp and humans are evidence for common ancestry there are two assumptions made, the first is that they lack function and secondly that they are rare random events. ERV's have now been shown to possess an anti-retroviral function, which serves to frustrate retroviral assembly via competitive inhibition. And LTR's are now recognized as critical elements in gene regulation. Add to this that retroviral insertions many not be random at all but instead may take place at well-defined locations in the genome.

No, there is no assumption that they do not have a function. And yes they are rare and fairly random. Neither of those are assumptions. An ERV may not imbed in the lifetime of a species. And links please to how ERV's are of use. Since ERV's are from viruses it makes sense that we could use part of their "code" to help protect us from other viruses once a species had the genetic information. That in no way shows that they are not from viruses.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535086
We report the existence of 51,197 ERV-derived promoter sequences that initiate transcription within the human genome, including 1743 cases where transcription is initiated from ERV sequences that are located in gene proximal promoter or 5' untranslated regions (UTRs). A total of 114 of the ERV-derived transcription start sites can be demonstrated to drive transcription of 97 human genes, producing chimeric transcripts that are initiated within ERV long terminal repeat (LTR) sequences and read-through into known gene sequences. ERV promoters drive tissue-specific and lineage-specific patterns of gene expression and contribute to expression divergence between paralogs. These data illustrate the potential of retroviral sequences to regulate human transcription on a large scale consistent with a substantial effect of ERVs on the function and evolution of the human genome.

Why are closely related ERV elements found in supposedly non-related species?[/QUOTE]

I just saw that Loudmouth who understands this topic much better than I do has already debunked your post. The question is will you remember that you were shown to be wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So would a rock of equal mass.

Source?

Rocks can give us information of how they formed, weather patterns, temperature variations, etc.

Please give the source for the fact that a rock of equal mass would have the same information level as DNA.

Evolution isn't random or chance.

I said, DNA arising from random chance. Did DNA arise from necessity? Did it arise for a purpose? Did it arise from specific action?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Information, all matter has it.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Which only pushes the issue one step back. Why do we have laws of physics? Why should a universe contain laws anyway? Why are the laws and the matter that they apply to comprehensible to us? How is information comprehensible to us?

 

[Loudmouth]

Source?

All physical matter contains information.

"In physics, physical information refers generally to the information that is contained in a physical system. Its usage in quantum mechanics (i.e. quantum information) is important, for example in the concept of quantum entanglement to describe effectively direct or causal relationships between apparently distinct or spatially separated particles."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_information

Please give the source for the fact that a rock of equal mass would have the same information level as DNA.

Equal mass would be the same amount of matter, therefore the same amount of information.

I said, DNA arising from random chance. Did DNA arise from necessity? Did it arise for a purpose? Did it arise from specific action?

We don't know where the first DNA came from.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which only pushes the issue one step back. Why do we have laws of physics? Why should a universe contain laws anyway? Why are the laws and the matter that they apply to comprehensible to us? How is information comprehensible to us?

You are only avoiding my response.

 

[The Cadet]

Loosely analogous to language? Do you know that one human DNA molecule contains enough information to fill a million-page encyclopaedia, or to fill about 1,000 books. This is to say that the nucleus of each cell contains as much information as would fill a one-million-page encyclopaedia, which is used to control the functions of the human body.

Do you know anything about information theory? That is, the branch of computer science that deals with the matter of information? If you impose a code onto anything, you can produce information from it. Loudmouth's rock example is a perfect analogy - each of the trillions of atoms in a pebble is arranged in a specific, solid manner to form the end product, which is the rock. And to information theory, it does not matter if that pebble is the hope diamond or a lump of coal; so long as the same number of atoms with the same entropy are present, the information content is the same. Similarly, if we impose the code of CAGT onto DNA nucleotides, it doesn't matter whether a string with a known length forms a human or an amoeba or a malformed mess of non-functional proteins; it contains the same information.

Look, I'm sorry, but you keep invoking information and I keep getting more and more of an impression that you have no idea what it is. Please define the term "information" as you are using it, and then stick to that definition.

DNA can give us information from the information within it

Just like any pseudorandom stochaistic process can give us information.

A physical system, or a mathematical model of a system which produces such a sequence of symbols governed by a set of probabilities, is known as a stochastic process. We may consider a discrete source, therefore, to be represented by a stochastic process. Conversely, any stochastic process which produces a discrete sequence of symbols chosen from a finite set may be considered a discrete source.​

That's from Shannon's 1948 paper - the paper which, in essence, created the field of information theory. DNA contains information in the exact same was as any pseudorandom process. You could derive information from atomic decay. You could derive it from the order of atoms in a rock. You could derive it from the number of fish swimming down a particular river. It doesn't matter. You cannot simply single out DNA like this; it is not some special case.

that allows us to determine if someone will be likely to have a form of disease. The letters within DNA give information as to how a feature or function will develop. DNA has meaning and that meaning can be known and understood.

Just like if you look at the order of atoms in a rock, you can determine what kind of rock it is. This is not impressive in any meaningful way. It all boils down to chemistry.

The fact that you "think" that there is no reason to believe DNA could not have arisen by chance and random processes illuminates either your personal materialistic worldview or an underestimation of DNA itself.

No, it illustrates that we currently have no viable model for how DNA arose, and that we have no good reasons to exclude naturalistic, random processes.

Which only pushes the issue one step back. Why do we have laws of physics? Why should a universe contain laws anyway? Why are the laws and the matter that they apply to comprehensible to us? How is information comprehensible to us?

I don't know. I say that with honesty, integrity, and pride. I have no idea why the laws of physics are the way they are. I don't know if they could be different or if them being different has any meaning. I don't know why certain things in the universe appear to be constant. Do you have a falsifiable hypothesis which you can corroborate with evidence?

 

[Oncedeceived]

All physical matter contains information.

Well then lets be more specific about the information. DNA contains meaningful, purposeful, specific information that is like a code with instructions that has the ability to not only store information, but command other cells, and replicate itself. It also has the ability to build more components of cells and of course has parts that carry this genetic information too. Rocks do not contain any of these properties.

Equal mass would be the same amount of matter, therefore the same amount of information.

So you would say that a rock the size of the human brain would contain the same amount of information that the human brain does?

We don't know where the first DNA came from.

So you don't know if the first DNA arose from necessity? Or for a purpose? Or to perform specific actions? However, it is necessary, has a purpose and does perform specific actions in which evolution is dependent upon.

 

[The Cadet]

Well then lets be more specific about the information. DNA contains meaningful, purposeful, specific information that is like a code with instructions that has the ability to not only store information, but command other cells, and replicate itself. It also has the ability to build more components of cells and of course has parts that carry this genetic information too. Rocks do not contain any of these properties.

Care to define "information"? And, for that matter, "meaningful", "purposeful", "specific", or any of the rest of these vague terms you're throwing around as though their definitions weren't important to your argument?