Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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."
Junk DNA is an argument of ignorance.
Yes there were some scientist who didn't jump of the Junk DNA bandwagon but the majority did.
@stevevwYou coming back any time soon?
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. 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.
Claiming that the "designer" could have designed a different way is really not a valid argument against how a "designer" has designed.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.
Got the claws out huh? Nice.This may or may not be relevant to the topic, but...
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Yep.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.
Evolution isn't random or chance.
Rocks and Rivers...
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.
Source?So would a rock of equal mass.
Please give the source for the fact that a rock of equal mass would have the same information level as DNA.Rocks can give us information of how they formed, weather patterns, temperature variations, etc.
I said, DNA arising from random chance. Did DNA arise from necessity? Did it arise for a purpose? Did it arise from specific action?Evolution isn't random or chance.
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?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
Source?
Please give the source for the fact that a rock of equal mass would have the same information level as DNA.
I said, DNA arising from random chance. Did DNA arise from necessity? Did it arise for a purpose? Did it arise from specific action?
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?
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.
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?
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.All physical matter contains 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?Equal mass would be the same amount of matter, therefore the same amount of information.
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.We don't know where the first DNA came from.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?