Evolution via random mutations is impossible

[pitabread]

And this is why I carefully gave two examples of specificity observed that scientists infer intelligence...that were not a product of humans either. Dolphin language and alien space signals have nothing to do with human manufacture.

In the latter case, however, SETI researchers are making an inference based on human manufacture (i.e. that aliens would have built similar radio transmitters).

I agree. However we clearly observe the very specified nature of DNA. Since to date we have only ever observed specificity form by intelligent sources it is not unreasonable to conclude DNA code had an intelligent source.

"Specificity" is too nebulous a term. Unless you're prepared to offer a rigorous, scientific definition, then any claims about its applicability to DNA is moot.

But that's for another discussion.

Indeed.

Hehhh... I didn't say they were looking for intent AND purpose I said intent or purpose. In this case isn't a "manufactured" signal a signal with intention rather we know what it's intention is or not?

Allow me to clarify then: The intent, purpose, motivation, goal, desire, and/or objective of the signal and/or aliens who sent it is irrelevant. All that matters is that the signal being detected not have a known natural source and therefore the inference is that it's the product of an artificially manufactured transmitter. That's it.

Naturally once they detect such a signal they can perhaps try to decode it and determine its purpose. But purpose doesn't matter solely when it comes to detection.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

Evolution via random mutations is impossible

I am unconvinced by explanations of how random mutations operating with natural selection can account for the complexity of chemical biological life. The basic answer I encounter is that calculating the probability is too complex, and so it is merely assumed that randomness was sufficient. But if something unproven and unseen is the cause, why object when people claim that God intervenes (which is also unprovable)?

I should mention: I believe in evolution. If it can be demonstrated that random mutations is sufficient, I will wholehearted accept it.

As said before: demonstrably false statement.

We have plenty of evidence of common descent. Absolutely loads of it. See: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1 for a start.

You can't say that something can't have happened if it has actually happened.

If I said: I don't believe that water can fall from the sky. What would be your response to that?

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I like your thread. But do not accept the possibility of evolution, after extensive investigation. Evolution never happened.

Evolution is happening now. E.g. https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

You can't say that something never happened if we can see it happening.

 

[AnotherAtheist]

I know right? Most evolutionists hate discussing the topic of abiogenesis.

Please stop lying.

Evolutionists are very happy to discuss abiogenesis. We just point out that it is not covered by ToE and is a separate scientific endeavour. Evolution applies no matter how life started on earth. Whether by theistic creation of the first life, naturalistic creation (e.g. advanced aliens), abiogenesis, panspermia, etc.

If you had a case for your own beliefs, you wouldn't have to lie.

EDIT: I have just fixed a typo that made this post meaningless.

 

[Ophiolite]

If I said: I don't believe that water can fall from the sky. What would be your response to that?

I would say "I'm sorry, but I have to rain on your parade."

 

[BradB]

https://migration.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/animalsevolution_lg.jpeg

Sorry it’s in German but German and English also share enough of a common ancestry that you should be able to understand it.

It's a neat-o picture...here's mine.

Beweist dies, dass Autos sich entwickelt haben? Or should I say "Does this prove cars evolved?"

Here’s how animals are related . You do have to look at juveniles or fetal forms to see common ancestry and this is something Darwin would have been aware of . DNA and genetics only confirm this . So stop spouting your favorite creationist lie about no evidence for common descent between major forms because this is animal life at its most basic

I do hope you are not referring to the well refuted pseudoscience of embryology? That's like claiming a divining rod can locate water.

 

[BradB]

LOL!

So what good is the ID concept?

It cannot predict specificity? It has no means of finding specificity unless the IDist is told what it does?

GAME SHOW HOST: The question is xxx?

CONTESTANT: Um, I don't know - tell me the answer, and then I can tell you!

GAME SHOW HOST: You must be an Intelligent Design Advocate...



How specific and how do you know?

Your precision is lacking. You seem to be making an argument from analogy (...make the connection from a previous experience...). Analogies are not evidence.


It means that you should not be telling people that you can speak Spanish - but only if others tell you what the words mean first.

You seem to have intentionally pulled my words out of context. I was clearly saying you do NOT need to know what exactly something does in order to identify specificity. You only have to make a connection from a previous independent experience.

GAME SHOW HOST: The question is design or natural? (holding up a rock)

CONTESTANT: Um, I don't recognize any design features...natural?

GAME SHOW HOST: correct. You win a BRAND NEW CAR!

If the host were to hold up rock carved into an arrowhead the contestant would guess design because he would recognize it from a previous experience. Things that are engineered even if we don't know how they work, or what they do can be recognized by observing that a one thing completely independent of the other is required to make the other thing function. A Ford Transit connect key is one of the oddest looking keys I have ever seen. In fact I had never seen one before I bought my Transit. But the fact that its funny shape fits perfectly into the hole in the side of my steering column and it has to be that exact shape in order to turn over the engine tells me it was designed that way.

ID predicts that if the universe and life were designed we would observe specificity in its basic makeup and we do. The arrangement of the universe stars and planets, the hundreds of conditions of our world need to come together at the exact same time and place just for life to exist, the fine tuned nature of the laws of physics, and the precise arrangement of nucleotides in the DNA of all living things display this characteristic of specificity.

 

[pitabread]

ID predicts that if the universe and life were designed we would observe specificity in its basic makeup and we do.

There is no scientific ID theory from which to derive predictions from. All such predictions appear to be entirely post-hoc; that is to say, not actually predictions at all.

Not to mention that "specificity" is entirely too vague in this context to be a useful concept. Unless you happen to have a way to explicitly define, identify and measure it.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Evolution is happening now. E.g. https://listverse.com/2011/11/19/8-examples-of-evolution-in-action/

You can't say that something never happened if we can see it happening.

None of those examples show anything changing to a different body form. The moth is still a moth.

 

[Brightmoon]

[="BradB, post: 72585342, member: 322963"]It's a neat-o picture...here's mine.
View attachment 226860

Beweist dies, dass Autos sich entwickelt haben? Or should I say "Does this prove cars evolved?"

Cars aren’t living

I do hope you are not referring to the well refuted pseudoscience of embryology? That's like claiming a divining rod can locate water.[/QUOTE]

Who told you that nonsense? developmental biology is very well respected . A lot of medical breakthroughs have happened because we understand the genetics of how organisms develop from eggs to adults. Juveniles sometimes have ancestral traits that adult organisms lose. All chordates,including humans, have a notochord, pharyngeal slits and a post-anal tail some time during fetal development. Adult humans , in fact adult apes, have none of these.

 

[Brightmoon]

None of those examples show anything changing to a different body form. The moth is still a moth.

Your ignorance is showing , you’d better put that away and hide it so no one can see it!

What would you expect to see otherwise? A moth changing its morphology into something that we’d agree is not a moth would take longer than your lifespan and could take millions of years.

 

[Jimmy D]

I do hope you are not referring to the well refuted pseudoscience of embryology? That's like claiming a divining rod can locate water.

LOL. Better tell Cambridge, Oxford, etc.

They're doing it wrong!

 

[tas8831]

You seem to have intentionally pulled my words out of context.

Actually, I merely responded to exactly what you wrote:

"One cannot determine specificity of something without knowing what it does."

I was clearly saying you do NOT need to know what exactly something does in order to identify specificity.

So weird - are you saying your words mean the opposite of what you actually write? Because you wrote:

"One cannot determine specificity of something without knowing what it does."

Sure, you tried to weasel out of this obvious pitfall:

"In order to recognize specificity the observer must make the connection from a previous experience. But just because he cannot make the connection doesn't negate its existence. We know the code in DNA does something and we know it does something very specific."

But that just means you rely on analogies, in effect.

In other words, my interpretation based on what you wrote was not out of context at all, since your expansion did not actually alter my comments.

Your 'clarification' at best, just means ID is wishful thinking, and no amount of mock indignation or your usual 'wall of words' changes that.

 

[tas8831]

I do hope you are not referring to the well refuted pseudoscience of embryology?

Wait... what?

Are you really claiming "Embryology" is pseudoscience?

Taught embryology last semester. Science from start to finish.

What is your background, exactly? Used car salesman? Rodeo clown?

 

[FormerAtheist]

Your ignorance is showing , you’d better put that away and hide it so no one can see it!

What would you expect to see otherwise? A moth changing its morphology into something that we’d agree is not a moth would take longer than your lifespan and could take millions of years.

See that is what is so convenient about evolution anything you can see that doesn't prove it you say is evolution anything you can't see that does prove it you say is evolution. I was once debating a guy and he claimed that his daughter was on the verge of the next evolutionary cycle and wouldn't be the same species.
Sounds scarry.

 

[tas8831]

However we clearly observe the very specified nature of DNA.

Expand, please.

What, exactly, is this "specified nature" that we can "see"? Examples, please.

Or are you talking about the Dembskiite post-hoc rationalization, wherein once a functional sequence of DNA has been identified, the IDCs cry out "Specified!"?

Since to date we have only ever observed specificity form by intelligent sources it is not unreasonable to conclude DNA code had an intelligent source.

You mean humans - we have only observed humans create specificity. As defined by... humans. So the only logical inference you can make is that humans designed DNA (providing we even accept the description of DNA you seem to like).

 

[Jimmy D]

See that is what is so convenient about evolution anything you can see that doesn't prove it you say is evolution anything you can't see that does prove it you say is evolution. I was once debating a guy and he claimed that his daughter was on the verge of the next evolutionary cycle and wouldn't be the same species.
Sounds scarry.

What are you going on about?

They are observed examples of evolution.

 

[FormerAtheist]

What are you going on about?

They are observed examples of evolution.

Then why are so many evolutionary scientists having issues with ... uh ...... evolution. I mean your not at least a little skeptical? The scientists in the field sure seem to be.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why are so many evolutionary scientists having issues with ... uh ...... evolution. I mean your not at least a little skeptical? The scientists in the field sure seem to be.

Very nearly 100% of all biologists accept the ToE, there is virtually no dissent at all.

 

[FormerAtheist]

Very nearly 100% of all biologists accept the ToE, there is virtually no dissent at all.

You sure about that? What if I can show you 1? or 3? or 6? and so on??

Then what?