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.
Why do you keep shooting yourself in the foot? Bacteria are highly evolved life. They cannot "morph into man". It is an error to think of other life as "less evolved". All life has an over three billion year history of evolution.It's fairly common knowledge - look up antibiotic resistance yourself, some bacteria may acquire resistance through mutation, because they actually lose an ability ( losing functional genetic information) to digest certain chemical compounds, this loss immediately becomes a disadvantage in a natural environment without the antibiotic. i.e. it is an evolutionary dead end, not a mechanism by which the bacteria can gain any new function- far less morph into a human being.
How?And we can recognize intelligence in the arrangement of petals by birds of paradise, whale songs, or hypothetically in the radio signals from outer space- while it might be a useful shortcut in some circumstances, there is no 'human comparison' necessary to acknowledge the fingerprints of creative intelligence itself
Do you really need to ask where?Please tell me where you got this nugget of information from. I want to know what your sources are.
I won't argue that evolution always gets it right, just the opposite: See: Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches | Nathan Lents. Yet, even if life and humans were by way of intelligent design those errors are still there.Natural selection is an inherently destructive process, a filtering mechanism, you start with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller number. i.e. the exact opposite of the Darwinian tree of life
No disagreement, mutations are random. Now you need to make a case that selection is random.You can 'select' exactly nothing into existence. it has to 'arise' somehow before any selection pressure can act on it.
That leaves, according to ToE, mutations, which are said to be random. aka pure blind chance
We already agreed that mutations are random. Yet, whether beneficial or not they come about the same mechanisms.almost makes it sound like 'beneficial' mutations are somehow in the same neighborhood of probability as deleterious ones-
Yes they do. Why do you think that deleterious mutations do not manifest themselves within a population the way beneficial mutations do?deleterious vastly outnumber the advantageous,
You are entitled to your opinion that it is overwhelming, but even so, I do agree that in certain environments natural loss-of-function mutation is a strategy for adaptation.and as above,rare mutations that may be deemed 'beneficial' in certain environments, are overwhelmingly the result of a loss of functional information
Yes, evolution can and often does produce seemingly improbable structures and features but not blind chance. If it were then deleterious mutations would be "blindly chosen" also.
Selection pressure, in some cases over millennia plays a large role. Novel fitness traits are often, not only due to beneficial mutations, but also from an accumulation of beneficial, neutral and slightly deleterious mutations combining.
Natural selection is an inherently destructive process, a filtering mechanism, you start with a larger number of options, and end with a smaller number. i.e. the exact opposite of the Darwinian tree of life
You can 'select' exactly nothing into existence. it has to 'arise' somehow before any selection pressure can act on it.
That leaves, according to ToE, mutations, which are said to be random. aka pure blind chance
almost makes it sound like 'beneficial' mutations are somehow in the same neighborhood of probability as deleterious ones- deleterious vastly outnumber the advantageous, and as above, rare mutations that may be deemed 'beneficial' in certain environments, are overwhelmingly the result of a loss of functional information
All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?Do you have an objective method of measuring "functional information"?
Because if you don't, then it's impossible to describe a change in it as a loss.
All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?
Do you have an objective method of measuring "functional information"?
That is a mischaracterization of how evolution occurs. When anyone tries to claim that evolution is "pure blind chance" they have already lost the debate.
Go away.Well yes, you might invalidate the belief that Roman architecture was designed.. but only if you followed the same rationale as ToE.
i.e. since we can directly observe Roman architecture changing over time through destructive natural forces, we can extrapolate this over thousands of years, to conclude that Pompeii was probably originally constructed by volcanoes, earthquakes and erosion.
He has no answers. He is just here to push his 'faith.' He will soon be mysteriously gone for another few months, to come back for a few self-righteous but silly drive-bys.How?
Specifically and empirically how do we recognise this intelligence?
For human mechanisms and hypothetical alien signals we look for stuff we could make and try to determine purpose given very understandable purposes.
How do you detect design in DNA and not in complex rock structures?
If you are able to detect design, or not, in those how do you determine if anything isn't designed?
'pure blind chance' is actually the defining characteristic of Darwinism
I won't argue that evolution always gets it right, just the opposite: See: Human Errors: A Panorama of Our Glitches | Nathan Lents. Yet, even if life and humans were by way of intelligent design those errors are still there.
No disagreement, mutations are random. Now you need to make a case that selection is random.
We already agreed that mutations are random. Yet, whether beneficial or not they come about the same mechanisms.
Yes they do. Why do you think that deleterious mutations do not manifest themselves within a population the way beneficial mutations do?
You are entitled to your opinion that it is overwhelming, but even so, I do agree that in certain environments natural loss-of-function mutation is a strategy for adaptation.
All these points have been made before and ignored or blustered around. I've yet to see a response to the 'loss of functional information' thanks to a mutation, that is restored by a later mutation that reverses the first - if 'functional information' was lost initially, 'functional information' was gained later. Another unanswered example is of a mutation that results in a loss of one beneficial function and the gain of another - is that loss or gain of 'functional information'?
He has no answers. He is just here to push his 'faith.' He will soon be mysteriously gone for another few months, to come back for a few self-righteous but silly drive-bys.
The point being, no matter the subjective/semantic debate over what is beneficial or not, you clearly cannot create a human being through simply corrupting or 'turning off and on' genetic information already existing in a single celled bacteria.
Yet you rarely actually address the points. You regurgitate standard creationist nonsense and rely on silly strawmen like - "you clearly cannot create a human being through simply corrupting or 'turning off and on' genetic information already existing in a single celled bacteria.".Well take it as a compliment. After all, it is well thought-out and challenging logical counter-arguments, such as yours, that keep me coming back.
Again you could ask an archeologist or forensic scientist- i.e. it is a fairly disciplined process- not merely 'intuition'- even if that might be correct. And not exclusive to biology or DNAHow?
Specifically and empirically how do we recognise this intelligence?
How do you detect design in DNA and not in complex rock structures?
If you are able to detect design, or not, in those how do you determine if anything isn't designed?
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?