Prove it or remove it challenge

[Extraneous]

Moving the goal posts again, I see.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB130.html

No, it was relevant to what we were discussing. Answer the question, that would helpful. Im not following your link, i would prefer that you answer it yourself.

 

[Extraneous]

We could have actually had a meaningful discussion here. However instead of answering the question you have now sidetracked the discussion.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

No, it was relevant to what we were discussing. Answer the question, that would helpful. Im not following your link, i would prefer that you answer it yourself.

Yes, you moved the goal posts. We were discussing the human genome project. You hand waved it away and went to another PRATT (Previously refuted a thousand times) argument with junk DNA and claimed it means geneticists have no idea what they're talking about. Would you accept a DNA test that demonstrates who your father and mother are but won't accept what DNA concludes about common ancestry with other species?

As far as junk DNA, it's not really junk. Functions have been found in DNA that was once thought to be junk. You can state that we don't know everything about DNA but you cannot say because we don't know everything, then it's wrong and it's just assumptions.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I did but you didn't acknowledge it. They dont understand DNA fully, yet they use it as evidence, thats one example.

Do you understand God fully?

 

[Extraneous]

Do you understand God fully?

Irrelevant.

 

[Paterfamilia]

I'm going to quote something you said in post #275:

That right there is you stating an argument from incredulity. You are saying that because life is 'complex' (someone on the non-evolution side has yet to actually define complexity as they use it), then it must be wrong.

Complexity as "they" use it.

A thing is complex if it is an unlikely combination of connected parts.

For example: "Uyro shoue si on reif!" is a complex combination of 21 characters that is unlikely to occur, or perhaps more accurately, no MORE likely to occur than any other 21 character combination if taken randomly. It's a strictly statistical descriptor.

It communicates no information and has no causal relationships.

"Your house is on fire!" uses the exact same 21 characters in complex combination. This combination is just as likely (if taken randomly) as the other 21 character combination that I listed earlier.

However, you can see that the second combination is SPECIFIED and that it communicates information. You can understand the message being communicated, and it causes you to take action, if it were true.

 

[Extraneous]

Yes, you moved the goal posts. We were discussing the human genome project. You hand waved it away and went to another PRATT (Previously refuted a thousand times) argument with junk DNA and claimed it means geneticists have no idea what they're talking about. Would you accept a DNA test that demonstrates who your father and mother are but won't accept what DNA concludes about common ancestry with other species?

As far as junk DNA, it's not really junk. Functions have been found in DNA that was once thought to be junk. You can state that we don't know everything about DNA but you cannot say because we don't know everything, then it's wrong and it's just assumptions.

I didnt say they have no idea, i only said their understanding is not complete. What do they have then as far as evidence? Human's and other apes share some DNA. Ok, that's not surprising to me. Everything shares DNA. God made Humans and other apes similar. So what?

They watched bacteria mutate in the lab. Again, thats not surprising.

They found a couple fossils which are hardly conclusive.

If there is something else then explain it to me, i'll listen.

 

[The Cadet]

It communicates no information and has no causal relationships.

Define "information", as you clearly seem to mean something other than the computer science definition.

 

[lasthero]

However, you can see that the second combination is SPECIFIED and that it communicates information. You can understand the message being communicated, and it causes you to take action, if it were true.

What if I can't read English? What if, for example, I was from an alien species, and I've never even seen the alphabet before. Does it cease to convey information?

 

[Paterfamilia]

Except that they DO understand DNA. They've sequenced entire genomes!

Sir, certainly you misspoke?! "they DO understand DNA."

Has anybody told "them" that?? ha ha! I'm not being rude but your statement is not credible.

"They" have ruled out chance as a prescriptor, given the infinitesimally vanishingly preposterously (add several other ly adverbs) small likelihood as a sufficient mechanism.

"They" can't seem to find the right combination of the four fundamental forces that would act on matter such that the right combination of the 20 amino acids that string together (in order) to even form a relatively small protein.

What's left? Chance, necessity, or a combination of the two. That's it.

You may (emphasize may, you might be a molecular biologist on the knife edge of the research) be a little bit behind on the literature sir.

Darwinism has some big problems. They look insurmountable to many.

 

[Paterfamilia]

What if I can't read English? What if, for example, I was from an alien species, and I've never even seen the alphabet before. Does it cease to convey information?

Nope. Your house still burns down.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Define "information", as you clearly seem to mean something other than the computer science definition.

in·for·ma·tion
ˌinfərˈmāSH(ə)n/
noun

1. 1.
   facts provided or learned about something or someone.
   "a vital piece of information"
   synonyms: details, particulars, facts, figures, statistics, data; More
   
   
2. 2.
   what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
   "genetically transmitted information"
   
   
   Note in particular the second definition listed.
   
   Bill Gates described DNA as the most complex computer code ever discovered, far beyond any we have devised, with unequalled storage capacity.
   
   

 

[VirOptimus]

I didnt say they have no idea, i only said their understanding is not complete. What do they have then as far as evidence? Human's and other apes share some DNA. Ok, that's not surprising to me. Everything shares DNA. God made Humans and other apes similar. So what?

They watched bacteria mutate in the lab. Again, thats not surprising.

They found a couple fossils which are hardly conclusive.

If there is something else then explain it to me, i'll listen.

So, you realise that humans are apes, can you admit that you where wrong before?

 

[lasthero]

Nope. Your house still burns down.

What does that have to do with the message conveying 'information'?

I didnt say they have no idea, i only said their understanding is not complete.

Can you nme any field of science where anything is understood 100%?

What do they have then as far as evidence? Human's and other apes share some DNA.

It's not just 'some'. We should the vasty majority of our DNA.

They watched bacteria mutate in the lab. Again, thats not surprising.

It should be if you hold the position that organsims can't evolve new, novel features.

They found a couple fossils which are hardly conclusive.

We've found more than a couple of fossils.

If there is something else then explain it to me, i'll listen.

Have you read up on ERVs?

Barry Desborough (and others) have brought it up in numerous topic on this site

1. Retroviruses replicate by invading the cells of host organisms, converting their RNA genomes into DNA, and inserting (integrating, in the jargon) the DNA into the DNA of the host cell. The host cell then "reads" the viral DNA, resulting in the production of more viruses.
2. Retroviruses tend to target certain types of cells. Their "environment" proteins tend to be specialized to attach to the surfaces of these cells.
3. The insertion is made by a retroviral enzyme called integrase. While certain retroviruses can show a general tendency to insert their DNA in certain types of regions of the host genome, they do not target specific points (loci).
4. We find, in the genomes of creatures such as ourselves and chimpanzees, inherited structures that appear to be broken retroviral insertions. Some are more complete than others, but many have the full set of genes that would be necessary for a complete retrovirus, were they not faulty. We call these structures endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). They appear in the exact same spots in the DNA of every cell.
5. Although certain components of some ERVs perform functions in the host, one or two even being essential in some species, design, as an explanation for ERVs, does not make any sense. A designer would have no need to include specifically retroviral genes in its designs, which now do nothing, or can even cause harm. There would also be no need to design in non-functional traces of the action of integrase, traces of which are present in ERVs.
6. The only explanation that makes any sense is that ERVs are the result of retroviral insertions into germ-line DNA - egg cells or sperm cells, followed by reproduction and consequent cell division. Cell division will duplicate the ERVs in the same positions in the DNA of every cell. Separate, parallel infection would not infect every cell, and the ERVs would end up in different locations, comparing one infected cell with another.
7. All human beings have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in identical DNA locations going from cell to cell, and person to person. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections.
8. All human beings and chimpanzees have some 200,000+ ERV and ERV fragments in the DNA of every one of their cells. Most of them are in precisely corresponding DNA locations going from cell to cell, and individual to individual. This means that we all share common ancestors - the ancestors that first acquired each of the the germ-line retroviral infections. See http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm#Amount_of_Shared_ERVs

 

[Extraneous]

So, you realise that humans are apes, can you admit that you where wrong before?

Wrong about what exactly? Man is an animal so if science wants to classify him an ape that fine with me. We must call him something i suppose.

 

[Hoshiyya]

I really wish, more Americans appreciated the importance of understanding it in the Hebrew, or at least being able to read someone who does. Then they might have a clue how to approach Genesis.

Well, on that, I think you will have a hard time finding any ancient Hebrew text that teaches evolution, theistic or otherwise...
Evolution was introduced to the Jews by Darwin, not by Mosheh. People read the Bible in Hebrew for literally thousands of years, and nobody ever found it to be teaching evolution until Darwin put forth the idea.

 

[The Cadet]

what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information"

Then I refer you to this thread. You completely miss the point of what "information" means.

 

[Edmond Smith]

I'm a theistic whateverist... meaning that I'm open to evolution, punctuated or Darwinian or whatever. It doesn't matter. God made the world through that 'whatever' and Genesis 1 is a thankful poetic theological narrative, not an engineering manual. I wish, I really wish, more Americans appreciated the importance of understanding it in the Hebrew, or at least being able to read someone who does. Then they might have a clue how to approach Genesis.

God made it very simple, to confound the wise.
Do you know Hebrew? If so, then kudo's to you.
But you see, God made sure that everyone would know about Him and His Son. So he allowed the Hebrew language to be translated to put out His message, exactly as he intended it to be. The Bible is the most accurate book out there. It is not a science book. It was never intended to be science book. But it does have some science in it. Simple stuff, like the earth is round, floats in space, and a few others.
Does it get into particle acceleration, Nope, don't have to. Does it cover the rules of Physics, No it don't have to.
Because that's not what it's written for. Nor is it the genre it was written in.
It's a Historical narrative, with different genre of literal styles, poetry, musical, allegorical, metaphorical, hyperboles, and true life stories. The Bible is inspired by God. With Him using men with different styles, lives, experiences and one common belief. That Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who came to earth so that all men may be saved. And they all tell the same story. God loves His creation and it's His will to be with them and them with Him.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Then I refer you to this thread. You completely miss the point of what "information" means.

I think you may have missed the point of the OP in your referenced thread. At least in my quick scan, I agreed with it, and further, I believe (as I said) it's a big problem for evolutionists.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Irrelevant.

Your understanding of God is irrelevant? Your words, not mine.

Clearly He can't be used to explain anything...