Prove it or remove it challenge

[HitchSlap]

ha ha what I don't see is you engaging any of my points.

Now why would that be?

Because arguments from incredulity, big numbers and ignorance only impress cdesign proponentsists.

Now why would that, be?

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-meyers-bogus-information-theory.html

 

[Queller]

Why does accepting evolution make a person a sinner ... For me personally it would be sin, because I believe that death did not enter gods world until Adam and Eve sinned. I believe the bible.

The death spoken of seems far more likely to be spiritual death than physical death. After all, Genesis 2:17 states;

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Adam and Eve certainly didn't physically die the day they ate the fruit.

Not to mention that without physical death, life would have quickly overrun the planet.

 

[Extraneous]

Wow. Just wow. Every time I see a variant on the old when a male X evolved and waited around millions of years for a female X to evolve the perfect genitals and reproductive system for him to have sex with it just blows my mind that someone could post something that insipid without thinking about it for more than 10 seconds or, at least, trying to learn something about evolution before making such a criticism.

Actually that was not what i said. I instead said that both male and female would have needed to evolve at the same time, and that bananas may have been our ancestors.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ I apologize (but I don't withdraw my challenge ha ha), I missed this. You did engage my point. Thank you.

Your point is not a good one however. The information is in the form of instructions. The instructions are transcribed and communicated during the replication process by mRNA and synthesis in the ribosome.

Your attempt to trivialize the information will be ultimately self-defeating. Try another track?

But you have not shown that is "information" in the first place any more than the physical laws that cause snowflakes to form is "information". And how am I trivializing the information? You never showed that it was information caused by an intelligence is in the first place. You are merely using a rather convoluted circular argument and an equivocation fallacy. No one here was too impressed by it. You need to try again.

 

[HitchSlap]

Actually that was not what i said. I instead said that both male and female would have needed to evolve at the same time, and that bananas may have been our ancestors.

Good lord skippy. By all means, stick to creationism. Please.

After all, god did make the banana to perfectly fit the human hand!

 

[Paterfamilia]

You don't know of any. What you are proposing here is an argument from ignorance. The fact that we may not know the answer to one particular problem in no way harms the theory of evolution and it does not mean that we will never learn either. I would not say that the problem is definitely answered yet, but here is a good shot at it:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/04/150413183745.htm

Okay, so this is a problem. The paper you referenced clearly says that humans are the only animals with chins; the same thing that I said.

And yet you claim that "I don't know of any" and that my "argument is from ignorance."

I stated facts. Your research supports my facts. You continue to deny. This is not productive for a discussion dude (or dudette).

 

[Paterfamilia]

But you have not shown that is "information" in the first place any more than the physical laws that cause snowflakes to form is "information". And how am I trivializing the information? You never showed that it was information caused by an intelligence is in the first place. You are merely using a rather convoluted circular argument and an equivocation fallacy. No one here was too impressed by it. You need to try again.

Would you say that a blueprint for building a house contains information? The information in DNA is the same type. Construction instructions. Dude, the definition I listed (2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information") comes from Google, (as in, not exactly an ID bastion.)

This is a red herring argument that 99% of evolutionary biologists would agree with ME on. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else here is "impressed". You're disagreeing with Dawkins. Makes me question your motive for disagreeing with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, so this is a problem. The paper you referenced clearly says that humans are the only animals with chins; the same thing that I said.

And yet you claim that "I don't know of any" and that my "argument is from ignorance."

I stated facts. Your research supports my facts. You continue to deny. This is not productive for a discussion dude (or dudette).

I did a quick search after I said "I don't know". I have not really read that article fully yet, so I don't even know how well it supports its claims. It was merely an example that your question may have been answered. I did not deny that humans are the only animals with chins. Do you think that our chins are magical and somehow give us a soul? And yes, you do tend to use the argument from ignorance quite often. I was not saying that that article proved or disproved evolution, I merely offered it as a possible answer.

By the way, my research only supported the least part of your facts, that we have chins. There will probably always be unanswered questions in evolution. As we learn more we know enough to ask new questions. But just because a question is new don't assume that it will never be answered. One of the reasons that Michael Behe is a laughing stock is because he confidently claimed that various traits could not have evolved naturally. He picked new problems on the cutting edge of science when he did so. One shortcoming of that sort of tactic is that problems of that sort very often do get solved. We know how they could have evolved when Behe said that was impossible. He is in the same position that the nay sayers for the Wright brothers achieved.


Instead you should be asking how we know that life is the product of evolution. You might learn something that way.

 

[Queller]

It gets kind of weak in steps three and four

That's your opinion.

the author is anonymous

So?

and the blog has barely been touched in the last decade, but at least it's on topic.

The article you cited has no references later than 2006. What's your point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Would you say that a blueprint for building a house contains information? The information in DNA is the same type. Construction instructions. Dude, the definition I listed (2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information") comes from Google, (as in, not exactly an ID bastion.)

This is a red herring argument that 99% of evolutionary biologists would agree with ME on. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else here is "impressed". You're disagreeing with Dawkins. Makes me question your motive for disagreeing with me.

Sorry, it is not even close. We know how blueprints are drawn up by humans. We know how DNA is made by life. There is an attempt to convey information in the blueprints from one thinking mind to another. There is no such attempt with DNA. The parts of the cells that make it are not thinking and the parts the "read" it are not thinking. These are clearly different sorts of "information". You want to assume an intelligent creator but you have not shown any evidence or need for one.

ETA: Must run see you later.

 

[florida2]

I have a question, if no one minds answering. Do plants and animals share any DNA? If so, then did plants evolve from animals or vise versa?

Actually that was not what i said. I instead said that both male and female would have needed to evolve at the same time, and that bananas may have been our ancestors.

Bananas really weren't our ancestors.

Animals and plants split about 1.6 billion years ago. It is likely that we are still talking about single celled organisms. We share a lot in common with plants at the cellular level but with some crucial differences, such as plants having chloroplasts.

We share a common ancestor with bananas, and indeed all plants and animals, but we did not evolve from plants per se. My cousins and I share a common ancestor - my grandfather - but I do not descend from my cousins though the common ancestry means we do share a very large amount of our DNA.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/02/17/plant-and-animal-development-c/

 

[Paterfamilia]

I did a quick search after I said "I don't know". I have not really read that article fully yet, so I don't even know how well it supports its claims. It was merely an example that your question may have been answered. I did not deny that humans are the only animals with chins. Do you think that our chins are magical and somehow give us a soul? And yes, you do tend to use the argument from ignorance quite often. I was not saying that that article proved or disproved evolution, I merely offered it as a possible answer.

By the way, my research only supported the least part of your facts, that we have chins. There will probably always be unanswered questions in evolution. As we learn more we know enough to ask new questions. But just because a question is new don't assume that it will never be answered. One of the reasons that Michael Behe is a laughing stock is because he confidently claimed that various traits could not have evolved naturally. He picked new problems on the cutting edge of science when he did so. One shortcoming of that sort of tactic is that problems of that sort very often do get solved. We know how they could have evolved when Behe said that was impossible. He is in the same position that the nay sayers for the Wright brothers achieved.


Instead you should be asking how we know that life is the product of evolution. You might learn something that way.

Now this is hilarious!!! You try to make the point that I argue from ignorance (try me, seriously) and then go on to explain your own personal ignorance, and the basal role of ignorance that your theory depends on and continues to thrive on.

Talk about a convenient cop-out? Yours is built in.

 

[HitchSlap]

Would you say that a blueprint for building a house contains information? The information in DNA is the same type. Construction instructions. Dude, the definition I listed (2. what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
"genetically transmitted information") comes from Google, (as in, not exactly an ID bastion.)

This is a red herring argument that 99% of evolutionary biologists would agree with ME on. It doesn't matter if you or anyone else here is "impressed". You're disagreeing with Dawkins. Makes me question your motive for disagreeing with me.

This is why cdesign proponentsists aren't taken seriously. From the blog I linked to:

"Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations. "

Cdesign proponentsists somehow expect a seat at the table, when in fact they've done nothing to deserve the invitation.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-meyers-bogus-information-theory.html

 

[Paterfamilia]

This is why cdesign proponentsists aren't taken seriously. From the blog I linked to:

"Creationist information, as discussed by Meyer, is an incoherent mess. One version of it has been introduced by William Dembski, and criticized in detail by Mark Perakh, Richard Wein, and many others (including me). Intelligent design creationists love to call it "specified information" or "specified complexity" and imply that it is widely accepted by the scientific community, but this is not the case. There is no paper in the scientific literature that gives a rigorous and coherent definition of creationist information; nor is it used in scientific or mathematical investigations. "

Cdesign proponentsists somehow expect a seat at the table, when in fact they've done nothing to deserve the invitation.

http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/10/stephen-meyers-bogus-information-theory.html

Christopher was still alive when that blog was written. Better get up to speed dude.

I would be happy to debate you as well. Perfectly cordial. You're welcome to imbibe all the Johnny Walker you want ha ha!

 

[HitchSlap]

Christopher was still alive when that blog was written. Better get up to speed dude.

I would be happy to debate you as well. Perfectly cordial. You're welcome to imbibe all the Johnny Walker you want ha ha!

Black!

 

[Queller]

Man you are not getting my point... Evolution says a dog could potentially grow wings

No, it doesn't. If you feel I am wrong, then please provide something from the scientific literature that states otherwise

.... Otherwise how did dinosaurs do it .. They evolved became more diverse. What I am asking is how would a dog grow wings. Don't fight by telling me to research ... Answer the question what is its process of evolution to becoming a flying dog. Tell me please.

There isn't one. Only misinformed creationists believe that evolution states that dogs will grow wings.

 

[Queller]

So what if a dog suddenly needed wings how woul it get them.

Apparently it is good enough for a dinosaur to grow them but not a dog.

What dinosaur suddenly grew wings?

Tell me if I am so stupid what is different between a fully functioning dinosaur growing wings and a fully functioning dog. You say it happens with a dinosoar how did it happen?

Show me the fully functioning dinosaur that grew wings and we'll talk.

 

[LivingWordUnity]

Is the human race evolving?

A. Off topic.
B. Non sequitur.
C. You really don't understand evolution, do you?

What on earth do your post have to do with the theory of evolution?

The point is that there are a significant number of people in today's world who act as if they are barbarians from prehistoric times. I presented it as something to think about. Are the two of you saying that the theory of evolution does not claim that modern man is superior to prehistoric man?

 

[Extraneous]

Bananas really weren't our ancestors.

Thanks for correcting. lol

 

[USincognito]

The point is that there are a significant number of people in today's world who act as if they are barbarians from prehistoric times.

Where did you get the idea that barbarism was limited to prehistoric times?

I presented it as something to think about.

I would submit you should have engaged in a bit more thinking yourself before posting what you did.

Are the two of you saying that the theory of evolution does not claim that modern man is superior to prehistoric man?

Yes. It makes no such claim and frankly doesn't even deal with that subject.