Prove it or remove it challenge

[DogmaHunter]

Your argument has some merit, which I will be happy to address, but we have other business to attend to first.

If you say so.

You're original statement that ID is simply about ignorance about complexity was a false statement.

No... from reading your post in which you "explained" it, I can only conclude that I hit the nail on the head.

Your fallacious analogy is all about not knowing how the dice formed the phone numbers and then, based on that ignorance, assuming an intelligence was involved.

Which is exactly what I stated ID was: arguing from ignorance / incredulity.

My analogy simply illustrates the difference between complexity and specified complexity that communicates information.

And as I have said, this analogy doesn't work with DNA, as you have no "phone numbers" to compare that with.

Furthermore, your analogy was subjective as well, as for somebody else these phone numbers are merely strings of random numbers.

So you didn't show anything at all.

You said you would admit your statement was wrong if I could show that it was wrong. I have done that.

Nope, you did not. You have completely failed to show how this applies to DNA, for example. Furthermore, we still have that little problem where, even if I were to accept the analogy, it's still an argument from ignorance. It still amounts to nothing more then "I don't understand how these dice formed those numbers, therefor an intelligence did it".

If you don't have any integrity with regard to your word, or the truth, then I'm not interested in addressing your new argument.

It's not a "new argument". It's the same argument. It's ignorance and incredulity.

Your new argument is a good one and well stated (sort of) so I look forward to discussing it.

Still the same argument.

Now, please explain how any of this applies to DNA and biology, so I can point out how it's an argument from incredulity there as well.

 

[DogmaHunter]

1. Snowflakes don't contain any coded information. DNA does. In other words, snowflakes don't stand is any causal relationships. They don't determine any outcomes, they don't change anything. DNA determines most of the many features, systems, processes and body plans of organisms.

DNA is just a molecule and it merely works according to the rules and processes of chemistry and physics. It's not any different from any other chemical reaction.

2. The instantiation of a specific snowflake can be 100% attributed to a confluence of fundamental forces.

And the behaviour and workings of DNA can be 100% attributed to the laws and processes of chemistry and physics.

Snowflakes form by necessity as a result of the interaction of physical materials and conditions that comprise a specific context.

DNA does what it does by necessity as a result of the same.

The specific order of the base pairs (which determines that the DNA has specified complexity and coded information) is not affected or determined by fundamental forces, such as electro magnetism, electro-static, chemical valence, gravity, etc.

DNA sequences are determined by its evolutionary history.

3. The degrees of complexity between the two are so different that it's not a valid or productive comparison.

Complexity is quite meaningless as an argument for or against anything.
Complexity needs an explanation, but its not an explanation of itself.

DNA has enough information storage capacity to accommodate all of the written works in history in a single cell. It's six feet long, in every cell.

DNA is a molecule, not a language.

The amount of information gleaned about any snowflake wouldn't fill a steno page.

Ow, that's certainly not true. To actually describe a snowflake in detail, it would fill quite a few pages.

I appreciate your attempt to rescue your compadre, but his dilemma hasn't changed as a result of your post.

There is no dilemma. There is only your argument from ignorance and incredulity.

 

[DogmaHunter]

In DNA, the information for red hair is not written out. We can't look in a microscope and see the words "Red hair gene" written on it. The information is coded in a language that the other relevant parts can read, translate, and build the proteins required for red hair.

DNA is not a language and there is no "reading" and "translating" going on, anywhere.
It's just a string of chemical reactions.
DNA is just a molecule and it is subject to the laws of chemistry and physics, just like any other molecule.

In the words of Neil deGrass Tyson "Life is just an extreme expression of complex chemistry".

I hope that explains it.

The only thing this explains, is that you have fallen prey to the word games of the discovery institute.

You do bring us to a new crossroad in the discussion.

You say that DNA goes back 3.5 billion years. The cell fossils we can see from back then look almost unchanged to our cells today.

How did DNA get its start, given everything we know about it? No natural selection forces to explain abiogenesis.

Evolution explains the diversity of life, not the origins thereof.

 

[DogmaHunter]

The convenient cop out part is the separation between ToE and abiogenesis.

That's not a cop out and you insisting that it is just goes to show how removed from this topic you really are.

Evolution explains the origins of diversity of life
Abiogenesis explains the origins of life itself

These are 2 different things. I'm sorry if you don't get that (or refuse to get it).

As Warden already stated, to evolution, it doesn't matter ONE BIT how life originated. Wheter it was planted by an alien, a deity, a cosmic egg or formed through a natural process.... irrelevant. Evolution only explains the processes that existing life is subject to.

Evolution only sets in once life exists.

For those of us who care, DNA had to come from somewhere. Leaves kind of a big hole, especially since we are finding out just how complex "simple" life really is.

I can only repeat myself: the origin of life is a different subject then the origin of diversity of life.

The first is about how life came into existance.
The second is about process that existing life is subject to.

We don't need to know how life originates to study the processes that existing life is subject to.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Ha ha I think I got that part.

At the same time, wouldn't you agree, that to maintain a dogmatic separation between the origination of life on earth and the process of diversity development on earth doesn't make good common sense, or good scientific sense?

There is no "dogmatic" separation.

They are factually different subjects.

If we have such a good full understanding of the ToE, and additionally the practical process of evolution, shouldn't that shed at least a flicker of light on how it all started?

No.

Evolution is biology.
Abiogenesis is chemistry.

At best, evolution can perhaps make a few predictions on how first life probably looked like, but it doesn't have anything to say on how that first life might have formed.

I understand that you guys make the separation of the two clear, and it is clear (please believe me Warden ha ha) but it's clearly a hole in your world view,

It's a hole in our overall scientific understanding of reality, of the universe. There are many such "holes". ie: there are many things we still don't know or understand.

But it's not a hole in a subset of reality that has nothing to do with it.
Not knowing how life started isn't a hole in the knowledge and understanding of the processes that existing life is subject to.

It's only a hole in our understanding on how life can originate.

 

[Shemjaza]

I understand that you guys make the separation of the two clear, and it is clear (please believe me Warden ha ha) but it's clearly a hole in your world view, if not properly in the theory.

It would be a hell of a blow for a Gnostic atheist or deist who lived under the impression that the whole of the universe was already explained... but I don't see any of them around here. It's a very, very uncommon attitude.

In reality abiogenesis is just a mystery. It will probably never be explained. I guess we'll work out some plausible explanations and theories one day, but knowledge? Nah.

 

[USincognito]

At the same time, wouldn't you agree, that to maintain a dogmatic separation between the origination of life on earth and the process of diversity development on earth doesn't make good common sense, or good scientific sense?

If we have such a good full understanding of the ToE, and additionally the practical process of evolution, shouldn't that shed at least a flicker of light on how it all started?

Let's try this exercise. How would any of the following sources for the origin of life on earth effect the theory of evolution?
- Abiogenesis
- Panspermia
- Fiat creation by God
- Something kooky like being a science class experiment by hyper-dimensional high school students

 

[USincognito]

In a recent study for example, they determined, with fairly liberal hedging in fact, that a single point mutation required to evolve one functional protein into another very closely related protein would take 5950 years on average. The second point mutation at the same point or within range of the same point to induce the same change in the protein would take over 100,000 years. The third would take longer than the earth has been here. They calculated it would take at least four point mutations to complete the evolution of that single protein. Couldn't happen.

Don't be coy. Please provide a link so we can all read it for ourselves.

You have heard that mitochondrial Eve and chromosomal Adam have been calculated to have possibly lived at the same time? Ha ha I just laughed at that.

No, I hadn't heard that. Source?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Ha ha I think I got that part.

At the same time, wouldn't you agree, that to maintain a dogmatic separation between the origination of life on earth and the process of diversity development on earth doesn't make good common sense, or good scientific sense?

If we have such a good full understanding of the ToE, and additionally the practical process of evolution, shouldn't that shed at least a flicker of light on how it all started?

I understand that you guys make the separation of the two clear, and it is clear (please believe me Warden ha ha) but it's clearly a hole in your world view, if not properly in the theory.

What's the Deist view Warden?

No, you obviously didn't get it if you continue claiming that abiogenesis and evolution are linked. The latter does not need the other. Evolution is a standalone theory.

You can continue to believe that abiogenesis is needed for evolution to be proven wrong, and you can continue to go about it in your own snarky, smart-alec fashion, but that doesn't make you right.

And for the Deist view, I can't say because there is no need for me to give you a religious view of a scientific theory.

 

[Paterfamilia]

There is no "dogmatic" separation.

They are factually different subjects.



No.

Evolution is biology.
Abiogenesis is chemistry.

At best, evolution can perhaps make a few predictions on how first life probably looked like, but it doesn't have anything to say on how that first life might have formed.




It's a hole in our overall scientific understanding of reality, of the universe. There are many such "holes". ie: there are many things we still don't know or understand.

But it's not a hole in a subset of reality that has nothing to do with it.
Not knowing how life started isn't a hole in the knowledge and understanding of the processes that existing life is subject to.

It's only a hole in our understanding on how life can originate.

Earlier you said evolution is chemistry. Which is it?

Anyway, I think you've paid a high price credibility-wise my friend. I would appreciate it if you don't answer my posts any more.

I won't be reading any more of yours.

 

[USincognito]

No, you obviously didn't get it if you continue claiming that abiogenesis and evolution are linked. The latter does not need the other. Evolution is a standalone theory.

Yeah, it's akin to saying we can't predict with weather without explaining how the earth came to be or engage in metallurgy unless we can explain the origin of metals.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yeah, it's akin to saying we can't predict with weather without explaining how the earth came to be or engage in metallurgy unless we can explain the origin of metals.

I don't know whether the guy has genuinely low reading comprehension or if he's doing this on purpose. I'm leaning towards the latter.

 

[Paterfamilia]

No, you obviously didn't get it if you continue claiming that abiogenesis and evolution are linked. The latter does not need the other. Evolution is a standalone theory.

You can continue to believe that abiogenesis is needed for evolution to be proven wrong, and you can continue to go about it in your own snarky, smart-alec fashion, but that doesn't make you right.

And for the Deist view, I can't say because there is no need for me to give you a religious view of a scientific theory.

Okay.

Misspelled smart-aleck.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Don't be coy. Please provide a link so we can all read it for ourselves.



No, I hadn't heard that. Source?

Sure. I'll look them up.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Okay.

Misspelled smart-aleck.

Again: a post of literally no substance. Do you actually have anything to say on the fact that abiogenesis is NOT needed to be true for evolution to be a theory?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Earlier you said evolution is chemistry. Which is it?

Evolution is biology.

Biology is the science of living things. It studies the behaviour, evolution, distribution, growth, development,... of living organisms.

When you zoom in on the compounds that make up a cell and look at the actual molecules, you are looking at chemical compounds and chemical reactions.
Then there is "molecular biology", "bio chemistry", etc.

It's pretty much interlocked with eachother.

It depends on scale, I guess.

Anyway, I think you've paid a high price credibility-wise my friend. I would appreciate it if you don't answer my posts any more.

If you don't want me responding to your posts, then you are going to have to stop posting.

I won't be reading any more of yours.

It's not like it will make any difference. It seems like you were ignoring my words anyway.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Don't be coy. Please provide a link so we can all read it for ourselves.



No, I hadn't heard that. Source?

Okay still looking for a link to the study(ies) that doesn't cost anything.

Check wiki for the Adam/Eve dating. It squirrels around but definitely contemporaries.

 

[46AND2]

Earlier you said evolution is chemistry. Which is it?

Anyway, I think you've paid a high price credibility-wise my friend. I would appreciate it if you don't answer my posts any more.

I won't be reading any more of yours.

Biology is a specific type of chemistry. Chemistry is a type of physics. Didn't you know that? Physics majors like to point out that all science is really just physics.

 

[USincognito]

Okay still looking for a link to the study(ies) that doesn't cost anything.

Any link will be fine.

Check wiki for the Adam/Eve dating. It squirrels around but definitely contemporaries.

>> Also in 2013, Poznik et al. reported the Y-MRCA to have lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, based on genome sequencing of 69 men from 9 different populations. In addition, the same study estimated the age of Mitochondrial Eve to about 99,000 and 148,000 years.[16] As these ranges overlap for a time-range of 28,000 years (148 to 120 kya), the results of this study have been cast in terms of the possibility that "Genetic Adam and Eve may have walked on Earth at the same time" in the popular press. <<

Yeah, not so much.

 

[Paterfamilia]

Any link will be fine.



>> Also in 2013, Poznik et al. reported the Y-MRCA to have lived between 120,000 and 156,000 years ago, based on genome sequencing of 69 men from 9 different populations. In addition, the same study estimated the age of Mitochondrial Eve to about 99,000 and 148,000 years.[16] As these ranges overlap for a time-range of 28,000 years (148 to 120 kya), the results of this study have been cast in terms of the possibility that "Genetic Adam and Eve may have walked on Earth at the same time" in the popular press. <<

Yeah, not so much.

Okay seriously, I made the statement that they could have been contemporaries. You asked for a link. I gave it. You actually cut and paste where it says I was correct, and your response is "not so much"?

Wouldn't you agree that that looks disingenuous?



Here a link for the simulation studies. Stone and Wray is the specific one I referenced. However there are a lot of studies cited in this article that take into account additional factors etc. I thought this would give a fuller picture and be a convenient starting point.

https://gbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/7/6/1415.full