You think polymerases "gather material"?
This is the one of many problems with using analogies as evidence - one always ends up having to over-extend the analogy in the hopes that nobody will notice.
We noticed.
Upvote
0
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.
You think polymerases "gather material"?As above: coded digital information describing how to manufacture the gears is read by automated mechanisms which gather the raw materials and assemble and place the parts at the proper stage of assembly according to the instructions
This is true in both factories- those in Detroit and those in the cell
Hmm... loyal and committed to not believing in gods...
Seems a bit odd. Were you loyal and committed to not doing the other things you didn't do?
Now, that's just not true. It is certainly possible for new information to come about in evolution.
How Evolution Works
So why did you use randomness at all in your example? You've already established that you understand that the selection process in evolution is NOT random. Seems to me like you were trying to set up a straw man.
Plus genetic drift and recombination, among other things.Again- random mutation is what Darwinism relies on for new information- the creative part is random (according to the theory)
Because it would require building and scrapping large numbers of cars every year, which would be much more expensive than R & D.
It can be modeled mathematically. It works.
Plus genetic drift and recombination, among other things.
Aha! "Functional information." Gotcha.no not plus! genetic drift and recombination- involve drifting and recombination of already existing 'random mutations'-
genetic drift
"variation in the relative frequency of different genotypes in a small population, owing to the chance disappearance of particular genes as individuals die or do not reproduce."
^ this highlights the point again, random chance/ error/ mistakes- can certainly remove functional information- remove a bird's ability to fly or a fish's to see, we all understand that. Producing it int he first place? That's a much more interesting question
Aha! "Functional information." Gotcha.
Some manufacturers do use evolutionary approaches in the design process in varying capacities.
But there are other factors to consider when it comes to mass-produced products. One of the drawbacks of the evolutionary approach is it may not produce outputs that are feasible in a mass-production scenario.
In the sense of macro evolution being the formation of distinct breeding populations (e.g. speciation) we can and have observed that.
In the case of evolutionary time frames well beyond our own life spans, sure we can't necessarily observe that. But that's where things like modeling, simulation, and other things comes into play. It can allow us to explore things that we otherwise cannot do in a practical fashion.
Scientists can even are recreate ancestral genomes to directly explore evolutionary pathways to determine how specific biological features evolved. How cool is that?
There's also the fact that life has left traces of its past history in various respects (e.g. genetics, fossils, geographical distribution, etc), which further gives us evidence of how life evolved over time.
It means you've outed yourself. No further honest discussion is possible.
OK; sounds like you were a strong atheist, i.e. you believed a god or gods didn't exist; many atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods.I became skeptical of my atheist beliefs eventually, but I swore by them for decades.. so much so I used to consider them 'default' positions- not even beliefs- beliefs were 'what everyone else had'
blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself
OK; sounds like you were a strong atheist, i.e. you believed a god or gods didn't exist; many atheists simply lack belief in a god or gods.
But you talk of 'atheist beliefs' - what atheist beliefs did you have apart from that?
of course, just not by 'natural selection' that can only select new information that has already been created somehow. Your link agrees- the creative part is left to 'mutation'- errors/ mistakes in copying existing information- there is very little creative power there
Ah, OK - but that's not an atheist belief, per se, nor is it, strictly speaking, scientific.I believed everything could be accounted for by 'spontaneous' as in non-intelligent/ materialistic/ naturalistic mechanisms
I simply lack that belief now!
Like the faith that analogies are evidence?blind faith is faith which does not recognize itself
So do I, but I still think ID is nothing but a hoax. In general, the assertion that a "designer' (or God, which is a more honest way of putting it) exists is an unfalsifiable proposition with which evolution is entirely consistent. Those who want to make it a falsifiable proposition and set it as an alternative to evolution are without exception politically motivated. Most frequently, in my experience, it is done as an attempt to turn the defense of a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism. That is certainly the case with the Discovery Institute and its followers.I believed everything could be accounted for by 'spontaneous' as in non-intelligent/ materialistic/ naturalistic mechanisms
I simply lack that belief now!
it begs the question obviously on the source of the info,
Right, because it goes against the computer software analogy... can't have that...but either way, Darwinism it aint
Catch 22? Not even close.Again- random mutation is what Darwinism relies on for new information- the creative part is random (according to the theory)
Natural selection is not random, but it cannot create anything- sort of a Catch 22
Ah, OK - but that's not an atheist belief, per se, nor is it, strictly speaking, scientific.
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?