Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism

[Anguspure]

For that to be true, you first have to provide evidence that information came from somewhere, that that intelligent source is an actual thing.
Just saying it's so does not make it so.

The information is there and it is abstract and functional.

The intelligence is inferred by the presence of the phenomena that betrays its presence.

There is no other mechanism identified. The set of things that are able to invent the sort of information observed in biological DNA contains only one candidate and that is intelligence.

Please feel free to put other candidates into the set.

"if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable). It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan."
Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism | Evolution News

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The normal form of reproduction is not cloning however, which was my point.
To say that these plants clone themselves as a matter of course is like suggesting that they also marry because they are capable of grafting.

That depends on the plant. Some flowering plants are almost exclusively apomictic, IOW they do clone themselves as a matter of course. Plant reproduction is a dauntingly complex topic.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Any living thing containing DNA information defies the proposition that living things originated and developed without the presence of an information producing mechanism.

Not really. In suitably energy rich environments, there are energetically favourable paths by which low-level chemical information can become more complex chemical information, including nucleosides, nucleotides, amino acids, RNA, and DNA.

 

[Anguspure]

Not really. In suitably energy rich environments, there are energetically favourable paths by which low-level chemical information can become more complex chemical information, including nucleosides, nucleotides, amino acids, RNA, and DNA.

Energy, even complicated energy, does not constitute functionally specific information anymore than ink or paper are information. Even if I scrunch the paper up and spill the ink, shake it all together, let the wind blow it around for a while and leave it in the sun, the information that will result (and certainly there will be information observed) will not be functionally specific, it will not provide any abstract instruction or code as to how to carry out anything.

Chemical soups can indeed become energetic and complex through normal interactions of chemistry and physics, but energetic complexity says nothing of the information bearing nature of the complex thing and there is absolutely nothing about the natural chemical interactions between molecules that would predispose them towards forming a biological molecule, quite the opposite in fact.
A Dentist in the Sahara: Doug Axe on the Rarity of Proteins Is Decisively Confirmed | Evolution News

A pot of bubbling alphabet soup is pretty energetic and complex but we do not expect even a basic word to appear let alone the idea that the instructions for making the soup will appear floating on the surface. But that is precisely what devotees of chemical biogenesis expect us all to believe.

The biotic molecules you refer to are only biotic because they form the hardware of the information rich systems that they are components of. Without a functionally specific set of instructions none of them would come together in any living manner, or even in a manner that resembles a living thing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Energy, even complicated energy, does not constitute functionally specific information anymore than ink or paper are information. Even if I scrunch the paper up and spill the ink, shaking it all together, let the wind blow it around for a while and leave it in the sun, the information that will result (and certainly there will be information observed) will not be functionally specific, it will not provide any abstract instruction or code as to how to carry out anything.

Functional specificity doesn't imply abstract instruction or coded instruction. You seem to be using 'functionally specificity' teleologically, by the equivocation of 'function' as 'characteristic behaviour' with 'function' as 'action for which a person or thing is specially fitted or used or for which a thing exists', i.e. purpose. But this is just a convenient way for us to think about complex systems with our agent-centric thought processes.

Reductio ad absurdum can illustrate the issue; e.g. functional specificity: for the creation of water, the interaction between hydrogen and oxygen has the appropriate functional specificity; for a heart attack, a coronary blockage has the appropriate functional specificity.

e.g. abstract instruction or coded instruction: a molecule of sodium chloride carries the abstract or coded instructions to build salt crystals; molecules of water carry the abstract instruction or coded instructions to make snowflakes.

Chemical soups can indeed become energetic and complex through normal interactions of chemistry and physics, but energetic complexity says nothing of the information bearing nature of the complex thing and there is absolutely nothing about the natural chemical interactions between molecules that would predispose them towards forming a biological molecule, quite the opposite in fact.
A Dentist in the Sahara: Doug Axe on the Rarity of Proteins Is Decisively Confirmed | Evolution News

Discovery Institute publications should be treated with extreme scepticism, bearing in mind their agenda of replacing the scientific theory of evolution with pseudoscientific Intelligent Design.

A pot of bubbling alphabet soup is pretty energetic and complex but we do not expect even a basic word to appear let alone the idea that the instructions for making the soup will appear floating on the surface. But that is precisely what devotees of chemical biogenesis expect us all to believe.

No, not really. That's a straw man.

The biotic molecules you refer to are only biotic because they form the hardware of the information rich systems that they are components of. Without a functionally specific set of instructions none of them would come together in any living manner, or even in a manner that resembles a living thing.

Argument from incredulity. Abiogenesis research suggests otherwise - although the earliest organic replicators wouldn't resemble living things today, in complexity they'd be somewhere between a prion and a virus.

 

[loveofourlord]

As a function of the design that allows it to be there. When detrimental anomalies in the information occur the biological system seeks to remove it. Errors in DNA Replication | Learn Science at Scitable

umm...no, it tries to, but it can still show up, it's not perfect, which is why you have so many genetic diseases show up that kill children at birth or near it.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The information is there and it is abstract and functional.

The intelligence is inferred by the presence of the phenomena that betrays its presence.

There is no other mechanism identified. The set of things that are able to invent the sort of information observed in biological DNA contains only one candidate and that is intelligence.

View attachment 266093​

Please feel free to put other candidates into the set.

"if evolutionists think neo-Darwinism could account for this beneficial trait, they need to remember what Douglas Axe says in his chapter in the new volume, Theistic Evolution. Axe again points out the “fundamental failing” with natural selection (as he did in his earlier book, Undeniable). It’s this: evolution is “clueless” about inventing things. Natural selection “shows up only after the hard work of invention has been done.”

The only inventions we know about by experience come from inventors. An invention is a “functional whole,” Axe says. The “hard work” of invention requires having a goal or plan, and then organizing components at multiple hierarchical levels to work together to fulfill that plan."
Three Ways that Plants Defy Darwin’s Mechanism | Evolution News

Lots of words. Zero evidence for intelligently designed creation.

ETA: Also, Evolution News, a subdivision of Discovery Institute, is decidedly NOT reputable scientific website. Or even a scientific website.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

umm...no, it tries to, but it can still show up, it's not perfect, which is why you have so many genetic diseases show up that kill children at birth or near it.

Also, that's why organisms evolve...

 

[loveofourlord]

Also, that's why organisms evolve...

true I was just trying to keep it in the wording simular to his own :>

 

[Brightmoon]

They are capable of "cloning" due to all cells retaining stem cell capability, enabling regrowth when damaged. I put a leaf of a mustard green plant in my garden the other day and it has become a complete plant.
The normal form of reproduction is not cloning however, which was my point.
To say that these plants clone themselves as a matter of course is like suggesting that they also marry because they are capable of grafting.

Plants do graft themselves sometimes. You’ll have to think of better examples . I’ve seen forsythias do that and it’s common in trees . Branches rub together until they rub the bark off and they’ll start to grow together . Cloning themselves is a normal mode of reproduction in strawberries, and a lot of houseplants . Spider plants ( Chlorophytum comosum) are famous for it . It’s how they got their common name. The babies look like spiderlings swinging from the parent plant

 

[Brightmoon]

one of the things that kinda shocked me about creationists is how they’ll spout off some information about organisms that they have never even seen pictures of let alone studied .( Frankly I’d hesitate to let people know I was that ignorant unless I really wanted to ask questions and learn. )

 

[Anguspure]

Lots of words. Zero evidence for intelligently designed creation.

ETA: Also, Evolution News, a subdivision of Discovery Institute, is decidedly NOT reputable scientific website. Or even a scientific website.

Ad hominem comments don't address the argument.
I am flattered when a person turns to attack the source of an argument because it does mean that they are unwilling to face the argument itself.

 

[Anguspure]

umm...no, it tries to, but it can still show up, it's not perfect, which is why you have so many genetic diseases show up that kill children at birth or near it.

It is designed to, and the design has evolved. This is pretty much all evolution is capable of doing on a macro scale, limiting the extent of degradation due to mutation.

 

[Anguspure]

Also, that's why organisms evolve...

It is how they evolve on a macro scale. A mutation causes a degradation, and natural selection ensures that the mutation has as little negative effect on the population as possible.

 

[Anguspure]

one of the things that kinda shocked me about creationists is how they’ll spout off some information about organisms that they have never even seen pictures of let alone studied .( Frankly I’d hesitate to let people know I was that ignorant unless I really wanted to ask questions and learn. )

Still no additions to the set of things that are capable of producing functionally specific information such as that found in DNA.
Intelligence is not simply the best explanation, it is the only explanation.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Still no additions to the set of things that are capable of producing functionally specific information such as that found in DNA.
Intelligence is not simply the best explanation, it is the only explanation.

What I see in your post is an assertion (intelligence is the only explanation) in support of the undefined/non-existent (functionally specific information). You don't have even the foundation of an argument, so how can you post with such confidence?

 

[Speedwell]

Ad hominem comments don't address the argument.
I am flattered when a person turns to attack the source of an argument because it does mean that they are unwilling to face the argument itself.

No, it's not an ad hominem, just an observation. Discovery institute publications are not reliable scientific sources. The most glaring problem is the arguments are generally directed against straw men rather than real science.

 

[loveofourlord]

It is designed to, and the design has evolved. This is pretty much all evolution is capable of doing on a macro scale, limiting the extent of degradation due to mutation.

Nope sorry try again, it's quiet cabale of making fully new things, and there is no limiting factor show some kind of actual evidence for this. I hear this assertion from creationists that want to ignore the evidence, but there is no such mechanism to prevent macro from happening.

 

[Anguspure]

Nope sorry try again, it's quiet cabale of making fully new things, and there is no limiting factor show some kind of actual evidence for this. I hear this assertion from creationists that want to ignore the evidence, but there is no such mechanism to prevent macro from happening.

Evidence please.
Just one novel invention from Darwins molecular fiddler would be of interest. Just one sentence of abstract instruction on how to build something new that arises completely unguided from a pre-biotic solution.
But in order to convince you will need to produce, or rather the mechanism of evolution will need to produce a few completely new inventions daily.
At that point I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find the recipe for alphabet soup floating in the top of the pot and at that point I would pat "Evolution" on the back and say.....

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Evidence please.
Just one novel invention from Darwins molecular fiddler would be of interest. Just one sentence of abstract instruction on how to build something new that arises completely unguided from a pre-biotic solution.
But in order to convince you will need to produce, or rather the mechanism of evolution will need to produce a few completely new inventions daily.
At that point I would not be the slightest bit surprised to find the recipe for alphabet soup floating in the top of the pot and at that point I would pat "Evolution" on the back and say.....

View attachment 266151​

Why should anyone try to support your strawman? It's your strawman, you need to support it.