William Dembski [Archive] - TheologyWeb Campus

Socrates

February 14th 2003, 10:41 AM

Ok Socrates, i'm going to give this post an almost serious nature.Good, because I will reply in kind, as always.

I'm sorry I don't have any sources for you on this, really I guess a source for a couple things will be return to sodom and gommorah by Charles Pellegrino.Dunno that once, sorry.

Ok, I agree with irreducibly complex. I've read bits and pieces of Darwins black book and it presents a very valid point.Presumably Darwin's Black Box. Yes, it does, and it's not even AiG literature, although I got my copy from them ;)

No part of the human body can exsist without the other. I believe in the creator, that is to say that I believe we were created by someone, something. But what was the original form? We have seen through fossil records that the human body has changed. But the fossils show only that certainl organisms lived. It's somewhat more difficult to show that one form was ancestral to another. And often the sequence is out. I'm more familiar with alleged non-human evolution, and I referred you to an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp) on the "four-winged dinosaur" "Microraptor gui". This article pointed out that this alleged bird ancestor is "dated" at millions of years younger than even the beaked bird Confuciusornis. It seems that the order is not so clear cut even with human ancestry.
I do not see evidence that we evolved so far from a single amino acid strain creating a protein and going on up to me sitting here typing on my computer, but we do know that the human body has changed, is still changing. But are these changes the result of increase in genetic information as evolution requires? No, it seems like they are ecophenotypic, e.g. the fact that it's a rare woman today who is small enough to fit into her great grandmother's wedding dress. Japanese becoming taller just because of better nutrition, not evolution.

It also seems that even the fossil species, when examined closely, have characteristics that are either within the modern human range, or fully australopith, and neither intermediate or mosaic. So Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis are mostly likely "racial" variants of modern man (Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65–71, 1999). Under a Biblical framework, this would be interpreted as their all being descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. But H. habilis and H. rudolfensis were australopithecines. These were not intermediate, but further from both modern apes and humans than they are from each other.

What changes?

The larynx moving down the esophogus granting us the ability to speakYes, so human larynxes are positioned low, and apes are positioned high, but does this prove that it moved? The evidence is also consistent with separate creation of apes and humans the way they are.

The widening of the hips in females as to allow somewhat easier child-birthOnce more, who says it's a "widening" as opposed to being created that way.

bigger heads so we can have bigger brains so we can learn how to use said larnyxAgain, this is not a change. Even Homo erectus had a cranial vault thickness within the range of modern man, and made ocean voyages (Morwood et al., Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores, Nature 392(6672):173–176, 12 March 1998).

and countless little things, sickle cell anemia is a classic example.Here is an information-losing mutation which ruins the hemoglobin, but in heterozygotes has a beneficial effect in that the corrupt hemoglobin makes it harder for the malarial parasite to thrive.

To think that we just kind of popped up one day and said, Hullo! is kind of silly considering the physical evidence stacked against it.What physical evidence?
It could be argued that eve eating the apple was humanities first act of free will, which allowed us to leave the savannah and adapt to new surroundings outside the garden. Who said it was an apple, and God didn't share your evident approval of her disobedience.

That AiG stuff is interesting. I see holes though.But you can't actually see a hole, only the matter surrounding it ;):rofl:

J. J. Ramsey

February 14th 2003, 12:29 PM

Socrates:
Once again, JJR is so desperate to defend his naturalistic FAITH that he refuses to consider the EVIDENCE from the bacterial flagellum that it did NOT arise by naturalistic processes. The information for both its structure and assembly are encoded on its genes.

Socrates, you seem to be so blinded by your ranting that you have failed to realize that you just agreed with me. Now what did I just say?

JJR:
The genes aren't just another layer of complexity to the problem; they are the problem!

Now what did you just say in response?

S:
The information for both its [the flagellum's] structure and assembly are encoded on its genes.

Obviously, we agree that the core question here is "Are purely natural mechanisms sufficient to transform the genome of a bacterium that does not carry genes for a flagellum into a genome that does?" You are, of course, confident that the answer to that question is "No." Fair enough.

:rant: rant-mode on :rant:

Now you also appear to be confident that my answer to that question is "Yes," and this is where your zealotry has totally blinded you. You assume without fact that someone who disagrees with you on YEC must believe evolution and be for all practical purposes a materialist. You also seem to assume that to attack the methodology of creationists and believers of intelligent design is to attack their positions.

Now I could leave the matter of what is my answer to the core question as an exercise for the reader. However, since you seem to be thoroughly unlikely to come up with the correct answer on your own, I will give you the answer from the teacher's edition of the book:

Frankly, I want to believe the answer is no. It would be nice if evolutionary theory could be conclusively not complete enough to support naturalism. On the face of it, the answer to the question appears to be no. However, the answer that appears correct on its face is not always the right one, and I do not believe that I even remotely have enough of the relevant facts. As it stands, I do not feel that my Christian faith must stand or fall on this question, so I can afford to suspend judgment for the time being. So for now, my answer has to be "Maybe not, but I don't know."

:angel: rant-mode off :angel:

Now, back to Dembski. From what I've read of him so far, he had not dealt with genes at all, so he had failed to deal with the core question. That was my point, and that was the entirety of my point.

Socrates

February 15th 2003, 11:48 PM

Blake Reas cited Dembski on the bacterial flagellum as an example of application of his design filter.

JJRamsey cited known Biblical errantist Howard van Till claiming that Dembski didn't consider genes.

I point out that the genes are an additional layer of information, including the assembly instructions, so it strengthens the design argument.

JJR rants by his own admission.

Point of Dembski, it seems, is: natural selection cannot work (because there are many new components that can't be explained by pre-adaptation) therefore combinatorial processes are the only thing left to form it, so he calculated those.

Conclusion: the flagellum is one of zillions of examples of design, which means that people have no excuse for denying that there is a Creator (Romans 1:20 ff.)

Yog^sothoth

February 16th 2003, 10:05 AM

Socrates:
Good, because I will reply in kind, as always.Dunno that once, sorry.

I do not think you would appreciate it. Pellegrino is a tad atheist...but he does bring up some interesting points concerning evolution and the Exodus. The book is the reason I went out to try and educate myself, then I got back into school and have learned so much within the past year my mind is still reeling. So, kindergarten is a pretty dead on opinion!:thumb:

Presumably Darwin's Black Box. Yes, it does, and it's not even AiG literature, although I got my copy from them ;)
But the fossils show only that certain organisms lived. It's somewhat more difficult to show that one form was ancestral to another. And often the sequence is out. I'm more familiar with alleged non-human evolution, and I referred you to an article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp) on the "four-winged dinosaur" "Microraptor gui". This article pointed out that this alleged bird ancestor is "dated" at millions of years younger than even the beaked bird Confuciusornis. It seems that the order is not so clear cut even with human ancestry.But are these changes the result of increase in genetic information as evolution requires? No, it seems like they are ecophenotypic, e.g. the fact that it's a rare woman today who is small enough to fit into her great grandmother's wedding dress. Japanese becoming taller just because of better nutrition, not evolution.

That is a good point. New Genetic information can only be obtained a few ways: a succesful point mutation, natural selection (this isn't new genetic information, this is the thinning out of non-beneficial old information) and I would say Genetic Drift. Genetic drift is interesting because of the amazing amount of inter-racial breeding you have these days. Races (or ethnicities if you will) exsisted for centuries without interaction. Only recently (within the past 2-300 hundred years) have they began seriously interbreeding. I'd say that the genetic information created there would be considered new genetic material, yet it exsisted before in another part of the word, so is it new? no. I just thought I would add this to your statement.

I would also like to say that I think humans have cut themselves off of the evolutionary chain. Through medicines, surgeries, and sheer force of will even those who have non-beneficial characteristics produce offspring. So, problems continue, even grow larger (diabetes, AIDS, Tay-sachs) in smaller populations. I think a lot of what we do to try and help mankind is taking us further and further from the path god may have meant for us. A lot of it seems unnatural, but our need for everyone to have a fair chance in life outweighs that path which nature meant for us.

It also seems that even the fossil species, when examined closely, have characteristics that are either within the modern human range, or fully australopith, and neither intermediate or mosaic. So Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo heidelbergensis, and Homo neanderthalensis are mostly likely "racial" variants of modern man (Wood, B. and Collard, M., The human genus, Science 284(5411):65–71, 1999). Under a Biblical framework, this would be interpreted as their all being descended from Adam and Eve, and most likely arising after the separation of people groups after Babel. But H. habilis and H. rudolfensis were australopithecines. These were not intermediate, but further from both modern apes and humans than they are from each other.

In the bible it mentions other people who exsisted at the same time adam and eve were around. So the bible takes into effect that other people exsisted at that time. We know, or have a good idea, that neandertal was pretty much wiped out by what we would call modern man. Could this be the result of our being forced to leave eden? For an interesting take on babel, read the novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, it's pretty wild but offers a somewhat different approach to how language developed.

Yes, so human larynxes are positioned low, and apes are positioned high, but does this prove that it moved? The evidence is also consistent with separate creation of apes and humans the way they are.
Once more, who says it's a "widening" as opposed to being created that way.
Again, this is not a change. Even Homo erectus had a cranial vault thickness within the range of modern man, and made ocean voyages (Morwood et al., Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores, Nature 392(6672):173–176, 12 March 1998).

It should be noted that human larynxes are positioned high upon birth and travel down the esophogus. (this is why babies get sick so much). We very well could have been created this way. But we also very well could have been created only needing hand gestures and grunts to understand each other and god saw need for a change.

Here is an information-losing mutation which ruins the hemoglobin, but in heterozygotes has a beneficial effect in that the corrupt hemoglobin makes it harder for the malarial parasite to thrive.

Information losing or information gained? With normal blood you die with sickle cell. With blood that contains a different allele than normal blood it will not kill you. Was this information added one day by a god who saw a need to fix a problem? Or had it always been there just in case?

To think that we just kind of popped up one day and said, Hullo! is kind of silly considering the physical evidence stacked against it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What physical evidence?

You are right. There is evidence which says we were different (i.e. fossils, cave paintings, stone tools, more skeletal remains), but i'd say that we have probably more or less always exsisted in a somewhat similar fashion to the way we are now.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It could be argued that eve eating the apple was humanities first act of free will, which allowed us to leave the savannah and adapt to new surroundings outside the garden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who said it was an apple, and God didn't share your evident approval of her disobedience.

I have always been taught it was an apple. And no, he didn't. But I would theorize that God knew she would eat the fruit and has appreciated our need to understand his creation.

But you can't actually see a hole, only the matter surrounding it ;):rofl: :thumb:
[/quote]

Thats the funniest thing i've ever read. :bow: :dunce:

I gave this one a good shot. I probably won't be able to read Tweb again for a couple days.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 10:38 AM

Yog^sothoth:

That is a good point. New Genetic information can only be obtained a few ways: a succesful point mutation, natural selection (this isn't new genetic information, this is the thinning out of non-beneficial old information) and I would say Genetic Drift. Genetic drift is interesting because of the amazing amount of inter-racial breeding you have these days. Yes, and it would explain the origin of the different "races" after Babel, because of the isolation of small people groups.

Races (or ethnicities if you will) exsisted for centuries without interaction. Only recently (within the past 2-300 hundred years) have they began seriously interbreeding. I'd say that the genetic information created there would be considered new genetic material, yet it exsisted before in another part of the word, so is it new? no. I just thought I would add this to your statement. You're right, it's not new, therefore it can's be used to "prove" evolution.

I would also like to say that I think humans have cut themselves off of the evolutionary chain. [quote]Umm, begging the question of whether there is such a chain!

[quote]
Through medicines, surgeries, and sheer force of will even those who have non-beneficial characteristics produce offspring. So, problems continue, even grow larger (diabetes, AIDS, Tay-sachs) in smaller populations. I think a lot of what we do to try and help mankind is taking us further and further from the path god may have meant for us. A lot of it seems unnatural, but our need for everyone to have a fair chance in life outweighs that path which nature meant for us. But "nature" cannot mean anything since it is impersonal.

In the bible it mentions other people who exsisted at the same time adam and eve were around. [quote]It mentions no such thing. Adam is called "the first man" (1 Cor. 15:45), and Eve is so named because she is "the mother of all living" (Genesis 3:20) -- the Hebrew for Eve is Chava cf. chay[/] = life.
[quote]We know, or have a good idea, that neandertal was pretty much wiped out by what we would call modern man. Except that Neandertals were just a racial variant of modern man.

For an interesting take on babel, read the novel Snow Crash by Neal Stephenson, it's pretty wild but offers a somewhat different approach to how language developed.Umm, not sure that a novel is necessarily the place to learn science.

----------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, so human larynxes are positioned low, and apes are positioned high, but does this prove that it moved? The evidence is also consistent with separate creation of apes and humans the way they are.
Once more, who says it's a "widening" as opposed to being created that way.
Again, this is not a change. Even Homo erectus had a cranial vault thickness within the range of modern man, and made ocean voyages (Morwood et al., Fission-track ages of stone tools and fossils on the east Indonesian island of Flores, [i]Nature 392(6672):173–176, 12 March 1998).

-----------------------------------------------------------------

It should be noted that human larynxes are positioned high upon birth and travel down the esophogus. (this is why babies get sick so much). We very well could have been created this way. Yes, and I hope you realise that the embryonic recaptulation theory was discredited decades ago despite being in textbooks even today.

But we also very well could have been created only needing hand gestures and grunts to understand each other and god saw need for a change. God "could" have done this or anything else logically possible, but we can know what he did by what He said He did.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Here is an information-losing mutation which ruins the hemoglobin, but in heterozygotes has a beneficial effect in that the corrupt hemoglobin makes it harder for the malarial parasite to thrive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Information losing or information gained? With normal blood you die with sickle cell. With blood that contains a different allele than normal blood it will not kill you. Was this information added one day by a god who saw a need to fix a problem? Or had it always been there just in case?No, it's an information LOSS. The hemoglobin has lost function. Creationists do NOT claim that there are no beneficial mutations, but defy evolutionists to produce an information-gaining mutation, of which millions are required.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
It could be argued that eve eating the apple was humanities first act of free will, which allowed us to leave the savannah and adapt to new surroundings outside the garden.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Who said it was an apple, and God didn't share your evident approval of her disobedience.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I have always been taught it was an apple. The Bible doesn't say, but it could be the result of confusion in the Latin, where both "bad" and "apple" are malus

And no, he didn't. But I would theorize that God knew she would eat the fruit and has appreciated our need to understand his creation.God foreknew the Fall, but this did NOT mean He approved of it.

J. J. Ramsey

February 16th 2003, 11:14 AM

Socrates:
I point out that the genes are an additional layer of information, including the assembly instructions, so it strengthens the design argument.

What I pointed out is that the genes are the crucial layer of information. Any intelligent design argument that doesn't deal with them is a non sequitur.

Point of Dembski, it seems, is: natural selection cannot work (because there are many new components that can't be explained by pre-adaptation) therefore combinatorial processes are the only thing left to form it, so he calculated those.

If "natural selection" (which I take to really mean Darwinian evolution in this case) cannot produce a flagellum, then the case for the design of the flagellum is proved and there is no point in dealing with combinatorial processes at all.

Stratnerd

February 16th 2003, 11:19 AM

3rd time:

What is the logic beyond ID: why is irreducible complexity a prediction of ID? What is Dembski's justification for invoking IR?

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 12:57 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
I point out that the genes are an additional layer of information, including the assembly instructions, so it strengthens the design argument.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

What I pointed out is that the genes are the crucial layer of information. Any intelligent design argument that doesn't deal with them is a non sequitur.Can't see why. Sure, the genes are the information to code for the irreducibly complex structure. But it is perfectly reasonable to talk about an irreducibly complex organ, i.e. a phenotype, without mentioning the genotype. After all, IC means that the structure can't work if it were less complex. Therefore natural selection, which works at the phenotype level, cannot build it.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Point of Dembski, it seems, is: natural selection cannot work (because there are many new components that can't be explained by pre-adaptation) therefore combinatorial processes are the only thing left to form it, so he calculated those.

------------------------------------------------------------------

If "natural selection" (which I take to really mean Darwinian evolution in this case) cannot produce a flagellum, then the case for the design of the flagellum is proved and there is no point in dealing with combinatorial processes at all.Yes there is, because natural selection is allegedly the solution to "climbing mt improbable (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3750.asp)". So if natural selection is not an option, the only other non-design process is pure chance.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 01:00 PM

Stratnerd:

What is the logic beyond ID: why is irreducible complexity a prediction of ID? What is Dembski's justification for invoking IR?IC is a prediction of the designer of the Bible, because Romans 1:20 ff. says that creation leaves one without any excuse for disbelief. Conversely, a designer of some sort is the only reasonable explanation for IC.

Stratnerd

February 16th 2003, 01:26 PM

S-
IC is a prediction of the designer of the Bible, because Romans 1:20 ff. says that creation leaves one without any excuse for disbelief.

That still doesn't answer my question. It sounds like you are saying the Bible predicts "evidence" but why is IC a logical step from that?

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 01:39 PM

Be more specific. It's hardly my fault that you fail to understand that presuppositionalism does not rule out the importance of evidence, but puts it in its rightful place.

Try The Biotic Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/484.asp). If there were no IC, then one might think that evolution were an adequate explanation for life.

J. J. Ramsey

February 16th 2003, 05:55 PM

Socrates:

What I pointed out is that the genes are the crucial layer of information. Any intelligent design argument that doesn't deal with them is a non sequitur.

Can't see why. Sure, the genes are the information to code for the irreducibly complex structure. But it is perfectly reasonable to talk about an irreducibly complex organ, i.e. a phenotype, without mentioning the genotype. After all, IC means that the structure can't work if it were less complex. Therefore natural selection, which works at the phenotype level, cannot build it.

Socrates, you are not quite right in saying that natural selection works at the phenotype level. Remember, there are two parts to natural selection:

The "filtering" stage, where a change turns out to be advantageous and allows some members of a species to thrive better than others. This works at the phenotype level.
The propagation stage, where the advantageous change gets passed on to the next generation. This works at the genotype level.

Also, natural selection doesn't build anything. It just filters genetic changes produced by other means.

Socrates

February 16th 2003, 09:45 PM

Can't see why. Sure, the genes are the information to code for the irreducibly complex structure. But it is perfectly reasonable to talk about an irreducibly complex organ, i.e. a phenotype, without mentioning the genotype. After all, IC means that the structure can't work if it were less complex. Therefore natural selection, which works at the phenotype level, cannot build it.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates, you are not quite right in saying that natural selection works at the phenotype level. Remember, there are two parts to natural selection:

The "filtering" stage, where a change turns out to be advantageous and allows some members of a species to thrive better than others. This works at the phenotype level.

The propagation stage, where the advantageous change gets passed on to the next generation. This works at the genotype level.I had forgotten nothing. I still maintain that NS works on the phenotype level -- it doesn't care how this phenotype is generated at the genetic level. It also works at the whole-organism level. That is, it can't just selecy for a better eye, but only the whole organism that possesses it if it is actually an advantage. Also, selection coefficients are worked out in reference to populations, not individuals. And I know that NS is differential reproduction, and that it is the genes that are passed on, not the phenotype per se.

Also, natural selection doesn't build anything. It just filters genetic changes produced by other means.I know that too, because AiG has often pointed this out, e.g. Muddy waters. Clarifying the confusion about natural selection (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp)

J. J. Ramsey

February 17th 2003, 08:58 AM

Socrates:
I had forgotten nothing. I still maintain that NS works on the phenotype level -- it doesn't care how this phenotype is generated at the genetic level. . . . And I know that NS is differential reproduction, and that it is the genes that are passed on, not the phenotype per se.

Here's the problem that you seem to fail to see.

Presume for the sake of argument that somehow, maybe by some infinite improbability drive sweeping by the biotic soup (let the reader of Douglas Adams understand :smile:), an organism came to have an irreducibly complex structure that the genes did not code for. Such a structure would be "all dressed up with nowhere to go." Even if it benefitted the organism's survival, it couldn't be passed on to the next generation. It would just be a freak thing, of no concern to Darwinian evolution at all.

If the whole point of ID is to establish what can and cannot be done by Darwinian evolution, why bother trying to calculate the probabilty of non-heritable traits that are irrelevant to Darwinian evolution?

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 09:04 AM

JJRamsey:
Here's the problem that you seem to fail to see.The problem that YOU fail to see (it would help if you learnt some science before pontificating on it), is that the flagellum and the genes coding for it are examples of design, and no amount of quibbling by the materialists and their churchian allies will change that. It's still a huge unsolved problem for materialists of all stripes, including yours, how the genes and the structures they code for arose simultaneously and spontaneously.

J. J. Ramsey

February 17th 2003, 12:16 PM

Socrates:
It's still a huge unsolved problem for materialists of all stripes, including yours, how the genes and the structures they code for arose simultaneously and spontaneously.

Thank you. You are finally showing signs that you actually understand the question.

However, it is far more accurate to say that what is a huge unsolved problem is how the genes that code for the complex structures arose.

Again, how the genes came to be what they are is the crucial question. Everything else is beside the point.

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 12:50 PM

Socrates:
It's still a huge unsolved problem for materialists of all stripes, including yours, how the genes and the structures they code for arose simultaneously and spontaneously.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you. You are finally showing signs that you actually understand the question.But you are not showing any signs of ever having understood it yourself, so refrain from patronising your scientific betters.

However, it is far more accurate to say that what is a huge unsolved problem is how the genes that code for the complex structures arose.

Again, how the genes came to be what they are is the crucial question. Everything else is beside the point.Well, instead of this incessant quibbling, what about trying to explain this miniature motor from a naturalistic perspective, which I've never doubted means explaining the information coding for it.

J. J. Ramsey

February 17th 2003, 02:04 PM

Socrates:
JJR:
However, it is far more accurate to say that what is a huge unsolved problem is how the genes that code for the complex structures arose.

Again, how the genes came to be what they are is the crucial question. Everything else is beside the point.

S:
Well, instead of this incessant quibbling, what about trying to explain this miniature motor from a naturalistic perspective

I will leave attempts to explain it to the various evolutionary biologists, biochemists, and whatnot. I do not pretend to know whether they can or will be able to figure it out.

which I've never doubted means explaining the information coding for it.

If you never doubted that, why say nonsense like natural selection only working at the phenotype level? Why defend the works of Dembski that don't deal with this information encoding at all?

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 09:06 PM

For goodness' sake Ramsey -- look at all Dawkins' "just-so" stories about explaining life's complexity. You'd love him because he's such an evangelical anti-theist. They almost all invoke natural selection at the phenotype level, and he only rarely mentions the assumption that the right genes will arise that code for the gradual phenotypic changes that undergo natural selection.

Socrates

February 17th 2003, 10:38 PM

The demonstrably unreliable (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/tj_v15n3_miller.asp) modernist papist Miller is undoubtedly where Howard Van Till and thus JJR get their nonsense from. But Dembski has replied to their asinine objections:

STILL SPINNING JUST FINE: A RESPONSE TO KEN MILLER (http://www.designinference.com/documents/2003.02.Miller_Response.htm)

By William A. Dembski, 2.17.03, v.1

Getting from Irreducible Complexity to Design:

Miller, in line with his personal incredulity criticism, charges design proponents of reasoning directly from the premise "Shucks, no one has figured out how the flagellum arose" to the conclusion "Gee, it must have been designed." Miller, despite a long exposure to ID thinkers and their writings, continually misses a crucial connecting link in the argument. So let me spell out the premises of the argument as well as its conclusion: Certain biological systems have a feature, call it IC (irreducible complexity). Darwinians don't have a clue how biological systems with that feature originated (Miller disputes this premise, but we'll come back to it). We know that intelligent agency has the causal power to produce systems that exhibit IC (e.g., many human artifacts exhibit IC). Therefore, biological systems that exhibit IC are likely to be designed. Design theorists, in attributing design to systems that exhibit IC, are simply doing what scientists do generally, which is to attempt to formulate a causally adequate explanation of the phenomenon in question.
....
Miller's Foray into the Mathematics of the Design Inference:
Miller critiques my combinatorial analysis of the bacterial flagellum from section 5.10 of No Free Lunch (2002). He makes two main points: (1) That the combinatorial analysis I develop cannot properly be applied to the flagellum. (2) That any such analysis presupposes the very outcome that ID theorists are supposed to be establishing, namely, that the bacterial flagellum is beyond the remit the Darwinian mechanism (or, as Miller puts it, the ID approach "assumes impossibility").

As for (1), Miller writes: "This approach [i.e., breaking the probability of the flagellum into an origination, localization, and configuration probability] overlooks the fact that the last two probabilities [i.e., localization and configuration] are actually contained within the first.

Localization and self-assembly of complex protein structures in prokaryotic cells are properties generally determined by signals built into the primary structures of the proteins themselves. The same is likely true for the amino acid sequences of the 30 or so protein components of the flagellum and the approximately 20 proteins involved in the flagellum's assembly....

Therefore, if one gets the sequences of all the proteins right, localization and assembly will take care of themselves. To the ID enthusiast, however, this is a point of little concern."

Actually, I made a similar point in No Free Lunch (2002, 300): "An oobjection may now be raised against this analysis.... The parts of a flagellum do not have to simultaneously converge [i.e., localize] by chance -- they self-assemble in order when chance collisions allow specific, cooperative, local electrostatic interactions to lock the structure together, one piece at a time." Localization and configuration seem to come along for free once you've got origination. But this is too simple. We can imagine the various proteins that go into a flagellum occurring in, let's say, three distinct molecular machines within a bacterium that lacks a flagellum. Although all the proteins are there for the flagellum, no flagella are formed. Why? Because genetic regulation within the bacterium targets the proteins to the specific molecular machines within which they occur. It's not enough for the proteins merely to be formed and then automatically snap together to form a flagellum. The localization probability therefore refers to such regulation.

Similarly with configuration, we can imagine proteins homologous to those of a flagellum all being in a bacterial cell. Moreover, we can imagine genetic regulation targeting all these proteins to the same location in the right order to build a flagellum. And yet, if these proteins are perturbed from their precise amino-acid sequencing in the flagellum, they will in all likelihood not be adapted to each other and therefore fail to form a functioning flagellum. Thus, even though localization and configuration probabilities can be thought to be built into the origination probability, in fact they are separable and a probabilistic analysis rightly takes into account their separability. Miller's point is indeed of concern to ID enthusiasts, as any charitable reading of our work would make clear.

And that brings us to point (2), in which Miller argues that the probabilistic analysis I offer is irrelevant to calculating the probabilities actually connected with the emergence of the bacterial flagellum. He writes: "By treating the flagellum as a 'discrete combinatorial object' [Dembski] has shown only that it is unlikely that the parts [of the] flagellum could assemble spontaneously. Unfortunately for his argument, no scientist has ever proposed that the flagellum or any other complex object evolved that way. Dembski, therefore, has constructed a classic 'straw man' and blown it away with an irrelevant calculation. By treating the flagellum as a discrete combinatorial object he has assumed in his calculation that no subset of the 30 or so proteins of the flagellum could have biological activity. As we have already seen, this is wrong.

Nearly a third of those proteins are closely related to components of the TTSS, which does indeed have biological activity. A calculation that ignores that fact has no scientific validity."

First off, it's easy to see that the calculation is indeed relevant, for if the spontaneous formation of the proteins occurring in the flagellum had high joint probability, ID theorists and Darwinians would be agreed that the flagellum would not be a system that required design -- if the probability of the parts of the flagellum forming spontaneously were high, the bacterial flagellum's design would be refuted. So Miller's point, presumably, is not that such calculations are irrelevant but that they don't go far enough, namely, that they doesn't treat the probabilities that might arise from a Darwinian pathway leading to the flagellum.

But in fact they do. My point in section 5.10 was not to calculate every conceivable probability connected with the stochastic formation of the flagellum (note that the Darwinian mechanism is a stochastic process). My point, rather, was to sketch out some probabilistic techniques that could then be applied by biologists to the stochastic formation of the flagellum.

As I emphasized in No Free Lunch (2002, 302): "There is plenty of biological work here to be done. The big challenge is to firm up these numbers and make sure they do not cheat in anybody's favor."

Miller doesn't like my number 10^(-1170), which is one improbability that I calculate for the flagellum. Fine. But in pointing out that a third of the proteins in the flagellum are closely related to components of the TTSS, Miller tacitly admits that two-thirds of the proteins in the flagellum are unique. In fact they are (indeed, if they weren't, Miller would be sure to point us to where the homologues could be found). Applied to those remaining two-third of flagellar proteins, my calculation yields something like 10^(-780), which also falls well below my universal probability bound.

But let's suppose we found several molecular systems like the TTSS that jointly took into account all the flagellar proteins (assume for simplicity no shared or extraneous proteins). Those proteins would be similar but, in all likelihood, not identical to the flagellar proteins (strict identity would itself be vastly improbable). But that then raises the question how those several molecular machines can come together so that proteins from
one molecular machine adapt to proteins from another molecular machine to form an integrated functional system like the flagellum. As John Bracht (2003) points out: "The problem is that the proteins which are to become the flagellum are coming from systems that are distinctly non-flagellar in nature (after all, we are discussing the origin of that very system) and being co-modified from their original molecular interactions into an entirely new set of molecular interactions. Old interfaces and binding sites must be removed and new ones must be created. But given the sheer number of flagellar proteins that must co-evolve, [thereby] co-generating all the proteins required for flagellar function (again, this is true at some point in the flagellum's evolutionary past even if there were earlier steps that were not so tightly constrained), the Darwinian explanation is really no different from appealing to a miracle."

We can do the probabilistic analysis at the level of individual proteins as I did in No Free Lunch. Or we can do it at higher levels of organization like functional subsystems (e.g., the TTSS). But all such probabilistic analyses still point up vast iimprobabilities. If Miller is right about Darwinian evolution being responsible for the bacterial flagellum, there had to exist bacterial genomes A = A_1 through A_n = B where one genome represents an evolutionary precursor to the next such that A (= A_1) contains no flagellar genes (not even homologues) and B (= A_n) has the operons for a fully functioning flagellum. Moreover, the change from A_i to A_(i+1) must in each case be reasonably probable in the light of any selection pressure operating on the organisms containing those genomes.

Miller of course has nothing like this -- no such sequence and no such probabilistic analysis (i.e., no probabilistic analysis showing P(A_(i+1)|A_i) >> 0). He has B (e.g., the genome of E. coli) and C (e.g., the genome of Yersinia pestis, which codes for the TTSS), and he has no good argument for why C should fall somewhere within the progression A_1 through A_n, much less whether there even is such a progression.

J. J. Ramsey

February 18th 2003, 04:23 PM

(Quotes of Dembski quoting Miller are in bold.)

Miller writes: "This approach [i.e., breaking the probability of the flagellum into an origination, localization, and configuration probability] overlooks the fact that the last two probabilities [i.e., localization and configuration] are actually contained within the first.

Localization and self-assembly of complex protein structures in prokaryotic cells are properties generally determined by signals built into the primary structures of the proteins themselves. The same is likely true for the amino acid sequences of the 30 or so protein components of the flagellum and the approximately 20 proteins involved in the flagellum's assembly....

Therefore, if one gets the sequences of all the proteins right, localization and assembly will take care of themselves.

Actually, I made a similar point in No Free Lunch (2002, 300): "An objection may now be raised against this analysis.... The parts of a flagellum do not have to simultaneously converge by chance -- they self-assemble in order when chance collisions allow specific, cooperative, local electrostatic interactions to lock the structure together, one piece at a time." Localization and configuration seem to come along for free once you've got origination. But this is too simple. We can imagine the various proteins that go into a flagellum occurring in, let's say, three distinct molecular machines within a bacterium that lacks a flagellum. Although all the proteins are there for the flagellum, no flagella are formed. Why? Because [i]genetic regulation [emphasis mine] within the bacterium targets the proteins to the specific molecular machines within which they occur. It's not enough for the proteins merely to be formed and then automatically snap together to form a flagellum. The localization probability therefore refers to such regulation.

Notice here that Dembski himself is contending that the localizing of the proteins is regulated by the genes.

Similarly with configuration, we can imagine proteins homologous to those of a flagellum all being in a bacterial cell. Moreover, we can imagine genetic regulation [emphasis mine again] targeting all these proteins to the same location in the right order to build a flagellum. And yet, if these proteins are perturbed from their precise amino-acid sequencing in the flagellum, they will in all likelihood not be adapted to each other and therefore fail to form a functioning flagellum.

Again, the coming together of the proteins is understood to be regulated again by the genes.

Thus, even though localization and configuration probabilities can be thought to be built into the origination probability, in fact they are separable and a probabilistic analysis rightly takes into account their separability.

Whether localization and configuration are built in to the origination probability depends on how narrowly Dembski defines "origination." If Dembski is just referring to the origination of the necessary proteins, and I believe that is what he is doing, then technically he is right -- provided that he is right about the genes having additional roles in the assembly of the proteins into the flagellum, rather than the proteins self-assembling once they are generated by the DNA and RNA. If the proteins do self-assemble, then game over for him. (Note that whether or not the proteins self-assemble can potentially be determined by observing bacteria in the process of forming flagella, presuming we have or can acquire the technology to do so.) Let's presume for the sake of argument that Dembski is right about the genes playing a part in assembly.

That still makes treating the flagellum as a combinatoral object a pointless exercise, because the question still goes back to how the genes come to code for the flagellum, whether one is dealing with the scenario of genes originating to make proteins that self-assemble, or if one is dealing with the origination of genes to both make, bring together, and assemble the proteins.

Note: Previously I had understood that when Dembski treated the flagellum as a "discrete combinatorial object," he was referring to the flagellum as an object composed of discrete parts made of protein. The truth is a bit more complicated. Here is a quote from Not a Free Lunch (http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/#torn) (a critique of No Free Lunch):

Dembski tells us to multiply three partial probabilities to arrive at the probability of a "discrete combinatorial object":

pdco = porig × plocal × pconfig

plocal is the probability of a suitable collection of proteins being drawn from a set of existing proteins which includes the ones required. Dembski assumes that the proteins are randomly drawn from among the 4289 proteins coded for by E. coli's DNA, that 5 copies are needed of each of 50 different proteins (making 250 proteins altogether), and that, in each case, there are 10 different proteins that would be acceptable (i.e. there are 9 possible substitutes for the real protein. In effect, we have to make 250 draws, and at each draw we have a 500/4289 probability of picking a useful protein, giving an overall probability of (500/4289)250.

pconfig is the probability that, given the right collection of proteins, they will form a viable flagellum if arranged at random. Dembski aims to draw from a uniform probability distribution over all the possible ways of arranging the selected proteins:

Strictly speaking, the configuration probability for a discrete combinatorial object that exhibits some function is the ratio of all the ways of arranging its building blocks that preserve the function divided by all the possible ways whatsoever of arranging the building blocks. [pp. 294-295]

Since he can't calculate this directly, he uses an approximation that he calls a perturbation probability. We need not concern ourselves with the details.

porig is the probability of all the individual proteins forming by random combination of amino acids, and is again based on a perturbation probability.

ItalianGold

February 19th 2003, 03:04 AM

[QUOTE]Blake Reas:
I see the ID and Evolution debate going on for quite a while. Both sides have their own presuppositions. The Evolutionist(Most) do not see design because of their bias and the IDers do see it becasue of theirs. I must ask which is more open minded? I see the ID position as more open minded do to the fact that it allows there to be design Naturalism does not allow it. Just my rants. [QUOTE]

I believe in evolution. I also believe that the Cosmos was designed, beautifully, perfectly and gloriously.

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 04:10 AM

ItalianGold:
I believe in evolution. I also believe that the Cosmos was designed, beautifully, perfectly and gloriously.This is self-contradictory. The whole point of evolution is to explain the complexity of the cosmos without design. See Darwin’s Real Message — Have you Missed It? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp)

There is also the huge problem that biological evolution involves death of the unfit. But the Bible says in Genesis 1 that everything was "very good" and that humans and animals were originally vegetarian, while death is called "the last enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26. Sure, it's logically possible to believe "God used evolution", but it's not the God of the Bible who would use what He calls "the last enemy" to bring about a "very good" creation. That's a major problem with all compromises with evolution or billions of years. See The god of an old earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4126.asp) and Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp)

J. J. Ramsey

February 19th 2003, 09:21 AM

Socrates:
ItalianGold:
I believe in evolution. I also believe that the Cosmos was designed, beautifully, perfectly and gloriously.

S:
This is self-contradictory. The whole point of evolution is to explain the complexity of the cosmos without design.

That is almost, but not quite, true. Evolution certainly is an explanation of the complexity of the cosmos, well, life in the cosmos, without the sort of precisely defined design of the sort captured in blueprints. However, one can design a system that, though open-ended, is intended to produce certain kinds of results. So to say that evolution precludes design altogether is false. It only precludes a universe with precise, detailed, close-ended design.

There is also the huge problem that biological evolution involves death of the unfit.

True. However, as you yourself pointed out, one cannot logically argue that because old-earth creationism, theistic evolution and the like lead to unpleasant conclusions, then they must be false. Also, even under YEC, theodicy is a problem, since God is letting the whole human race suffer the consequences of the sin of its first members. Let's face it, the God of Christianity does and allows things that on the surface seem monstruous, yet in the end, we trust his wisdom rather than accuse him. This applies to both YEC and the various old-earth Christian camps.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is this:

We have a book of Genesis that on its face implies a young creation and a global Flood.
We have, so far, a preponderance of evidence that indicates an old earth and no global Flood.
We have a New Testament that cannot be explained away under naturalism without a lot of speculation and ad hoc assumptions.

If it weren't for item #3, we could arguably be satisfied naturalists, but we can't, so one way or another, we have to deal. The advocates of YEC attempt multiple times to attack item #2. Many Christians have found these attempts to fall apart under scrutiny, so they try other approaches. Socrates calls this compromise; I call it trying to follow the facts. Some try to find a way to interpret Genesis that, though not wholly consistent with its prima facie interpretation, is consistent with point #2. Others simply concede to the truth of #2 without trying to harmonize it with Genesis at all. Any way one slices it, though, something somehow has got to give -- and that something is not point #3.

Stratnerd

February 19th 2003, 10:12 AM

So irreducible complexity isn't predicted from any sort of supernatural or physical laws. But it is evidence of supernatural creation even though evidence is irrelevent because the presupposition of a creationist is that supernatural creation is already True. Interesting!

So Dembski does these probability calculations and what do they tell us? What hypothesis is he testing?

ItalianGold

February 19th 2003, 08:55 PM

ItalianGold:

I believe in evolution. I also believe that the Cosmos was designed, beautifully, perfectly and gloriously.

Socrates:
This is self-contradictory. The whole point of evolution is to explain the complexity of the cosmos without design. See Darwin’s Real Message — Have you Missed It? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1347.asp)

The whole "point" of evolution? That may be your definition. I don't know of any single theory which even attempts to explain the complexity of the cosmos, with or without design. I am speaking of the theory that species change, adapting and thriving or dying out. Charles Darwin died 110 years ago. Much of his theory has been modified. We know he made errors. So did Eienstein. We know a great deal more now than we did then. Few evolutionists today invoke Darwin in toto. In addition, I am very wary of articles, people or books who profess to tell me what something REALLY means.

"There is also the huge problem that biological evolution involves death of the unfit."

Death of the unfit is a "huge problem?" Well, I don't know what to tell you. It may not be the way we wish things were, in fact, I feel your pain. But simple observation tells us that the unfit do, in fact, die.

But the Bible says in Genesis 1 that everything was "very good" and that humans and animals were originally vegetarian, while death is called "the last enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26. Sure, it's logically possible to believe "God used evolution", but it's not the God of the Bible who would use what He calls "the last enemy" to bring about a "very good" creation. That's a major problem with all compromises with evolution or billions of years. See The god of an old earth (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4126.asp) and Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp) I understand that you have a "huge problem" with accepting any view other than your own, but it's that very dogmatic attitude which hampers your goal. (That's assuming your goal is to spread the Word and love your neighbor as yourself.)

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 10:44 PM

Italian Pyrite:

I believe in evolution. I also believe that the Cosmos was designed, beautifully, perfectly and gloriously.

Socrates:
This is self-contradictory. The whole point of evolution is to explain the complexity of the cosmos without design. See Darwin’s Real Message — Have you Missed It?

The whole "point" of evolution? That may be your definition.No, read the link -- it was Stephen Jay Gould's opinion of what Darwin intended!!

I don't know of any single theory which even attempts to explain the complexity of the cosmos, with or without design. There are cosmological and chemical evolutionary theories too.

I am speaking of the theory that species change, adapting and thriving or dying out. Charles Darwin died 110 years ago. Much of his theory has been modified. We know he made errors. So did Eienstein. We know a great deal more now than we did then. Few evolutionists today invoke Darwin in toto.So? But his general thesis of designless small changes mediated by natural selection is still the ruling dogma today.

In addition, I am very wary of articles, people or books who profess to tell me what something REALLY means. You mean, like the founder!!

"There is also the huge problem that biological evolution involves death of the unfit."

Death of the unfit is a "huge problem?" Well, I don't know what to tell you. It may not be the way we wish things were, in fact, I feel your pain. But simple observation tells us that the unfit do, in fact, die.Of course, because we are now in a post-Fall world which is no longer "very good". The death of humans and other nephesh chayyah is attributed to the Fall. But theistic evolutionists and long-agers have the problem of explaining how death fits into the Biblical picture, as I said.

But the Bible says in Genesis 1 that everything was "very good" and that humans and animals were originally vegetarian, while death is called "the last enemy" in 1 Cor. 15:26. Sure, it's logically possible to believe "God used evolution", but it's not the God of the Bible who would use what He calls "the last enemy" to bring about a "very good" creation. That's a major problem with all compromises with evolution or billions of years. See The god of an old earth and Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists)
--------------------------------------------------------

I understand that you have a "huge problem" with accepting any view other than your own, but it's that very dogmatic attitude which hampers your goal. The question is not dogmatic v non-dogmatic, but which dogma is the best one to have. Those who try to assure everyone else that they are non-dogmatic are blind to their own dogmas!
(That's assuming your goal is to spread the Word and love your neighbor as yourself.)Yes, spread the Word--starting from its very first verse, and as affirmed by Jesus Himself (Mt. 19:3-6, Mark 10:6-9). But if Jesus can't be trusted on Genesis, then why believe Him about loving one's neighbor?? I realize of course that you trust pro-homosexula child molesters like Kinsey more than Jesus, so I dunno why you bother.

Socrates

February 19th 2003, 10:57 PM

------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates:

There is also the huge problem that biological evolution involves death of the unfit.

------------------------------------------------------------
JJR:

True. However, as you yourself pointed out, one cannot logically argue that because old-earth creationism, theistic evolution and the like lead to unpleasant conclusions, then they must be false. My argument is nothing so emotional. Rather, the argument is: the Bible is true from cover to cover (it was affirmed by Jesus Himself), its propositional revelation says that death and suffering are the result of sin, ergo OEC and TE are false.

Also, even under YEC, theodicy is a problem, since God is letting the whole human race suffer the consequences of the sin of its first members.Yes, because Adam was the Federal Head of humanity. And the same principle of imputation of sin also allows redemption, because the sins of believers are imputed to Christ, and His righteousness is imputed to us.

Let's face it, the God of Christianity does and allows things that on the surface seem monstruous, yet in the end, we trust his wisdom rather than accuse him. This applies to both YEC and the various old-earth Christian camps.Not at all, because YEC accepts the big picture that all this death and suffering is ultimately the result of sin. So blame sin, not God!

So why not practise what you preach and trust God at his Word, rather than the God-haters like Merde, Talk Origins crowd and NCSE who reject the history He revealed propositionally.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is this:

We have a book of Genesis that on its face implies a young creation and a global Flood.Yes!

We have, so far, a preponderance of evidence that indicates an old earth and no global Flood.Rubbish -- all evidence must be INTERPRETED, and can in fact be interpreted fruitfully under a Biblical paradigm.

Stratnerd

February 19th 2003, 11:02 PM

So? But his general thesis of designless small changes mediated by natural selection is still the ruling dogma today.

Dogma or paradigm? Should we have overwhelming evidence of an Earth < 10,000 years old most of us would change our minds. Could any amount of evidence convince a creationist otherwise? Again, is evidence even relevent? If so, how?

Of course, because we are now in a post-Fall world which is no longer "very good". The death of humans and other nephesh chayyah is attributed to the Fall. when you don't even try to be objective you end up saying silly things like this which you can't back up with data... can you? it's just one ad hoc after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another after another .........

J. J. Ramsey

February 19th 2003, 11:25 PM

Stratnerd:

Socrates:

Of course, because we are now in a post-Fall world which is no longer "very good". The death of humans and other nephesh chayyah is attributed to the Fall.

when you don't even try to be objective you end up saying silly things like this which you can't back up with data... can you?

Be fair here, Stratnerd. There is nothing silly per se about saying death is the result of the Fall. So far the evidence is in favor of death happening before humans, let alone sin, came to be, which for now shoots down the death-after-Fall theory. But that just makes it incorrect to say that death is the result of the Fall, not silly.

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 01:24 AM

Something I would like to add here: anyone see last months Scientific American? there was a very good article in it about how genetic algorithms have been able to design thing that were in fact more complex and better then man made versions. So the belief that if something is complex that design is more likely over Darwinian evolution is false. In the 19th century the issue was how could evolution design a eye? Today we have the proof that it did evolve and rather easily: who is to say the flagellum won’t suffer the same fate?

ItalianGold

February 20th 2003, 01:43 AM

Socrates

Italian Pyrite:

Ha ha ha - Socra-tease!:bonk:

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 03:34 AM

JJ Ramsey:
So far the evidence is in favor of death happening before humans, let alone sin, came to be, which for now shoots down the death-after-Fall theory. As usual, you have it backwards. The propositional revelation of the Infallible God who knows everything and was there at the time, and never lies or errs states that death came through sin, and that shoots down the death-before-fall theory invented by fallible people who don't know everything and weren't there.:bonk:

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 03:41 AM

Stratnerd:
Dogma or paradigm? Should we have overwhelming evidence of an Earth < 10,000 years old most of us would change our minds. There is already and you don't, because you don't like the idea of being accountable to your Creator and the reminder that He has already judged sin with a global Flood.

Romans 1:20 ff. come to mind with the likes of Stratnerd. So does Luke 16:31, where Jesus said that even a resurrection would not convince someone who denied Moses and the Prophets.

Could any amount of evidence convince a creationist otherwise? Again, is evidence even relevent? If so, how?What evidence would convince Scott Todd of an intelligent designer? Note what he stated so plainly:

Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic." (correspondence to Nature 401(6752):423, 30 Sept. 1999)What evidence would convince Richard Lewontin to abandon materialism? Look at the following:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." ( ‘Billions and billions of demons’, The New York Review, January 9, 1997, p. 31).So as I've told Italian Pyrite, cut the crap about dogmatic v non-dogmatic -- the question is, which dogma is RIGHT.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 03:48 AM

Beserker:
Something I would like to add here: anyone see last months Scientific American? there was a very good article in it about how genetic algorithms have been able to design thing that were in fact more complex and better then man made versions. So the belief that if something is complex that design is more likely over Darwinian evolution is false. In the 19th century the issue was how could evolution design a eye? Today we have the proof that it did evolve and rather easily: who is to say the flagellum won’t suffer the same fate?Hahahah:rofl: Scientific American hasn't recovered from the pasting answers in Genesis gave them here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp). And this addressed both the eye and flagellum. You really are good at wishful thinking to claim that the evolution of the eye has been proven.:eek:

The best they could do is try to bully AiG into removing the article, but Scientific American clearly didn't know copyright law, so AiG told them to take a flying -- see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/0711sciam.asp).:bonk:

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 08:39 AM

"15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry" haha don't get me started, also it is false logic to say that just because one article I raise about a totally different subject is wrong because the magazine once published something you disagreed with. If someone says something and this someone was wrong before about something else that does NOT mean that what they are saying now is wrong. You cannot avoid testing an argument because of the nature of its source. The nature of the eye and all genes related to its construction are and have been traced back through many other species. In fact any genetic sequence is traceable to ancestry. If evolution did not happen how come all life uses many of the same genes (most of them) and that these genes also have differences from each other that points to a lineage?

Also How does a Christian defend there version of Genesis form all other None Old testament based versions? Are they wrong and your right? why?

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 09:17 AM

The Beserk one missed the point again:

"15 ways to refute materialistic bigotry" haha don't get me started, Oh why not? You have to start somewhere.

also it is false logic to say that just because one article I raise about a totally different subject is wrong because the magazine once published something you disagreed with.Read again -- I said that there were sections that addressed the things you raised, i.e. eye and flagellum.

If someone says something and this someone was wrong before about something else that does NOT mean that what they are saying now is wrong. You cannot avoid testing an argument because of the nature of its source. Oh how true. But I find that materialists and their churchian allies are only too happy to ignore creationists because they believe Genesis to be historically accurate, and then squeal about the genetic fallacy when creationists point out the rabid materialistic bias of the leaders of evolutionary thought.

The nature of the eye and all genes related to its construction are and have been traced back through many other species. In fact any genetic sequence is traceable to ancestry. If evolution did not happen how come all life uses many of the same genes (most of them) and that these genes also have differences from each other that points to a lineage? How unspecific can you get? Even if you were right, it would hardly prove that eyes evolved from non-eyes, as opposed to having a common ancestor. In any case, you're wrong --- see T.H. Oakley and C.W. Cunningham, "Molecular phylogenetic evidence for the independent evolutionary origin of an arthropod compound eye", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 99(3):1426-1430, 5 February 2002. These people advocate multiple independent evolution or else losses of compound eyes in lots of different lineages. This evidence makes more sense if interpreted as separate creations.

Also How does a Christian defend there version of Genesis form all other None Old testament based versions? Are they wrong and your right? why?What on earth are you talking about? If it's not Old Testament, it's not Genesis.

Stratnerd

February 20th 2003, 09:25 AM

This evidence makes more sense if interpreted as separate creations.

How so?

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 09:38 AM

Socrates:
-------------------------------------------------------------
This evidence makes more sense if interpreted as separate creations.
-------------------------------------------------------------

Stratnerd:

How so?The complexity points to a Designer, and one would have to be incredulous to believe it evolved even one. But evolving many times independently is even more crazy. And the data severely undermine the common ancestry claim which is so foundational to evolution (that's apart from the even more foundational issue of materialism/naturalism at all cost).

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 10:00 AM

You know what I mean by how do you interpret the genesis beliefs of other religions, stop avoiding it.

As for the compound eye evolving separately for all arthropods... your point is? It does not advocate creation since just because the eyes evolve repeatedly. That’s like saying that the bat, bird and flying insect all have different forms of flights so they must have been created? That’s crap since the ability to fly is a major evolutionary advantage in some environments and the pressure for it is strong, same for the eye which in some environments is not needed and is does not exist, but if this is not from evolution then why though is it that cave fish not having eyes still have the genes for a eyes?

Still why do you hate evolution so? I want to know why you have to believe in the biblical version of Genesis to believe in god? Evolutionary theory does NOT disprove the existence of a creator. You your self have proclaim men fallible, who was it that wrote the bible?, Men who claim god told them! Could it be that such men after given the message from god about how the whole of the universe was created (something we to this day don’t yet fully understand) could have gotten it wrong and/or simplified it and translated it so may times as to make it inaccurate?

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 10:24 AM

Beserk one:

Certainly, if you're determined to follow a materialistic paradigm, you can make just about anything fit. So even though special creation is staring you in the face, you'll believe instead these ideas of extreme convergence so that many different lineages evolve almost identical compound eyes.

Sure, blind fish in caves have LOST some information for sight, due to information-losing mutations and loss of selection pressure to maintain sight. In fact, the shrivelled eyes may have a selective advantage in that they are less prone to injury. But these sorts of changes are the opposite to what goo-to-you evolution requires. Loss of eyes doesn't explain how the eye got there in the first place. See also New eyes for blind fish? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4361news8-9-2000.asp)

Who cares about other religions? Their founders all rotted in their tombs. Jesus rose from the dead, and appeared to more than 500 people at once. And Jesus affirmed the reality of the Genesis accounts of creation and the global Flood. I've explained why Christianity and evolution can't logically mix (although some people are capable of holding logically compatible ideas in the same skull).

If you want to debate the Bible, get informed about it first! Then start a new thread.

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 10:47 AM

Down to insulting eh? :tongue: I can see I'm pissing you off I apologize greatly for your anger.

I don't see how creationism is staring me in the face? All evidence seems to point in the opposite direction. Also you statement on the eyeless fish is in fact evolution so you just advocated a non-creations view. Also you belief that mutations can only cause delirious effects is horribly wrong. I can also say that your belief the advocates of evolution only having materialism as their goal is equal true to the church considering that the bible is the #1 selling book in the world.

As for your belief of the validated of other religions: David Koresh did the same thing! He must be Jesus! :thumb:

I have a bible right here and I have read (some of it) so I’m ready to whip it out for any debate about it. As for how Christianity and evolution don’t mix I would like to see that: could you show me your threads on this?

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 11:10 AM

Berserker:
That’s crap since the ability to fly is a major evolutionary advantage in some environments and the pressure for it is strong

To be fair, Berserker, there is no such thing as "evolutionary pressure." Darwinian evolution is open-ended, and there is no guarantee that any particular change will be mandated by it.

Still why do you hate evolution so?

Offhand, I think Socrates feels that the theory of evolution is a threat to Christianity. To some extent, he is right. Christianity does not readily accomodate evolution, and to believe both Christianity and evolution involves

either a reading of Genesis that, to the best of my knowledge, would be considered tortured by Genesis' original audience
or accepting that some Scripture is simply wrong and living with a lot of unanswered questions.

On another thread (http://theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=933), Socrates posted a link to the AiG (Answers in Genesis) web article Do I have to believe in a literal creation to be a Christian? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/docs/v23n3_literal_creation.asp). I think a quote from the article is probably enlightening as to Socrates' thought processes.

From the article:

There is a slippery slope [emphasis mine] into unbelief that accompanies disbelieving any part of the Word of God. If some part of the Bible is not true because it does not mean what it says, how do we know that other parts, such as the Virginal Conception of Jesus or the forgiveness of sin, are true?

I emphasized slippery slope because it is a classic textbook fallacy. One has to wonder about the clarity of thought of those in AiG who not only commit such a textbook fallacy, but mention the name of it without realizing it's a fallacy. :frown:

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 11:26 AM

J. J. Ramsey:
To be fair, Berserker, there is no such thing as "evolutionary pressure." Darwinian evolution is open-ended, and there is no guarantee that any particular change will be mandated by it.

You either do not understand how Darwinian evolution works or you have misinterpreted my definition of "pressure"

J. J. Ramsey: I emphasized slippery slope because it is a classic textbook fallacy. One has to wonder about the clarity of thought of those in AiG who not only commit such a textbook fallacy, but mention the name of it without realizing it's a fallacy. :frown:

Yes a slippery slope is the falacy that if one thing is consider wrong then the whole must be wrong! That in fact means that it is a FALACY to believe that just because some of the bible is wrong that you should now disregard the whole thing! So yes Socrates overblown belief that evolution is a threat is in fact not warranted.

I havea class in 30 mins so I'm going to have to go now be back tonight.

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 11:34 AM

Berserker:

J. J. Ramsey:
To be fair, Berserker, there is no such thing as "evolutionary pressure." Darwinian evolution is open-ended, and there is no guarantee that any particular change will be mandated by it.

You either do not understand how Darwinian evolution work or you have misinterpreted my definition of "pressure"

I may have done either. However, what I had understood is that new traits are added (or in cases like the cave fish, removed) by way of random mutation and a few other things like genetic drift (which I do not claim to understand), and then the process of natural selection promotes the survival of some of these changes. I do not see how pressure really fits into that process.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 11:47 AM

Beserker:
I don't see how creationism is staring me in the face?
Just as Romans 1:20ff. says--people wilfully reject this evidence. Just as Jesus said--if people reject Moses and the Prophets, they won't even be convinced by a Resurrection (Luke 16:31). No wonder all the theological cemeteries, ooops, sorry, seminaries that have denied Genesis ended up sliding down the slippery slope to total apostasy (whether sorites is a formal logical fallacy or not -- so is induction, but that never stopped Ramsey).

All evidence seems to point in the opposite direction.Yawn, stretch --- it doesn't point anywhere; it must be interpreted.

Also you statement on the eyeless fish is in fact evolution so you just advocated a non-creations view. Rubbish -- read the article. You're just playing pathetic bait'n'switch games with the meaning of "evolution"---see Definitions (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions)

Also you belief that mutations can only cause delirious effects is horribly wrong.The word is deleterious, ignoramus. And I've claimed no such thing, and neither has AiG. Rather, we have not observed any information-gaining mutation, although the blind fish example is a case of an information loss being beneficial.

As for your belief of the validated of other religions: David Koresh did the same thing! He must be Jesus! And the documentation for Koresh's resurrection is where?

I have a bible right here and I have read (some of it) so I’m ready to whip it out for any debate about it. As for how Christianity and evolution don’t mix I would like to see that: could you show me your threads on this?I've already pointed them out before, and not that you give a monkey's anyway. But try Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp) and 10 Dangers of theistic evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp).

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 12:02 PM

JJR:
or accepting that some Scripture is simply wrong and living with a lot of unanswered questions.I.e. saying that Jesus was WRONG when He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). And Pilgrim wonders why I'm yet to be convinced of the genuineness of your professed Christianity!

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 12:41 PM

Socrates:
I've already pointed them out before, and not that you give a monkey's anyway. But try Some questions for theistic evolutionists (and progressive creationists) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1273.asp) and 10 Dangers of theistic evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1305.asp).

There is a web page countering AiG's "10 Dangers of theistic evolution" article, called 10 Dangers of Theistic Evolution - not so Dangerous (http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm). The page isn't perfect, and has some stuff on the two sections of the creation account (or two accounts, whatever) being contradictory, which Holding already dealt with (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_03_03.html), and sees "be fruitful and multiply" as a command to fish as well as humans. Other than some exegetical fumbles, it makes some good points.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 12:59 PM

What a crass article from a guy lacking expertise in both science and theology! :duh:

This is a problem anyway. ‘Death and ghastliness’ are woven into the very fabric of the universe. Talk about begging the question. We observe only a FALLEN world, but the Bible clearly teaches that it was not created that way. :doh:

What did God create vultures for? If they weren’t designed to dine on carrion, why did He make them so perfectly adapted for the purpose?:dunce: Begging the question again. He ignores the palm nut vulture which even now eats nuts, the way some structures originally designed for vegetarianism can be used for carnivory (e.g. the piranha is really a carnivorous variant of the vegetarian pacu), and the changes wrought by the Fall as God switched on latent genetic information, preprogrammed because he foreknew the Fall. See Q&A: Genesis--Curse (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#curse) for some more detailed case-by-case explanations as well as the big picture.

If there were no death, then Adam and Eve would have been knee deep in this species alone within a few years.Crap. The command was to multiply to fill the Earth. Once that had been fulfilled, the command would no longer be operative.

Evolution relies on processes that allow increases in organization from the simple to the complex, from non-life to life, and from lower to higher forms of life.

No more than digestion or crystal growth do. This pillock confuses order and complexity -- see here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp#crystals)

I'm not wasting any more time on this bilge :rant: especially as most of it is already answered on the AiG site.

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 01:24 PM

Socrates:

JJR:
or accepting that some Scripture is simply wrong and living with a lot of unanswered questions.

I.e. saying that Jesus was WRONG when He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). And Pilgrim wonders why I'm yet to be convinced of the genuineness of your professed Christianity!

:no: Socrates, you are the one claiming that I said Jesus is wrong. The parts of Scripture that I had in mind being wrong were in Genesis.

Now I can give my reasons for why I think the verse you cite does not quite mean what you think, or why the handful of references that Jesus makes to Adam and Eve and the Flood are not clear-cut affirmations of the historicity of the creation and Flood accounts. There probably isn't much point, though. As I've pointed out, in general I find that the New Testament holds up pretty well, and since Jesus' resurrection, miracles, etc. show that he is the Son of God, I am not inclined to impart error to him. Given that, the worst-case scenario is that the matter of John 10:35 and the handful of other references can be mentally filed under "unanswered questions."

J. J. Ramsey

February 20th 2003, 02:12 PM

Socrates:
What a crass article from a guy lacking expertise in both science and theology!

I never said it was perfect. I already acknowledged that it was flawed, and pointed out some of the flaws. Still it is interesting that you only bring up its weak points and dismiss the rest as bilge.

From article:
This is a problem anyway. ‘Death and ghastliness’ are woven into the very fabric of the universe.

S:
Talk about begging the question. We observe only a FALLEN world, but the Bible clearly teaches that it was not created that way.

From article:
What did God create vultures for? If they weren’t designed to dine on carrion, why did He make them so perfectly adapted for the purpose?

S:
Begging the question again. He ignores the palm nut vulture which even now eats nuts, the way some structures originally designed for vegetarianism can be used for carnivory

You know, it's interesting that all sorts of changes are attributed to the Fall that were not even mentioned in Genesis at all. All this stuff about everything being vegetarian before the Fall is conventional wisdom, and only arguably Biblical. There is not even an indication per se that anything in the garden was immortal; the only reference to immortality was in the verses mentioning Adam and Eve being barred from the tree of life.

More to the point: if the question of death and suffering were so easily answered by the account of the Fall, why the book of Job? And why didn't God simply explain Job's suffering as a consequence of the Fall, instead of pointing out that he had more knowledge than Job ever could fathom?

From article:
If there were no death, then Adam and Eve would have been knee deep in this species alone within a few years.

S:
Crap. The command was to multiply to fill the Earth. Once that had been fulfilled, the command would no longer be operative.

I warned you about this part. Remember when I said that the article's author saw "be fruitful and multiply" as a command to fish as well as humans? Why do you bring it up as if it weren't a conceded point?

I'm not wasting any more time on this bilge especially as most of it is already answered on the AiG site.

You mean you don't want to waste any more time on the question of why AiG presented a straw-man version of theistic evolution? Or why AiG describes theistic evolution as a God-of-the-gaps explanation when it is about God working through natural processes? Or why AiG said that sin was a harmless evolutionary factor when the theory of evolution does not deal with sin one way or the other? Or why when Dawkins pontificates ". . . the Genesis story . . . has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants," AiG takes this as a statement about evolution and not as a mere expression of Dawkins' atheistic beliefs?

Socrates, you wouldn't be, oh, tackling the weakness in the article about which I already warned and ignoring the article's strong points now, would you? :hrm:

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 03:44 PM

Jees man calm down, clam down, have a hit of something, this is just a discussion no need for insulting.

Ok Ok so your say that there is no such thing as information-gaining mutation? haha that is silly, your silly! lets see: there is duplicating mutations in which a segment of DNA gets double copied... that’s a gain in "information". There is mismatching in which a segment of DNA get convoluted with another that can also cause a gain in “information" there are transponding genes which hop around chromosome there a good source of mismatching mutations. In fact entire chromosome can get double copied and mismatched and It has also been show that many chromosome have segment that showed they are related to each other which means that one chromosome beget all the rest long ago in are evolutionary past.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 10:36 PM

I.e. saying that Jesus was WRONG when He said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). And Pilgrim wonders why I'm yet to be convinced of the genuineness of your professed Christianity!

-------------------------------------------------------------

Socrates, you are the one claiming that I said Jesus is wrong. The parts of Scripture that I had in mind being wrong were in Genesis.For one pontificating on logic (even when a formal logical argument is not in view such as sorites), you lack understanding yourself! Let's go through this.

Jesus said "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35).
Genesis is a part of Scripture
Genesis is wrong.
Therefore a part of Scripture is wrong (i.e. broken).
Therefore Jesus was wrong.

Berserker

February 20th 2003, 10:51 PM

Yep he was! Maybe he was not the son of god after all either that or he did not say that because its a misprint, translation error, or just plain made up.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 10:58 PM

------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:
What a crass article from a guy lacking expertise in both science and theology!

------------------------------------------------------------

I never said it was perfect. I already acknowledged that it was flawed, and pointed out some of the flaws. Still it is interesting that you only bring up its weak points and dismiss the rest as bilge.You acknowledged its weak points, and I found some right at the start, and more skimming through it. So why should I waste any more time on an article by a nobody who has already demonstrated that he deserves no credence?

You know, it's interesting that all sorts of changes are attributed to the Fall that were not even mentioned in Genesis at all.They don't have to be, as long as they are CONSISTENT with Genesis. But what you advocate is CONTRADICTORY to Genesis!

All this stuff about everything being vegetarian before the Fall is conventional wisdom, and only arguably Biblical.Try Genesis 1:29-30 -- how clear do you have to get??:

Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground-everything that has the breath of life in it-I give every green plant for food." And it was so. This is further supported by the pictures of Restoration in Isaiah 11 and 65, where the absence of animal carnivory is an aspect of not hurting or destroying.

There is not even an indication per se that anything in the garden was immortal; the only reference to immortality was in the verses mentioning Adam and Eve being barred from the tree of life.Apart from the punishment that Adam would now return to the dust from which he was made. If physical death was already in existence, then Adam could just have said, "So what? We were gonna return to dust anyway!" And remember the Resurrection passage 1 Cor. 15? Adam's death was contrasted with Christ's resurrection, which was a physical resurrection from physical death, indicating that the death Adam brought was also physical.

More to the point: if the question of death and suffering were so easily answered by the account of the Fall, why the book of Job? And why didn't God simply explain Job's suffering as a consequence of the Fall, instead of pointing out that he had more knowledge than Job ever could fathom?The Fall explains the big picture of why there is death and suffering in the first place. Job addresses the false view that particular suffering must be due to a particular sin by that individual.

------------------------------------------------------------

From article:
If there were no death, then Adam and Eve would have been knee deep in this species alone within a few years.

S:
Crap. The command was to multiply to fill the Earth. Once that had been fulfilled, the command would no longer be operative.

-------------------------------------------------------------

I warned you about this part. Remember when I said that the article's author saw "be fruitful and multiply" as a command to fish as well as humans? Why do you bring it up as if it weren't a conceded point?Because I brought up another aspect to refute it.

------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not wasting any more time on this bilge especially as most of it is already answered on the AiG site.

------------------------------------------------------------

[quote]You mean you don't want to waste any more time on the question of why AiG presented a straw-man version of theistic evolution? Or why AiG describes theistic evolution as a God-of-the-gaps explanation when it is about God working through natural processes?And you effectively believe in "evolution of the gaps.

Or why AiG said that sin was a harmless evolutionary factor when the theory of evolution does not deal with sin one way or the other? Or why when Dawkins pontificates ". . . the Genesis story . . . has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants," AiG takes this as a statement about evolution and not as a mere expression of Dawkins' atheistic beliefs?Because Dawkins is widely regarded as a leading evolutionist, and most of the leading evolutionists are likewise antitheists.

Socrates, you wouldn't be, oh, tackling the weakness in the article about which I already warned and ignoring the article's strong points now, would you? OK Ramsey, tell us what YOU think are the best points in this article YOU admit was flawed in places, and I'll deal with them.

Socrates

February 20th 2003, 11:07 PM

The Beserk one:
Ok Ok so your say that there is no such thing as information-gaining mutation? haha that is silly, your silly! lets see: there is duplicating mutations in which a segment of DNA gets double copied... that’s a gain in "information".The silliness is entirely on your part, since repetitious doubling of the SAME information is not NEW information. Or perhaps you think that if you handed in two copies of the same assignment, you would get twice the marks? Once more, this as well as phenomena such as polyploidy are explained in the AiG demolition of cientific American (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp#mutations).

There is mismatching in which a segment of DNA get convoluted with another that can also cause a gain in “information" there are transponding genes which hop around chromosome there a good source of mismatching mutations.Fine, but here, the information already exists and is merely rearranged.

J. J. Ramsey

February 21st 2003, 12:26 AM

I do say that you have actually managed to do a successful rebuttal of some parts of that article (http://freespace.virgin.net/karl_and.gnome/10dangers.htm), and some of my response as well. However, you reverted back to your usual form in the rest of the rebuttal:

JJR:
You mean you don't want to waste any more time on the question of why AiG presented a straw-man version of theistic evolution? Or why AiG describes theistic evolution as a God-of-the-gaps explanation when it is about God working through natural processes?

S:
And you effectively believe in "evolution of the gaps.

:huh: That is 1) not a rebuttal, and 2) not true. I don't believe that I have ever said anything like "well, evolution must have done . . . " Actually, I haven't really defended evolution so much as I've pointed out flaws and dubiousness in ID and YEC, and pointed out what they really have to disprove to establish their own cases.

JJR:
Or why when Dawkins pontificates ". . . the Genesis story . . . has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants," AiG takes this as a statement about evolution and not as a mere expression of Dawkins' atheistic beliefs?

S:
Because Dawkins is widely regarded as a leading evolutionist, and most of the leading evolutionists are likewise antitheists.

So what? Dawkins' status as a leading evolutionist is only useful when he speaks on the theory of evolution. His opinions on matters outside his expertise carry little weight. Dawkins' comments on religion and metaphysics are much like an actor's comments on politics; they get heard because they are from someone more or less famous, but the value of what is said is fairly fluffy.

A word on Job and theodicy: You are right in saying that Job focuses on the problem of individual suffering. However, what is most significant about Job is that God never answers Job's questions or charges. Rather, God points to the fact that he has far more understanding than Job ever can. That is an important part of dealing with the problem of evil, both on an individual and on a world scale.

Berserker

February 21st 2003, 12:56 AM

Socrates

When you combine those mutation with normal transmutations (switching of nucleotides) then you get new sequences. Lets say I have a segment CATGATGA and I double it like this CATGATGACATGATGA and then I do a single nucleotide switch here and there: CATGATGAGATCATGA and now we have a new sequence from the original: look new “information” as you call it. There is also such thing as insertion mutations in which a new nucleotide is inserted into a segment. Also a mutation could make a start codon (ATG) for mRNA translation so a protein could be produce from transcribed section of DNA whence no protein was produced before…

Dam I could go on and on but I need sleep.

Socrates

February 21st 2003, 04:02 AM

JJR:
I do say that you have actually managed to do a successful rebuttal of some parts of that article, and some of my response as well. Thanx. My offer still stands about his strongest points.

JJR:
Or why when Dawkins pontificates ". . . the Genesis story . . . has no more special status than the belief of a particular West African tribe that the world was created from the excrement of ants," AiG takes this as a statement about evolution and not as a mere expression of Dawkins' atheistic beliefs?

S:
Because Dawkins is widely regarded as a leading evolutionist, and most of the leading evolutionists are likewise antitheists.

---------------------------------------------------------------

JJR:
So what? Dawkins' status as a leading evolutionist is only useful when he speaks on the theory of evolution. His opinions on matters outside his expertise carry little weight. Dawkins' comments on religion and metaphysics are much like an actor's comments on politics; they get heard because they are from someone more or less famous, but the value of what is said is fairly fluffy.The problem is, Dawkins is not atypical--he's just more forthright. I totally agree that he makes a total prat of himself when he spruiks forth on religion or philosophy. And even when he blathers on evolution it's mostly just-so stories not science, and stupid arguments about why a God would not have designed something this way. A good example is the eye, and that moronic modernist Miller has also spouted the same crap about the backwardly wired vertebrate retina as a design flaw -- see refutation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#bad_design).

JJR:
A word on Job and theodicy: You are right in saying that Job focuses on the problem of individual suffering. However, what is most significant about Job is that God never answers Job's questions or charges. Rather, God points to the fact that he has far more understanding than Job ever can. That is an important part of dealing with the problem of evil, both on an individual and on a world scale.I agree, but it's not either/or but both/and. See the Foreword (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0805macarthur.asp) by respected Bible teacher John MacArthur to the AiG book Walking through Shadows, which I heartily recommend, and the earlier AiG article Terrorists and Death (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/20010911_wtc.asp) which also refers to Job.

Socrates

February 21st 2003, 04:08 AM

The Beserk One spruiked:

When you combine those mutation with normal transmutations (switching of nucleotides) then you get new sequences. Lets say I have a segment CATGATGA and I double it like this CATGATGACATGATGA and then I do a single nucleotide switch here and there: CATGATGAGATCATGA and now we have a new sequence from the original: look new “information” as you call it. There is also such thing as insertion mutations in which a new nucleotide is inserted into a segment. Also a mutation could make a start codon (ATG) for mRNA translation so a protein could be produce from transcribed section of DNA whence no protein was produced before…

Dam I could go on and on but I need sleep.When you wake up from your hangover, provide SPECIFICS where these effects have truly generated new functional information rather than degraded it. And also concede that you goofed by information losses like blind cave fish as evidence for goo-to-you evolution.

ItalianGold

February 21st 2003, 04:49 AM

Socra-tease,

If there was no death, nothing but perfection in the Garden, then what Evil is being spoken of? (As in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)

And, when Adam slapped a mosquito or Eve stepped on an ant, what happened?

Berserker

February 21st 2003, 08:34 AM

02-21-2003 @ 02:08 AM
Socrates:

The Beserk One spruiked:

When you wake up from your hangover, provide SPECIFICS where these effects have truly generated new functional information rather than degraded it. And also concede that you goofed by information losses like blind cave fish as evidence for goo-to-you evolution.

Still insulting shows what kind of person you are. I enjoy frustrating you though http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/fouet.gif

:huh: Gee I would think I just showed it as simple as 1+1=2. If we add another start codon that’s a new gene right there! Again if we change the start codon the gene is deactivated... so a gene can be turned on and off by very few simple mutations and seeing it would be a evolutionary advantage for the cave fish to loss its eyes and not waste the energy making eyes or powering eyes and visual cortex genes: related to these things went uncheck and decayed rather fast.

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 10:12 AM

I would also like to say that I think humans have cut themselves off of the evolutionary chain. Through medicines, surgeries, and sheer force of will even those who have non-beneficial characteristics produce offspring. So, problems continue, even grow larger (diabetes, AIDS, Tay-sachs) in smaller populations. I think a lot of what we do to try and help mankind is taking us further and further from the path god may have meant for us. A lot of it seems unnatural, but our need for everyone to have a fair chance in life outweighs that path which nature meant for us.

This is a very popular idea, but I don't think it's totally accurate. While certain environmental stressors no longer apply to us (outsmarting the lion isn't quite as necessary any longer) - there are still environmental factors that have us in the grips of natural selection.

Evolution is probably on the order of complexity comparable to quantum physics - perhaps more so. There are so many variables and so many gene combinations that to figure out what evolutionary forces are at work at any given time is probably near impossible beyond overly simplified examples.

Dawkins' put forth a really interesting idea in "The Extended Phenotype" showing how evolution needs to take into account not just the genetic makeup of an organism, but the physical products the organism may produce such as a beaver's damn, and a bird's nest. As the genes code for more specialized abilities in manipulating the physical world (damns and nests) the organisms' success changes as well. This continues to increase the complexity in evolution.

As for humans - well, we clearly have the most extended phenotype of any known animal through our exponential technological growth. It is very evidence that our success as a species is extremely entangled with our tools for survival.

The consequences of living in an ever faster paced world, with more communication devices than anyone ever dreamed of may have untold impact on the evoution of the race. The brain is not born a completely static hard-wired organ. Those people with the genes that allow for specific "wiring" changes in the brain that would allow for better adapability to the "new future" may very well prove to be reproductively more superior, earn more money, afford better medical care, etc...

All this doesn't even take into account how memetic evolution may be affecting the biological humans. As our ideas (memes) spread through from one brain to the next, mutating and taking on a life of their own, there is no telling where that will end up - especially when on the back of the exponential growth that is technology.

For me, all this adds up to evolution definitely still affecting us, just in ways that may be different than they were a million years ago.

Information losing or information gained? With normal blood you die with sickle cell. With blood that contains a different allele than normal blood it will not kill you. Was this information added one day by a god who saw a need to fix a problem? Or had it always been there just in case?

It has been speculated that sickle cell is an evolutionary adaptation to fight malaria which is why it tends to be present in groups of people that (in their ancestors past) were faced with malaria frequently. Just one example of a mutation that got selected for through natural processes. I'm willing to bet the folks at AiG may not even have a problem with this since it doesn't speculate on full blown speciation, only minor changes to the environment.

You are right. There is evidence which says we were different (i.e. fossils, cave paintings, stone tools, more skeletal remains), but i'd say that we have probably more or less always exsisted in a somewhat similar fashion to the way we are now.

In what "fashion" are you speaking of here? Do you think our ability to abstractly think about our galaxy being only one out of billions is something that could have been explained to and comprehended by someone living three thousand years ago? Do you feel our ability to communicate has been the same for thousands of years? Julian Jaynes has an interesting book on this topic, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bi-Cameral Mind" that discusses the possibility that modern consciousness may not be as ancient as we think.

Socrates

February 22nd 2003, 02:39 PM

IG asked:
If there was no death, nothing but perfection in the Garden, then what Evil is being spoken of? (As in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)[quote] There was no ACTUAL evil. And God being omniscient knew ABOUT evil like an oncologist knows about cancer. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their knowledge of evil became more like a cancer sufferer's knowledge of cancer (from John MacArthur). And it was only after ADAM's sin that death entered the world.
[quote]
And, when Adam slapped a mosquito or Eve stepped on an ant, what happened?This presupposes that such things would have occurred in the pre-Fall world, with God upholding things fully. Also, the death that came through sin referred nephesh chayyah, used of man and vertebrates, and never of insects. So what we call biological death of insects is probably not the same type of death being referred to.

Socrates

February 22nd 2003, 02:53 PM

The Beserk one ranted :rant::
Still insulting shows what kind of person you are.Yep, one who enjoys applying the Biblical challenge/riposte paradigm (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html) to put scientifically ignorant biblioskeptix in their place! :bonk: :dunce::whip:

Then the Beserk one continued to dream on :zzz:. But for goodness' sake, the loss of eyes is devolution not evolution, and perfectly consistent with the Creation/Fall model. And wow, instead of saying that genes can be turned on and off, let's have some examples of new, functional genetic information.

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 03:19 PM

I think ID would have a much better case if they show the impossible is just that. For example, Socrates brought up that you can't go from scale to feather. So why doesn't ID take the necessary changes in the genomes and show that nature somehow forbids the mutations necessary to go from scale to feather.

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 03:28 PM

02-22-2003 @ 01:39 PM
Socrates:

This presupposes that such things would have occurred in the pre-Fall world, with God upholding things fully. Also, the death that came through sin referred nephesh chayyah, used of man and vertebrates, and never of insects. So what we call biological death of insects is probably not the same type of death being referred to.

I have a question about the pre-Fall world. If there was no death it seems to me that there must have been some kind of suspension (or perhaps it didn't even exist yet) of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

So my question is: How did they digest food?

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 03:33 PM

02-22-2003 @ 02:19 PM
Stratnerd:

I think ID would have a much better case if they show the impossible is just that. For example, Socrates brought up that you can't go from scale to feather. So why doesn't ID take the necessary changes in the genomes and show that nature somehow forbids the mutations necessary to go from scale to feather.

Because they can't and more importantly, that's not what ID theory is all about.

They focus on attacking the gaps in existing knowledge rather than trying to explain existing scientific phenomena. For a whole list of physical evidences that show how the prevailing theories hold more water than Creationism check out: Glenn Morton's (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/Cre-Ev.htm) site and some of his collected evidence (http://www.glenn.morton.btinternet.co.uk/age.htm)

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 04:04 PM

Hey TD,

I guess I don't understand ID (and I'm sure others will agree) but are they saying that it is impossible to go from scale to feather? Wouldn't what I propose be a better way to rule out evolution? Since we don't know how design occurs (thus makes no predictions) then we shouldn't we work with the alternative hypothesis?

But, I'll ask again: what does Dembski's calculations have to do with testing anything? He calculates probabilities and information content of extent features of organisms and uses this as a test of???

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 04:14 PM

02-22-2003 @ 03:04 PM
Stratnerd:

Hey TD,

I guess I don't understand ID (and I'm sure others will agree) but are they saying that it is impossible to go from scale to feather? Wouldn't what I propose be a better way to rule out evolution? Since we don't know how design occurs (thus makes no predictions) then we shouldn't we work with the alternative hypothesis?

They are definitely saying it is impossible to go from scale to feather because they see that as mutations causing "increased information" and therefore impossible.

What they miss is that very small variations in scales could eventually give rise to feathers over long periods of time. It's certainly possible and violates no known laws. Because they look at the "final product" rather than how through a series of steps you could get there - they see an impossibility. And so Dembski goes about trying to prove that with his so-called math.

But, I'll ask again: what does Dembski's calculations have to do with testing anything? He calculates probabilities and information content of extent features of organisms and uses this as a test of???

I'm not sure it does have anything to do with anything. An interesting note, the last issue of Skeptical Inquirer had an good article about Dembski. Apparently they invited him to speak at one of their conventions and he turned it down - and then proceeded to continue to go around arguing that evolutionists are part of some great conspiracy keeping sound Creation science away from the general public. I wouldn't put much stock into what Dembski is trying to prove. For the article online check out: http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/dembski.html

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 04:19 PM

02-22-2003 @ 08:14 PM
TenDimensions:
They are definitely saying it is impossible to go from scale to feather because they see that as mutations causing "increased information" and therefore impossible.

When you make the type of statement that you do above, presenting the position of the other side as you do, make sure that you can back it up.
In all of my reading on ID, it is described as an inference to design. I am not aware of any claim that increases in information are impossible, simply claims that such increases have not been observed in a controlled setting.

I would appreciate it if you would substantiate your claim above.

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 04:20 PM

02-22-2003 @ 01:53 PM
Socrates:

And wow, instead of saying that genes can be turned on and off, let's have some examples of new, functional genetic information.

I'm telling you - you're never going to find an evolutionist who claims fully formed genetic information can spring forth from mutations! If they want to argue that, they might as well go ahead and believe in Creationism!

Information evolves. Mutations help create potential new data points that can be assimilated into the genome through natural selection.

Look, genetic information is organized from just A, C, G, and T, right? The order these chemicals are in is basically the building blocks for all known life. Is it really so hard to imagine that adding more of this stuff into an organism (I've documented that) and then reshuffling and selecting on it (AiG accepts that part) can bring about new information in an organism? :hrm:

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 04:30 PM

02-22-2003 @ 03:19 PM
Captain Ochre:

When you make the type of statement that you do above, presenting the position of the other side as you do, make sure that you can back it up.
In all of my reading on ID, it is described as an inference to design. I am not aware of any claim that increases in information are impossible, simply claims that such increases have not been observed in a controlled setting.

I would appreciate it if you would substantiate your claim above.

I agree that I was treading on some dangerous ground. Although, I fear we may not agree on what evidence I have regarding ID thinking increased information is impossible

Much of what I read that gives me this impression is from all the talk surrounding the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (this probably doesn't come as a surprise to you). A couple of links I could put together on short notice are: from AiG's site (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/thermodynamics.asp) with this link (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3810.asp) ending with the quote:

This basic Law of matter/energy is in perfect harmony with Scripture, but contradicts the total concept of evolution.

Read into that what you will, but after looking at how they go out of their way to specifically talk about how immutable and proven the 2nd Law is - it sure sounds to me that they are saying it is impossible.

Of course, it just occurred to me that you may be making a significant distinction between those who subscribe to ID theory and those who subscribe to Creationism. If so, forgive me, it is not a distinction I often make.

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 04:35 PM

Hi, thanks for responding.
The AiG link concerns the argument from thermodynamics, afaics, which is not the same thing as Dembski's ID (inference to design, iow).
I'm quite certain that you could find layman-level design advocates who claim that purely naturalistic development of information is impossible, but (again) that isn't what the developers of the ID movement have in mind afaics.
Thanks for your willingness to keep the distinctions clear. I appreciate it.

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 04:41 PM

02-22-2003 @ 03:35 PM
Captain Ochre:

Thanks for your willingness to keep the distinctions clear. I appreciate it.

A lot of conflict arises when people don't like to keep distinctions in mind. These are complex issues with nearly an infinite number of angles to take on it - that's why I hate labels since they instantly pigeon-hole the person into accepting ideas that they may or may not actually subscribe to. But then again, the fact that our brains are built to quickly judge and make assumptions is nothing more than an evolved survival mechanism. :tongue:

Sounds like you're versed in Dembski's ideas. I'd appreciate an evaluation of this: http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/dembski.html

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 04:58 PM

02-22-2003 @ 08:41 PM
TenDimensions:
I'd appreciate an evaluation of this: http://www.csicop.org/si/2002-11/dembski.html

The author of that article immediately proceeds to categorize ID theorists as "creationists". He takes a talk by Dembski about the prospects for Skepticism unseating ID in public debate, and treats it as though Dembski was giving a presentation trying to win the Skeptical audience over to ID.

The only part that I found interesting (I admit that I gave it a "quickie" review) was the part where it was alleged that other math/stat geeks have challenged certain of Demski's claims regarding specified complexity. That sounds interesting, so I'll get around to checking that out.
One part that might have piqued my interest if I didn't have a fairly well researched opinion on it, was the allegation that the design inference is an argument from ignorance. Scientists who make that claim should check themselves for plankeye syndrome prior to proceeding.
All in my humble opinion, of course.

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:01 PM

In all of my reading on ID, it is described as an inference to design. I am not aware of any claim that increases in information are impossible, simply claims that such increases have not been observed in a controlled setting.

I wish I knew exactly what the "information" was that ID-ist refer to... is it the information in genes or is it information in the trait that is expressed? But if it is a novel structure (which must have arbitrary and subjective limits on what constitutes novel) then even most biologists would assume that these events are rare. As far as we know feathers evolved only once and eyes evolved only a few times. But I imagine that such structures will "never" appear in controlled experiments since most of these structure do not involve a set of genes of suites of genes sets - each of which has distinct phenotypic effects. Unlikely yes.. but so what?

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:08 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:01 PM
Stratnerd:
Unlikely yes.. but so what?

Yes, testing of evolutionary innovation is a difficultly.

"Unlikely yes"? That's the point of the inference, actually. Intelligent beings, such as humans assume ourselves to be, innovate. We call that innovation "intelligence" among other things.

Blake Reas

February 22nd 2003, 05:21 PM

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:24 PM

The author of that article immediately proceeds to categorize ID theorists as "creationists".

What's the difference? [and I'm not asking this belligerently]

Intelligent beings, such as humans assume ourselves to be, innovate. We call that innovation "intelligence" among other things. other things?

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:29 PM

Ok guys I have a question for the people on the Evolutuion side. When you speak of Evolution are we talking small scale changes such as the beaks on Darwin's finches or Molecules to Man?

both...depends on the context

What I find is that many times Evolutionist will use evidence of small changes, I guess you call it adaption as evidence for Molecules to man evolution.

The assumption is that small changes will eventually lead to larger changes. But when it comes to historical evolution (molecules-to-man), I don't see adaptation per se as being that important. But other biologists may have, and probably do, a different opinion.

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:30 PM

Design inference explicitly allows for "naturalistic" explanations of design. Calling the position "creationist" on the basis of that alone should allow us to call any materialist who happens to believe that he universe had a beginning a "creationist".

In the context of the article, "creationist" has negative connotations for the intended audience (skeptics). The author's focus on historic aspects of creationism (in reference to past exclusion from the skeptical forum, for example) along with his subsequent pinning of the term on Dembski (let alone the curious out-of-context critique of Dembski's talk) seems indicative of an intent to discredit ID on a basis other than logic and reason.

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:34 PM

Allow me to suggest (as though it's a new thing!) that "evolution" refer to the (relatively) uncontroversial change of frequency of alleles over time, "common descent" to refer to the framework wherein those small changes add up to innovation, and "abiogenesis" to account for the move from molecules to living organism(s).

Some additional terms might be useful where these three have interstitial cracks, but it's a start.

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:36 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:24 PM
Stratnerd:

other things?

Yeah, we also call innovation "innovation" and "invention".
Clear?

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:38 PM

CO,

Design inference explicitly allows for "naturalistic" explanations of design.
But a creationists, as understood by everyone, is someone that believes God is the creator, including organisms. Isn't ID essentially the same thing even though they tend not to explicitly state that it was God?

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:40 PM

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:40 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:38 PM
Stratnerd:

CO,

But a creationists, as understood by everyone, is someone that believes God is the creator, including organisms. Isn't ID essentially the same thing even though they tend not to explicitly state that it was God?

No, albeit the majority of ID advocates also believe that God is the intelligence ultimately responsible for creation (creation=the universe).

Btw:
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=creationist

Everyone?

Captain Ochre

February 22nd 2003, 05:42 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:40 PM
Stratnerd:

Sounds good except isn't innovation a human thing?

That's the issue, isn't it?

Want to watch me pick over various statements by scientists which overflow with anthropomorphic language?:smile:

Stratnerd

February 22nd 2003, 05:58 PM

No, albeit the majority of ID advocates also believe that God is the intelligence ultimately responsible for creation (creation=the universe).

I guess I still don't get it.... what makes ID not creationism?

Everyone? in the context of a discussion on creationism, I think everyone knows what is meant by "creationist", eh?

That's the issue, isn't it? yea, but a different one. I thought you were giving a definition of evolution that might be accepted by most scientists but if you throw in "innovation" then you are giving a definition that is both different and not what most scientists would say is what evolution is, especially since definitions were asked from the evolutionists "side".

Want to watch me pick over various statements by scientists which overflow with anthropomorphic language? if they were in this discussion, sure

Berserker

February 22nd 2003, 06:41 PM

02-22-2003 @ 12:53 PM
Socrates:
let's have some examples of new, functional genetic information.

I just showed it to your several post ago! You seem to have selective sight and only see what you want to see. Also the loss of eyes is in fact evolution, de-evolution is a made up term.

Also calling something bad or wrong just because you think it bad or wrong is not an argument: that’s ranting.

Every time I reduce you to name calling and ranting it makes me feel good because you have nothing else left to fight me with!

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 08:31 PM

02-22-2003 @ 03:19 PM
Captain Ochre:

I am not aware of any claim that increases in information are impossible, simply claims that such increases have not been observed in a controlled setting.

I've been thinking about what you said about this. I must admit this is the first I've heard someone as a proponent of ID or Creationism present the possibility of "increased information" and simply point out that it hasn't been observed in a controlled setting.

Doesn't this angle greatly weaken the ID position? After all, there are plenty of scientific theories that rely on theories that have not been proven under laboratory conditions. Black holes, a variety of QM theories, even gravity (my favorite example!).

So then if you accept the possibility of evolution - particularly the "increased information" - what aspects of ID better fit the evidence?

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 08:35 PM

02-22-2003 @ 04:21 PM
Blake Reas:

What I find is that many times Evolutionist will use evidence of small changes, I guess you call it adaption as evidence for Molecules to man evolution. I just want to make sure no one is equivocating on terms.

It is my understanding that most ID and Creationists have no problem with a certain "amount" of evolution - typically referred to as micro-evolution.

The difference between the evolutionists and ID/Creationists is the evolutionists see the addition of lots and lots and lots of time as enough to produce the rest, while ID/Creationists don't.

So when we're talking about "evolution" we're usually referring to the "macro" part of it.

An oversimplification, but accurate to the best of my knowledge.

TenDimensions

February 22nd 2003, 08:44 PM

02-22-2003 @ 04:08 PM
Captain Ochre:

Intelligent beings, such as humans assume ourselves to be, innovate. We call that innovation "intelligence" among other things.

Through mutation and natural selection good old "mother nature" has come up with some very nice solutions to the problem of plain survivability and reproductive success.

It only takes a selective pressure on an imperfectly reproducing system of "things" to produce the effect known as "evolution".

As I mentioned elsewhere, it is most interestingly being applied to the creation of electronic circuits now - producing bizarre results that work! Sure, this is slightly different from the biological evolution that takes place in nature - mainly because there is (in this case) an intelligence driving the selection process where in nature, it is nothing more than blind nature selecting who can reproduce.

J. J. Ramsey

February 22nd 2003, 09:04 PM

It seems that in the context of a creation-evolution debate, "creationist" refers to someone contending that modern lifeforms are at least partially a product of divine intervention. This especially appears to be what those arguing in favor of evolution seem to mean by "creationist." Now intelligent-design advocates get a little coy on the subject, but the basic line of ID argument is that natural mechanisms are insufficient to produce the complexity of life, so supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is necessary. In practice, supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is basically divine intervention, so this makes intelligent-design advocates creationists in the above sense.

Berserker

February 22nd 2003, 09:35 PM

the belief that mutation only cause a lose of information is false and proven so!

ItalianGold

February 22nd 2003, 09:40 PM

To one and all,

I haven't been a member of a forum that is composed of both creationists and atheists that didn't seem to be just a place for venting and ranting. This place is DIFFERENT! From both ends of the spectrum of belief/disbelief there are intelligent, well educated, respectful people who post here. I just want to say thank you to the Admin. staff and moderators who obviously hold certain standards.

What really is surprising to me is that it seems the theological and philsophical arguments have taken on a whole new vocabulary. I thinks that's great, in that defining your terms is always the first step in a productive diologue. But, as someone who has not been involved in these types of discusions on such a micro level, I'd appreciate a little help.

I think we need a glossary of the most common terms used here...with definitions that can be agreed upon by all camps. (is that asking too much?) :brow: Terms like dispensationalism, pre/post millennium, (and apparantly several degrees of each) eschatology, exegesis, evolution, creationist, orthodox, inerrant, allegorical, and so on... I've been in several threads which have fallen apart because of the disagreement or misunderstanding (in some cases deliberate) of terms.

I really can only contribute my own thoughts and opinions and the occasional resourced facts. I have been a seeker all my life, seriously from about the age of 25, decades ago. In that time I have learned that it is extremely rare to find two people who will agree on all the details of their faith or world view. However, I very interested in all of them. I guess I'm what y'all are calling an IDer, in that I believe that there is observable proof that intelligence flows through the universe. I believe that species evolve. I do not believe that man was created one day 6,000 years ago. I believe that God (NOW THERE"S A TERM I"D LOVE TO SEE DEFINED??) is, was and always will be.

I believe we are hardwired to seek and find this "intelligence." I believe there are many paths that will get you there. I'm really unsure about life after death, though I'd say I think my body, mind and ego will not survive, my Spirit will. I believe that unconditional love is the ultimate goal. I believe that time/space are only partially manifested and severely misunderstood, as are the concepts of "reality" "good" and "evil." I'm not saying they are relative.

Well, I've already blabbed more than I intended. I welcome all respectful corrections, comments and criticisms of this and any other post.

IG

Socrates

February 22nd 2003, 11:54 PM

10Dimensions:

I have a question about the pre-Fall world. If there was no death it seems to me that there must have been some kind of suspension (or perhaps it didn't even exist yet) of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

So my question is: How did they digest food?You would see from the AiG site that they do NOT agree with the idea that the 2nd Law started with the Fall, and even use digestion as a counter-example -- see their Don't Use page (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#fall), which also has ideas of the differences in the pre-Fall world.

ItalianGold

February 23rd 2003, 12:21 AM

Socrates says:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IG asked:
If there was no death, nothing but perfection in the Garden, then what Evil is being spoken of? (As in the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And he responds with:

There was no ACTUAL evil. And God being omniscient knew ABOUT evil like an oncologist knows about cancer. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their knowledge of evil became more like a cancer sufferer's knowledge of cancer (from John MacArthur). And it was only after ADAM's sin that death entered the world.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And I say:

This argument is not worthy of you Socrates. There was no evil. But God knew about evil? Like an oncologist? Cancer exists. Without cancer there IS no oncology, no oncologist and no knowledge. And the oncologist didn't create it.

But still there is a Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil?

Even stretching to try to grasp how something can both NOT exist and be known...I'm lost here.

Then you say that this thing which did NOT exist was understood by Adam's eating of the fruit - like a cancer patient who has understanding of his disease which DOES exist!? AND it was the reason God created death. Man doesn't create! How did the evil get here again?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The last part of my question:
And, when Adam slapped a mosquito or Eve stepped on an ant, what happened?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And your response to this is:

This presupposes that such things would have occurred in the pre-Fall world, with God upholding things fully.
Guilty as charged. I actually had imagined that mosquitos got swatted, that vultures, killer sharks and T-Rex were not vegetarians. With THOSE teeth?:teeth:

Also, the death that came through sin referred nephesh chayyah, used of man and vertebrates, and never of insects.
How about invertabrates?

So what we call biological death of insects is probably not the same type of death being referred to.
My understanding has always been that the Bible is talking about spiritual death, not biological. But if you contend that there are different kinds of physical deaths... :huh:

*sigh*

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 12:31 AM

BlakeReas

What I find is that many times Evolutionist will use evidence of small changes, I guess you call it adaption as evidence for Molecules to man evolution.
Blake has correctly noted the tendency of evolutionary propagandists to play bait-and-switch with the terms, which I've also noted by citing this piece on equivocation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/lerner_resp.asp#Definitions).

Stratnerd:
The assumption is that small changes will eventually lead to larger changes. But when it comes to historical evolution (molecules-to-man), I don't see adaptation per se as being that important. But other biologists may have, and probably do, a different opinion.Stratnerd has shown why creationists advise against distinguishing micro and macro-evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp#micro_macro). The point is not how much change, but the direction of change. That is, goo-to-you evolution requires information-increasing change, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information which already exists. People like the Beserk One still don't get it, because they cite ad nauseam the example of cave fish losing their sight as if it somehow proves the goo-to-you theory and refutes the Biblical Creation-Fall model.

See also The evolution train's a-comin’ (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_train.asp), as well as Beetle Bloopers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/241.asp) which gives a short overview of the issues and focuses on the case of a beneficial information loss, in this case loss of the ability to fly in beetles on a windswept island.

Capt. Ochre:
… “abiogenesis” to account for the move from molecules to living organism(s).That's fair, but we shouldn't let evolutionists get away with claiming “abiogenesis is not part of evolution” and thus evade the intractable chemical problems with it for the materialists. After all “abiogenesis” is often called “chemical evolution” and Kertut defined “The General Theory of Evolution” to include chemical evolution.

So we could agree to use the term GTE the way Kerkut defined it (Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960):

… the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.

Blake Reas

February 23rd 2003, 12:37 AM

Here is what AIG said, this is there defense of the 2nd law being there before the fall.

‘The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall’. This law says that the entropy (‘disorder’) of the Universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the Earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the Biblical framework above, as are suffering (or ‘groaning in travail’ (Rom. 8:20–22)). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.

It always helps to follow the links!

In Christ,
Blake

Blake Reas

February 23rd 2003, 12:42 AM

Socrates,

I do not think that all Evolutionist are being dishonest, many times Equivocation can happen by accident. It reminds me of when talking to an OVer on a Chat room we had two different meanings of Foreknowledge we where both "equivocating". I do know that some DO Equivocate!

In Christ,
Blake Reas
Soli Deo Gloria

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 12:45 AM

BlakeReas

Here is what AIG said, this is there defense of the 2nd law being there before the fall.But this is their argument AGAINST saying this!

It always helps to follow the links! Indeed, thanx. :thumb: It would make a pleasant change for certain people here.

Blake Reas

February 23rd 2003, 12:47 AM

02-23-2003 @ 04:45 AM
Socrates:

BlakeReas
But this is their argument AGAINST saying this!

Indeed, thanx. :thumb: It would make a pleasant change for certain people here.

I mis worded it! I always do that :help: ! I know what I was trying to say.

In Christ,
Blake

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 01:02 AM

I tried to answer Italian Pyrite's question:

There was no ACTUAL evil. And God being omniscient knew ABOUT evil like an oncologist knows about cancer. After Adam and Eve ate the fruit, their knowledge of evil became more like a cancer sufferer's knowledge of cancer (from John MacArthur). And it was only after ADAM's sin that death entered the world.
But IP plays the 21st-century provincialist who wants to read the Bible like a newspaper instead of interpreted according to its grammatical and historical context.

This argument is not worthy of you Socrates. There was no evil. But God knew about evil? Like an oncologist? Cancer exists. Without cancer there IS no oncology, no oncologist and no knowledge. And the oncologist didn't create it.All analogies are limited, but this one is good as far as it went to illustrate the difference between God's knowledge and Adam and Eve's experiential knowledge.

But an obvious difference is that God foreknew the Fall, whereas an oncologist does not have this ability.

Also, God did not create evil, for the plain and simple reason that evil is not a thing! Rather evil is a privation on good, and parasitic upon it, as Augustine pointed out. Rather, evil came into the world when the snake and then the first human couple misused their power of contrary choice. After they misused this power, they had the full experiential knowledge of the horrors of this privation of good.

IP:
And, when Adam slapped a mosquito or Eve stepped on an ant, what happened?

Soc. response:
This presupposes that such things would have occurred in the pre-Fall world, with God upholding things fully.

IP new:
Guilty as charged. I actually had imagined that mosquitos got swatted, that vultures, killer sharks and T-Rex were not vegetarians. With THOSE teeth? Then the fault is with your imagination, not with the Bible. In fact, there are creatures today with sharp teeth that are vegetarian, e.g. fruit bats and pandas. Even the piranha is just a variant of the pacu which uses its powerful jaws and teeth to eat hard lichen on rocks. I referred you to an article (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c008.html) which gave a "big picture" about the origin of "bad things". There are a number of specific cases addressed at Q&A: Curse (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/genesis.asp#curse).

Also, the death that came through sin referred nephesh chayyah, used of man and vertebrates, and never of insects.
How about invertabrates?
Are invertebrates vertebrates??

So what we call biological death of insects is probably not the same type of death being referred to.
My understanding has always been that the Bible is talking about spiritual death, not biological.Your understanding has been mistaken then. In Genesis 3:19, the curse on Adam is clearly physical death, because he would now return to the dust. In 1 Cor. 15:21-22 (cf. 26, 45), the death of first man Adam is contrasted with the resurrection of the Last Adam Jesus. Since the Resurrection was physical, the death of Adam must also have been physical.

But if you contend that there are different kinds of physical deaths... Yes, we must interpret Biblical terms with Biblical categories, not impose modern 21st century thought forms on them like a modern provincialist. Skeptics make the same mistake when they claim the Bible is wrong to call the bat a "bird", although the Hebrew oph just means "flying creature.

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 01:30 AM

Socrates it is you that does not get it I have showed you many examples of how mutations increase "information". You have not yet addressed them... are you avoiding them?

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 01:47 AM

10D:
I'm telling you - you're never going to find an evolutionist who claims fully formed genetic information can spring forth from mutations! If they want to argue that, they might as well go ahead and believe in Creationism!

Information evolves. Mutations help create potential new data points that can be assimilated into the genome through natural selection.

Look, genetic information is organized from just A, C, G, and T, right? The order these chemicals are in is basically the building blocks for all known life.Exactly, the information is the SEQUENCE not the MEDIUM. Saying what you said is like saying that the information on a computer hard drive is nothing more than the order of magnetic on and off patterns. But this doesn't explain how the sequences arose.

Is it really so hard to imagine that adding more of this stuff into an organism (I've documented that)Yeah, and you can add more hard drives to your computer but that won't give you any more programs or data.

and then reshuffling and selecting on it (AiG accepts that part) can bring about new information in an organism? Why not actually provide an example instead of the handwaving you and the Beserk One do? The Beserk one still thinks an info loss (of sight in cave creatures) is an info gain.

And you both think that a mere change in genes is enough to prove information gain. He thinks that a process akin to splitting up a file on your computer hard drive and reshuffling the fragments is proof that new information can arise.

E.g. you could outline the specific changes required to change a reptile scale into a feather, and how natural selection would have favored each step. Or maybe Stratnerd with the icon of the rabid Christ-hating bigot T.H. Huxley can give some specific ideas since he was the one who brought it up. But it's notable that Huxley had even more hatred for compromising churchians who pretended that Genesis didn't mean what it said.

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 02:01 AM

And you both think that a mere change in genes is enough to prove information gain. He thinks that a process akin to splitting up a file on your computer hard drive and reshuffling the fragments is proof that new information can arise.

Yes in fact! by copying the original data (in your case Binary bits) and then applying mutations to the copy you end up with a new sequence of bits that is inherently different for the original... hence new data.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 03:15 AM

Beserker just repeats the old saw. I'll copy/paste from the AiG demolition (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp) of the Scientific American anticreationist article by its editor, one John Rennie. The AiG author clearly demonstrated that his superiority in qualifications to Rennie's was matched by his superior understanding of the issues:

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.This is a serious mis-statement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp) We have pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations). See for example, Beetle bloopers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/241.asp).

Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow.Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place. See also Hox (homeobox) Genes — Evolution’s Saviour? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4205.asp) and Hox Hype — Has Macro-evolution Been Proven? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0215hox_hype.asp) The hox gene did not produce any of the information that results in the complex structure of the leg, which in ants and bees includes a very complex mechanical and hydraulic structure by which these insects stick to surfaces—see Startling stickiness (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v24n2_startling_stickiness.asp).

These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.Amazing—natural selection can test for ‘possible uses’ of ‘non-functional’ (i.e. useless!) limbs in the wrong place. Such deformities would be active hindrances to survival.

Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism’s DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features.Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new. Macroevolution needs new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, for example).

In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book. (Brave students of evolutionary professors might like to ask whether they would get extra marks for handing in two copies of the same assignment.)

Duplication of a single chromosome is normally harmful, as in Down’s Syndrome. Insertions are a very efficient way of completely destroying the functionality of existing genes. Biophysicist Dr Lee Spetner in his book Not By Chance (http://www.answersingenesis.org/onlinestore/select.asp?PageType=detail&UID=10-3-085)analyses examples of mutational changes that evolutionists have claimed to have been increases in information, and shows that they are actually examples of loss of specificity, which means they involved loss of information (which is to be expected from information theory).

The gene duplication idea is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it) . However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information. Dawkins et al. point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense design in nature (not a good one, as Spetner et al. have shown). The proposal is that random changes produce a new function, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow, thus comes under the selective process and is tuned.

It’s all a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutated to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.

Furthermore, mutations do not just occur in the duplicated gene; they occur throughout the genome. Consequently, all the deleterious mutations have to be eliminated by the death of the unfit. Mutations in the target duplicate gene are extremely rare—it might represent only 1 part in 30,000 of the genome of an animal. The larger the genome the bigger the problem. This is because a larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that can be sustained without error catastrophe, which means one has to wait longer for any mutation, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene. There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.

Dawkins and others have recognised that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function. There could never be enough experiments (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4^1000 possibilities — that is 10^602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10^80). If every atom in the universe were an experiment every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10^100 of the possibilities. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that there may be more than just one sequence that is functional to some extent.

So Dawkins and company have the same problem as the neutral selection theory advocates. Increasing knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions has exploded the known ‘information space’ such that mutations and natural selection, with or without gene duplication, or any other known natural process, cannot account for the irreducibly complex nature of living systems.

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 08:22 AM

02-22-2003 @ 08:40 PM
ItalianGold:

I think we need a glossary of the most common terms used here...with definitions that can be agreed upon by all camps. (is that asking too much?) :brow:

Great point! That would be especially helpful since some debates can be spent just on defining commonly acceptable terms!

How about something like a FAQ?

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 08:42 AM

02-23-2003 @ 12:47 AM
Socrates:

Yeah, and you can add more hard drives to your computer but that won't give you any more programs or data.

Of course, not - you left off natural selection. But you absolutely can take random ones and zeros on your harddrive, swap them around, select for certain traits, reproduce those, etc... and end up with information. Heck, I've even written simple programs that start with random gibberish, "mate" different nonsense words together, select those that look more like the final product, and then mate those together. In about 8-10 generations you get the answer! Now, I'm not claiming this is how biological evolution works!! I'm using this as an example of the principals behind biological evolution. How is this different from sorting and shuffling A/C and G/T pairs around in the genome?

Why not actually provide an example instead of the handwaving you and the Beserk One do?

I may not yet have read you addressing the information here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html) and specifically this quote:

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.

This is an example of a whole lot more of genetic material available to this plant. (That's step 1) Once you have additional genetic material all you need to do is reshuffle and recombine (that's normal natural selection that AiG accepts as happening in the world). So what's left to show you? Honestly.

And you both think that a mere change in genes is enough to prove information gain. He thinks that a process akin to splitting up a file on your computer hard drive and reshuffling the fragments is proof that new information can arise.

In all seriousness - what more needs to happen? Sure, a little random mutation can't hurt to help generate that extra oomph. But a mere change in genes is all there is separating us from apes. I know, you're going to say "information" like it is so difficult to produce, but natural selection takes care of that.

E.g. you could outline the specific changes required to change a reptile scale into a feather, and how natural selection would have favored each step.

Sure, I could probably dream something up, but then you'd say it's just story telling. What you're really saying is that unless I can produce a complete and total fossil for each and every minor step in the process between scale and feather - you don't think there's any proof.

Well, you're partially right. While there are transitional fossial, they certainly haven't been able to satisfy the folks at AiG - mainly because they feel there is still too much gap between each fossil.

The point though, is that given what we are witnessing right under our noses, the idea that given a million years (or so, who knows?) the genetic change can become enough so that scales turn into feathers.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 09:11 AM

10D:

Yeah, and you can add more hard drives to your computer but that won't give you any more programs or data.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Of course, not - you left off natural selection. I have done no such thing. Au contraire I have noted natural selection as an important part of the Creation/Fall model.

But you absolutely can take random ones and zeros on your harddrive, swap them around, select for certain traits, reproduce those, etc... and end up with information. Heck, I've even written simple programs that start with random gibberish, "mate" different nonsense words together, select those that look more like the final product, and then mate those together. In about 8-10 generations you get the answer! Now, I'm not claiming this is how biological evolution works!!Right, so why bring it up then?! AiG also has programs showing that mutation and selection CANNOT work for realistic mutation rates and selection coefficients, and shows how what a deceptive weasel Dawko is—see Weasel, a flexible program for investigating deterministic computer ‘demonstrations’ of evolution (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v16n2_weasel_program.asp). A major problem is that his program actually worked towards a goal, so it was NOT a blind watchmaker. I bet yours suffers from the same flaws.

---------------------------------------------------------------
Why not actually provide an example instead of the handwaving you and the Beserk One do?
---------------------------------------------------------------

I may not yet have read you addressing the information hereAs I told you, it's irrelevant!! We do NOT deny speciation. You have failed to address the speciation articles here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/speciation.asp).

5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)
While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas. Once more, big whoop. It's only great to those evolutionary propagandists who deceitfully paint creationists as believing in fixity of species.

This is an example of a whole lot more of genetic material available to this plant. (That's step 1Yes, but not new INFORMATION!! All you have done is copy existing information.

Once you have additional genetic material all you need to do is reshuffle and recombine (that's normal natural selection that AiG accepts as happening in the world). So what's left to show you?To show how this can generate new information, which you have NOT done. I've already explained this in Post# 22575.

Honestly.If you were honest you wouldn't keep misrepresenting creationists. But then, if we evolved from pond scum, why should we be honest. Some of my Christian brethren are so naive to think that their opponents would show morals that have a logical basis only in Christianity.

---------------------------------------------------------------
And you both think that a mere change in genes is enough to prove information gain. He thinks that a process akin to splitting up a file on your computer hard drive and reshuffling the fragments is proof that new information can arise.
---------------------------------------------------------------

In all seriousness - what more needs to happen? Sure, a little random mutation can't hurt to help generate that extra oomph. More handwaving. How boring.

But a mere change in genes is all there is separating us from apes. Try about 60 million "letters"!

--------------------------------------------------------------
E.g. you could outline the specific changes required to change a reptile scale into a feather, and how natural selection would have favored each step.
--------------------------------------------------------------

Sure, I could probably dream something up, but then you'd say it's just story telling. What you're really saying is that unless I can produce a complete and total fossil for each and every minor step in the process between scale and feather - you don't think there's any proof.There isn't, and you're right, I would say you're story-telling not doing science.

Well, you're partially right. While there are transitional fossial, they certainly haven't been able to satisfy the folks at AiG - mainly because they feel there is still too much gap between each fossil.And because there is not the slightest hint of any transitional structures. For example, how to get from a reptilian lung to an avian lung by small advantageous steps. And these so-called transitional fossils are all the wrong age, even given evolutionary dating methods. So we have the absurd situation where the so-called feathered dinosaurs are millions if years younger than its alleged descendants, including a true beaked bird like Confuciusornis

The point though, is that given what we are witnessing right under our noses, the idea that given a million years (or so, who knows?) the genetic change can become enough so that scales turn into feathers.Oh, here we go again, claiming that macro is just micro writ large. Once more, creationists don't care about the size of the change, but the direction. You have yet to prove any change that increases actual information, as opposed to the size of the "hard drive".

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 09:28 AM

02-23-2003 @ 02:15 AM
Socrates:

Beserker just repeats the old saw. I'll copy/paste from the AiG demolition (http://www.answersingenesis.org/news/scientific_american.asp) of the Scientific American anticreationist article by its editor, one John Rennie.

I read that article from Scientific American and even traded some emails with Rennie about it. And I also read the AiG reply. Did you read the original article? Did you see that graph? In all seriousness and with the most respect possible - I am not intending to insult anyone - there was a graph in that article that clearly showed a decline in the number of people who believed in Creationism as the eductional level increased from High School only to PhD. I don't recall AiG ever really addressing that graph. Of course, one Creationist I was arguing with at the time claimed - So what? There are still PhD's who believe in Creationism. But obviously, that's not the point.

The AiG author clearly demonstrated that his superiority in qualifications to Rennie's was matched by his superior understanding of the issues:

Having read both articles I find this rather overstated.

This is a serious mis-statement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information.

So, exactly how does one get new traits without new genetic information? If you delete genetic information, you delete traits. If you have new traits, you must have added new genetic information. Well, it's not really that simple, I know, but I'm just trying to simplify things a little.

In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp)

I skimmed through this article and haven't done a thorough reading yet, but the one point I have to bring up is their statements that natural selection is not evolution and mutation is not evolution - that's right, when both combined they equate to evolution.

You then go on to cite a string of articles from AIG's site. I'd be more than happy to take this apart one by one (typically they are persuasive essays rather than scientific articles) but you listed just too many here, so how about you pick one?

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc. do not help — they represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these create nothing new.

That's right! Now, take the additional genetic information and reshuffle it and have nature select on it. You're getting close.

In plants, but not in animals (possibly with rare exceptions), the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type—this is called polyploidy. Although this may technically be called a new species, because of the breeding isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of existing information.

I agree, that's all I was trying to prove with that example - additional raw genetic material. That's one possible first step.

If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative than the proper book.

Again, that's correct, but remember, I was not saying polyploidy was additional information - it is just the first step towards additional information. Once mutation and reshuffling occurs along with natural selection you begin to produce additional information.

Actually, Socrates, let me ask you a question. Do you accept the idea that starting with random material (either A/T, C/G pairs or ones and zeros on your harddrive) and through replication, mutation, and natural selection - do you think that information can be produced? Because if you don't, I can send you the program I wrote.

Duplication of a single chromosome is normally harmful, as in Down’s Syndrome.

But this is not proof that it can't happen at all. Nor is this the only way in which evolution can happen.

The gene duplication idea is that an existing gene may be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is redundant and non-expressed.

Remember, though, I was only using this as an example of how one might get additional raw material and therefore show how evolution is not the "uphill" process that you think it is. I'm curious to know how you will answer the above question because as far as I can see there are only two places where you can perceive evolution as being an "uphill" process.

1) It's uphill because you can't just randomly add genetic material into a species

2) It's uphill because while you might be able to show me instances of additional genetic material, you can't show me instances of new information.

Pick one or the other, and I can show you examples of either so I'm still not sure what the problem is - other than the fact that you refuse to combine the two concepts together.

Therefore it is free to mutate free of selection pressure (to get rid of it) . However, such ‘neutral’ mutations are powerless to produce new genuine information.

That's true, however, given the polyploidy &quotstart&quot and accepting the mutation and shuffling on this 'neutral' genetic material, there are the instances in which they may be expressed in the phenotype at various different points. Suddenly a mutation within the additional material may code for something very small that confers the slightest advantage to the organism. That's all it really takes.

It’s all a lot of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event, genes somehow being switched off, randomly mutated to something approximating a new function, then being switched on again so natural selection can tune it.

Well, that all depends on how &quotcomplex&quot you need that new function to be. If you want some kind of foot, well that won't happen. But if you want a protrusion of tissue that can wiggle, providing some locomotion to the tiny creature, well, that's probably more likely.

The larger the genome the bigger the problem. This is because a larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that can be sustained without error catastrophe, which means one has to wait longer for any mutation, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene.

This all presupposes that the introns really do have a purpose that we haven't determined yet. It would make sense (if you were me) to say, The larger the genome, the more &quotjunk&quot DNA you'd expect to find.

There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.

I hope you're not presupposing a young Earth in this point, right? You're saying that 4.6 billion years isn't enough time, right? You can't go an start crossing your belief systems up. :tongue:

Dawkins and others have recognised that the ‘information space’ possible within just one gene is so huge that random changes without some guiding force could never come up with a new function.

I'd like to see that quote and the source. I have a feeling that may be plucked out of context somewhat. Unless what you're trying to say is something I've already said - that mutations don't give rise to new 'information' straight out of the blue.

There could never be enough experiments (mutating generations of organisms) to find anything useful by such a process. Note that an average gene of 1,000 base pairs represents 4^1000 possibilities — that is 10^602 (compare this with the number of atoms in the universe estimated at ‘only’ 10^80). If every atom in the universe were an experiment every millisecond for the supposed 15 billion years of the universe, this could only try a maximum 10^100 of the possibilities. So such a ‘neutral’ process cannot find any sequence with specificity (usefulness), even allowing for the fact that there may be more than just one sequence that is functional to some extent.

I suspect the main flaw with this argument is the assumption that evolution starts from scratch every time. Evolution is a notorious 'builder', using traits that previously evolved for one purpose and subverting them to be used for another purpose. Evolution doesn't really 'invent' anything from scratch - ever. How can it? There is no intelligence behind it.

So Dawkins and company have the same problem as the neutral selection theory advocates. Increasing knowledge of the molecular basis of biological functions has exploded the known ‘information space’ such that mutations and natural selection, with or without gene duplication, or any other known natural process, cannot account for the irreducibly complex nature of living systems.

Without building block steps along the way that are now lost. Just like interlacing four knives over five cups in an X formation and then taking away the center cup.

The point I'm making is that the illusion of irreducible complexity completely ignores the very real possibility that other factors existed to get to the final product.

An example on a macro level would be the delicate balance of a symbiotic relationship between two organisms. How could those two creatures ever have developed such a dependent relationship on one another if they were both evolving at the same time? This argument leaves out the fact that extinct species may have played a critical role in such a way that the organisms were not so tightly dependent on each other until the other components of the ecological niche disappeared! How is that any different from a flagellum that may not have always stood alone?

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 09:35 AM

02-23-2003 @ 08:11 AM
Socrates:

But then, if we evolved from pond scum, why should we be honest. Some of my Christian brethren are so naive to think that their opponents would show morals that have a logical basis only in Christianity.

Hold on a second! Are you actually going to try and claim that Christianity has a monopoly on morals? I suggest we take this to another forum group and continue that discussion.

You're essentially accusing atheists that they can not possibly come up with a moral code simply because they don't believe in the Bible or God. Not to mention the morals from half a dozen other religions.

Pick the forum and I'll meet you there.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 10:10 AM

Socrates:
But then, if we evolved from pond scum, why should we be honest. Some of my Christian brethren are so naive to think that their opponents would show morals that have a logical basis only in Christianity.
---------------------------------------------------------
10D:

Hold on a second! Are you actually going to try and claim that Christianity has a monopoly on morals? I suggest we take this to another forum group and continue that discussion.

You're essentially accusing atheists that they can not possibly come up with a moral code simply because they don't believe in the Bible or God. Not to mention the morals from half a dozen other religions.
Oh poor baby. I didn't say that atheists can't be moral, but that their own system can't come up with a logical basis for morality under their evolutionary foundation. Evolution selects for survival advantage, not for what is "morally right", if there could be such a thing.

I think it's important for Christians to realise this and not be so trusting of their just-so story-telling masquearading as science but in reality is designed to provide a pseudo-intellectual foundation for atheism.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 10:16 AM

Socrates:

Beserker just repeats the old saw. I'll copy/paste from the AiG demolition of the Scientific American anticreationist article by its editor, one John Rennie.
-----------------------------------------------------------

[quote]
I read that article from Scientific American and even traded some emails with Rennie about it.

Oh, were you the God hater who railed against Rennie for saying that he wouldn't touch the issue for a while because sales had dropped?

And I also read the AiG reply. Did you read the original article?Yep.

Did you see that graph? In all seriousness and with the most respect possible - I am not intending to insult anyone - Yeah, pull the other one.

there was a graph in that article that clearly showed a decline in the number of people who believed in Creationism as the eductional level increased from High School only to PhD. I don't recall AiG ever really addressing that graph. Of course, one Creationist I was arguing with at the time claimed - So what? There are still PhD's who believe in Creationism. But obviously, that's not the point.More likely, AiG saw no reason to refute that pathetic Argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy. Rather, they quite properly splattered the "scientific" arguments that Rennie spouted.

-------------------------------------------------------------
The AiG author clearly demonstrated that his superiority in qualifications to Rennie's was matched by his superior understanding of the issues:
-------------------------------------------------------------

Having read both articles I find this rather overstated.Having read both articles I find this rather understated. Having read your posts, I'd be surprised is anyone gave a monkey's about your opinion. After all, Rennie had to resort to bullying AiG to remove the article, and AiG told him to go take a flying. But I'm sure AiG would relish a rematch. But I doubt Rennie would be game after such a bloody nose -- he's not so brave now that he knows AiG can shoot rockets from the commanding heights of a website that apparently has 20,000 visitors a day.

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 10:29 AM

---------------------------------------------------------
In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways where an information loss can confer resistance—see Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant?
---------------------------------------------------------

I skimmed through this article and haven't done a thorough reading yet, but the one point I have to bring up is their statements that natural selection is not evolution and mutation is not evolution - that's right, when both combined they equate to evolution.More bait and switch. You're getting boring. When you demonstrate that new information wake me up.

Evolution from bacteria to biologists must posit that mutation/selection generated all the new information such as for brains, blood, bone, skin, nerves, eyes, multicellularity etc. That's why goo-to-you evolution requires an increase in information, not just an increase in DNA.

You then go on to cite a string of articles from AIG's site. I'd be more than happy to take this apart one by one (typically they are persuasive essays rather than scientific articles)Not that you'd know, and anyway the AiG site has a mixture.

but you listed just too many here, so how about you pick one?Try that one. And show that antibiotic resistance is due to increased information.

----------------------------------------------------------
The larger the genome the bigger the problem. This is because a larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate that can be sustained without error catastrophe, which means one has to wait longer for any mutation, let alone a desirable one, in the duplicated gene.
----------------------------------------------------------

This all presupposes that the introns really do have a purpose that we haven't determined yet. It would make sense (if you were me) to say, The larger the genome, the more "junk" DNA you'd expect to find.It does make sense. Rather, your attitude is harmful to science. It's that attitude that allowed about 86 organs in the human body to be dismissed as "vestigial", although they are now known to have important functions, including the appendix and coccyx.

----------------------------------------------------------------
There just has not been enough time for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we see in living things.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I hope you're not presupposing a young Earth in this point, right? You're saying that 4.6 billion years isn't enough time, right? You can't go an start crossing your belief systems up. I think the author was even granting the imaginary billions of years just for the purpose of the argument.

Oh, if you're so keen on programs, try the Weasel (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/Magazines/tj/docs/TJ_v16n2_weasel_program.asp) one. Yours would probably commit the same fallacy of Dawkin's one, working towards a goal although the watchmaker is supposed to be blind.

As for evolution building things from scratch, chemical evolution had to build the first cell without natural selection. And, from here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/v13n1_panda.asp):

A recently-discovered extinct gliding reptile, Coelosauravus jaekeli, possessed ‘wings’ (gliding apparatus) which were not the usual modification of tetrapod forelimbs as seen in birds, bats, etc. Nor were the wings modifications of ribs or other thoracic elements in any way. They were not duplicate copies of forelimbs. Instead, the wings were completely de novo structures composed of thin hollow rods of bone covered with flesh, emanating from the reptile’s rib cage. And although Coelosauravus is claimed to be ‘the oldest known flying reptile’ (by evolutionary ‘dating’ methods), it had these fully formed structures, while the fossil record, as usual, lacks any ancestral transitional forms. Frey, E., Sues, H.D., and Munk, W., 1997. Gliding mechanism in the Late Permian reptile Coelurosauravus, Science 275(5305):1450–1452.

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 02:30 PM

02-23-2003 @ 08:10 AM
Socrates:

Oh poor baby. I didn't say that atheists can't be moral, but that their own system can't come up with a logical basis for morality under their evolutionary foundation. Evolution selects for survival advantage, not for what is "morally right", if there could be such a thing.

I think it's important for Christians to realise this and not be so trusting of their just-so story-telling masquearading as science but in reality is designed to provide a pseudo-intellectual foundation for atheism.

Actual we can!, I believe it like this: If we are not good citizens and help make the world better for are children and each other then we are greatly reducing the chances of are genetic survival. So be good and help out benefits the whole, individual and the gene… and the gene is what the world revolves around.

More bait and switch. You're getting boring. When you demonstrate that new information wake me up.

We have demonstrated to you how mutations in all ways make evolution possible. Not only that but the relations of species, of chromosome and of genes to one another has been proven and is as clear as their code!

Oh, if you're so keen on programs, try the Weasel one. Yours would probably commit the same fallacy of Dawkin's one, working towards a goal although the watchmaker is supposed to be blind.

Evoution is not blind but gets input from the survivability of organisms on if it has the right trait or not.
Error catastrophe does not stop evolution. Since life forms do not breed in a linear order but have many children. If some die off because of error catastrophe the evolutionary progress is not stopped but continues because there are still other progeny carrying on the genome and all the viable traits that have evolved so far. As a genome gets large and carries redundant alleles the chances of error catastrophe reduces not increases.

As for evolution building things from scratch, chemical evolution had to build the first cell without natural selection. And, from here:

Prebiotic evolution is a different subject all together and it is a fallacy to say that just because of the unknown circumstance of Prebiotic development that some how that disregards how life evolves. How life began and how life evolves are very different subjects.

Stratnerd

February 23rd 2003, 03:32 PM

E.g. you could outline the specific changes required to change a reptile scale into a feather, and how natural selection would have favored each step. Or maybe Stratnerd with the icon of the rabid Christ-hating bigot T.H. Huxley can give some specific ideas since he was the one who brought it up.

You can't test mechanisms of evolution such as natural selection in the past so it's impossible to go through each step and attribute the spread of the particular allele to any particular mechanism. It's actually much easier, and Dembski and his fellow creationists should do it, to show that certain mutations are forbidden by physics. Socrates do you know of any of this taboo mutations? If the elements of the phenotype are genetically based and evolution posits that changes in the genome result in changes in phenotype then it seems like ID would have a great case (or a case at all) if they could show that some of these changes are impossible.

Blake Reas

February 23rd 2003, 04:14 PM

02-23-2003 @ 06:30 PM
Berserker:

Actual we can!, I believe it like this: If we are not good citizens and help make the world better for are children and each other then we are greatly reducing the chances of are genetic survival. So be good and help out benefits the whole, individual and the gene… and the gene is what the world revolves around.

Hmmmm...... Why should I care about my Genetic Survival? I will be dead! Why should I care about someone else? I think Nietzsche recognized that with out God, get this: There is NO morality, ethics etc. The only thing to fight for is to be Superman or Ubermensch to go beyond good and evil. You are living in fantasy world, if your world view is true there is no such thing as good or evil. Unless you want to equivocate and change the definition of "good" and "evil"!

We have demonstrated to you how mutations in all ways make evolution possible. Not only that but the relations of species, of chromosome and of genes to one another has been proven and is as clear as their code!

Evoution is not blind but gets input from the survivability of organisms on if it has the right trait or not.
Error catastrophe does not stop evolution. Since life forms do not breed in a linear order but have many children. If some die off because of error catastrophe the evolutionary progress is not stopped but continues because there are still other progeny carrying on the genome and all the viable traits that have evolved so far. As a genome gets large and carries redundant alleles the chances of error catastrophe reduces not increases.

Wow, that is a new revelation to me. So the watchmaker isn't bline!! I think Dr. Dawkins would have a hay day with you. How is it that random atoms acting on more random atoms are not blind? do they have a purpose planned into them? If so then someone had to program them, correct?

Prebiotic evolution is a different subject all together and it is a fallacy to say that just because of the unknown circumstance of Prebiotic development that some how that disregards how life evolves. How life began and how life evolves are very different subjects.

Um.... Evolution ex machina! Evolution of the gaps, we cannot explain it so lets just say it evoloved!:rofl:

IN Christ,
Blake

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 04:35 PM

You obviously think mutation and evolution are the same thing!

As for why you care for your genetic survival… do you love your children? I guess not you would not mind them dieing horrible deaths or living miserable lives. Maybe you should read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 05:03 PM

02-23-2003 @ 03:14 PM
Blake Reas:

Hmmmm...... Why should I care about my Genetic Survival? I will be dead! Why should I care about someone else? I think Nietzsche recognized that with out God, get this: There is NO morality, ethics etc. The only thing to fight for is to be Superman or Ubermensch to go beyond good and evil. You are living in fantasy world, if your world view is true there is no such thing as good or evil. Unless you want to equivocate and change the definition of "good" and "evil"!

This is definitely a philosophical issue that I really recommend we take to another forum.

Since we haven't done that yet, :tongue: I'll say what I have to say here anyway.

You're absolutely correct in the fact that there is no absolute good or evil - 99% of that is made up by people - that's why they fight about it so much. The very few exceptions are morals that would make forming societies extremely difficult (like indiscriminant killing).

A display of this (perhaps a proof) - any scenario you can come up with that is an example of a "good" act, I can change the situation to make that act appear "bad".
Clearly, actions by themselves are simply neutral actions - it is the context in which they are placed that brings about judgement.
That doesn't mean the situation is hopeless. That just means that we have to come up with our own moral code that we should live by.

I mean, after all, that's really what is happening in the world at large anyway, right? It's just that most people turn to their society's religion to dictate their morals and values rather than using logic and reason. That's a real shame.

TenDimensions

February 23rd 2003, 05:24 PM

02-23-2003 @ 09:29 AM
Socrates:

It does make sense. Rather, your attitude is harmful to science. It's that attitude that allowed about 86 organs in the human body to be dismissed as "vestigial", although they are now known to have important functions, including the appendix and coccyx.

Yep, you're right. Modern scientific theories, including evolution, have done nothing but put medicine back into the Dark Ages. I don't know what I was thinking. It's amazing that we've been able to expand our life expectancies as long as we've had in the face of such ignorant and blindly dogmatic ideas. I can barely think about the horror of all those tonsillectomies and appendectomies that have been needlessly performed on so many innocent, unsuspecting people.

You do realize that AiG has been soundly criticized for its use of the word vestigial, right? Take a look at dictionary.com's definition of vestigial:

ves·tig·i·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-stj-l, -stjl)
adj.
Of, relating to, or constituting a vestige.
Biology. Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure.

Hmmm... doesn't sound like a "major" organ, nor does it sound like a completely non-functional organ, does it? Pay particular attention to the fact that the dictionary specifically cites the use of the word in biology. Perhaps we should look at the base of this word, vestige...

ves·tige ( P ) Pronunciation Key (vstj)
n.
A visible trace, evidence, or sign of something that once existed but exists or appears no more.
Biology. A rudimentary or degenerate, usually nonfunctioning, structure that is the remnant of an organ or part that was fully developed or functioning in a preceding generation or an earlier stage of development.

"Usually" nonfunctioning is a long way off from "now known to have important functions" isn't it? Let's face it, if these organs were so important, why can we live without them when removing an infected one is so much more important than trying to live on with it?

The bottom line? One more example of AiG's attempt to use science's own perceived weakness (and actually its strength) against it. Medical science has proven that there are newly discovered properties of some organs that once were thought to play a lesser or non-existent role in human biology. But no one is changing their status from "vestigial" to "major" organ! Scientists are simply not ashamed to admit being wrong when new evidence presents itself, but AiG continually seems to see fit to exploit that feature to their own cause.

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 05:35 PM

I start a thread for that topic but I’m only hear to defend evolution so I won't get into it much.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17858
oooh maybe I should make one on this forum but I don't really know where to put it under?

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 09:53 PM

-------------------------------------------------------------
Socrates:

It does make sense. Rather, your attitude is harmful to science. It's that attitude that allowed about 86 organs in the human body to be dismissed as "vestigial", although they are now known to have important functions, including the appendix and coccyx.
-------------------------------------------------------------
10D:

Yep, you're right. Modern scientific theories, including evolution, have done nothing but put medicine back into the Dark Ages. I don't know what I was thinking. It's amazing that we've been able to expand our life expectancies as long as we've had in the face of such ignorant and blindly dogmatic ideas.Oh yeah, so what EVOLUTIONARY idea as opposed to a discovery in OPERATIONAL science has done such a thing.

I can barely think about the horror of all those tonsillectomies and appendectomies that have been needlessly performed on so many innocent, unsuspecting people.True enough. Now doctors no longer remove tonsils or appendices.

You do realize that AiG has been soundly criticized for its use of the word vestigial, right?Depends on your definition of soundly. In this case, it means making a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Take a look at dictionary.com's definition of vestigial:And AiG has defended itself against silly evolutionary revisionist definitions, e.g. in this pummeling of a pillock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_03june2002.asp):

"The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) defines ‘vestigial’ as ‘degenerate or atrophied, having become functionless in the course of evolution.’ The World Book Encyclopedia 2000 says: ‘Vestigial organs are the useless remains of organs that were once useful in an evolutionary ancestor’ (emphasis added). This was clearly the understanding of evolutionary zoologist Scadding. He pointed out ‘…vestigial organs provide no evidence for evolutionary theory’, precisely because it is impossible in principle to prove that an organ has no function; rather, it could have a function we don’t know about [S.R. Scadding, ‘Do vestigial organs provide evidence for evolution?’ Evolutionary Theory 5:173–176, 1981].

The bottom line? One more example of AiG's attempt to use science's own perceived weakness (and actually its strength) against it.What's wrong with that? Why reinterpret God's infallible, unchanging Word by an ever-changing theories of men about the past?

Berserker

February 23rd 2003, 11:08 PM

True enough. Now doctors no longer remove tonsils or appendices.

Haha No they let them die now from infection!

I think the problem he is a matter of opinion: It seems no proof or evidence of any form will ever break Socrates, and his reasons and rebuttals only make sense to him, so we will forever be in a dead lock here... still reading his post provides me with great entertainment!

Socrates

February 23rd 2003, 11:23 PM

Sorry, I meant to say, no longer routinely remove tonsils and appendices—my slip. I had my tonsils removed myself, so it would be silly to assume that I think there is no possible case for them. But the point still stands—tonsilectomies are far less common nowadays because they are recognized to have an important role in fighting infection, because of their lymphoid tissue. But sometimes, since they are the front-line soldiers, they become overwhelmed and need to be removed.

The appendix is akin to an abdominal tonsil, also made of lymphatic tissue. But it has its greatest function in the neonatal stage, in determining the bacterial population of the intestines, standing at it does at the junction of the sterile small intestine and bacteria-rich large intestine.

One day the Beserk One might suprise us all and realize that if book is printed with two copies of, say, Chapter 3, it doesn't mean there is more information as opposed to repetition of the same information.

Blake Reas

February 23rd 2003, 11:46 PM

02-23-2003 @ 08:35 PM
Berserker:

You obviously think mutation and evolution are the same thing!

As for why you care for your genetic survival… do you love your children? I guess not you would not mind them dieing horrible deaths or living miserable lives. Maybe you should read “The Selfish Gene” by Richard Dawkins.

Hmmm... You lack critical reading skills! I never said that you could not be moral, I ask the question Why? Why do you love your Kids? This is a transcendental issue. Why is horrible so bad in your worldview? I cannot account for things like good, evil, immoral, etc. You cannot in your atheistic closed universe. Come on over to the philosophy forum. While your at it read Nietzche he was the only consistent Skeptic I have ever read.

In Christ,
Blake
Keep trying to escape nihilism! you will fail.
P.s.

Captain Ochre

February 23rd 2003, 11:54 PM

02-22-2003 @ 09:58 PM
Stratnerd:

I guess I still don't get it.... what makes ID not creationism?

The fact that the ID program focuses on generic intelligent causes, not god(s).

in the context of a discussion on creationism, I think everyone knows what is meant by "creationist", eh?

I disagree. How many more counterexamples do you need to prompt you to qualify your claim of "everyone"?

yea, but a different one. I thought you were giving a definition of evolution that might be accepted by most scientists but if you throw in "innovation" then you are giving a definition that is both different and not what most scientists would say is what evolution is, especially since definitions were asked from the evolutionists "side".

"In the final analysis, there has been very little true structural or genomic innovation
during the evolution of eukaryotes . . ."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html

http://www.santafe.edu/sfi/publications/Bulletins/bulletinWinter03/features/innovation.html

http://www.cts.cuni.cz/events/evolution2002.htm

http://www.ecocosm.com/

http://www.innovationwatch.com/systems_biological_cit.htm

Sorry, but I'm not interested in this thread to the extent that I'm going to repeatly explain something fairly basic.

Carry on.

Blake Reas

February 24th 2003, 12:02 AM

02-23-2003 @ 09:03 PM
TenDimensions:

This is definitely a philosophical issue that I really recommend we take to another forum.
Since we haven't done that yet, :tongue: I'll say what I have to say here anyway.

I absolultely agree! I think we all did!

You're absolutely correct in the fact that there is no absolute good or evil - 99% of that is made up by people - that's why they fight about it so much. The very few exceptions are morals that would make forming societies extremely difficult (like indiscriminant killing).

You must first assume there is no God!
If you have a Wife would you mind then if someone raped her? Remember there is no good or evil, so what basis do you have for judging that person? They where just preserving there Genes, right? The killing of 6 million Jews was not evil? Maybe Sept 11th wasn't evil? You obviously have a seared conscience. If you believe this then for the rest of your life you should keep your mouth shut and not say a word about ethics to anyone because ethical talk is meaningless.

A display of this (perhaps a proof) - any scenario you can come up with that is an example of a &quot;good&quot; act, I can change the situation to make that act appear &quot;bad&quot;.
Clearly, actions by themselves are simply neutral actions - it is the context in which they are placed that brings about judgement.
That doesn't mean the situation is hopeless. That just means that we have to come up with our own moral code that we should live by.

Or we could call it a hierarchy of Morals could we not? You call this evidence then I will remember that if I ever see someone about ready to die in a burning house, I will say all actions are neutral there is nothing really good about saving this person! Personally I think your position is a cop out on Morals, it reminds me of Romans 1. Hmmmm... I would not want to live in a world with a bunch of people like you.

I mean, after all, that's really what is happening in the world at large anyway, right? It's just that most people turn to their society's religion to dictate their morals and values rather than using logic and reason. That's a real shame.

And this proves something? Is this supposed to prove my ethical system false? I do not see where except for blind assertions.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 12:02 AM

02-23-2003 @ 12:31 AM
TenDimensions:

I've been thinking about what you said about this. I must admit this is the first I've heard someone as a proponent of ID or Creationism present the possibility of "increased information" and simply point out that it hasn't been observed in a controlled setting.

Doesn't this angle greatly weaken the ID position?

No, afaics. It's an admitted induction in the first place. If you think that it's weaker than the straw man (that's too informationally laden to have occurred by chance!=impossible) version, then yes I agree.

After all, there are plenty of scientific theories that rely on theories that have not been proven under laboratory conditions. Black holes, a variety of QM theories, even gravity (my favorite example!).

Agreed, but the fact that we observe apparent intelligences producing complex specified information, that's exactly what the inference is built upon. I'm not sure what evidential competition your examples faced . . .

So then if you accept the possibility of evolution - particularly the "increased information" - what aspects of ID better fit the evidence?

The observed creation of complex specified information by intelligent causes compared to lack of same for the competing model.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 12:12 AM

02-23-2003 @ 12:44 AM
TenDimensions:

Through mutation and natural selection good old "mother nature" has come up with some very nice solutions to the problem of plain survivability and reproductive success.

Are you assuming your conclusion? It looks like it to me.

It only takes a selective pressure on an imperfectly reproducing system of "things" to produce the effect known as "evolution".

A change in frequency of alleles over time? Agreed. Example of innovation? I see no evidence of that.

As I mentioned elsewhere, it is most interestingly being applied to the creation of electronic circuits now - producing bizarre results that work!

There is a hidden intelligence in those algorithms: They are constructed to save the best electrical performance, and the algorithm probably has zero chance of extinction. Naturalistic evolution doesn't care if something (a species, genera, etc.) lives or dies. It either does or it doesn't. Construct an algorhythm with that kind of framework and see what you get.
That particular game (evolutionary algorithms) is typically rigged.

Sure, this is slightly different from the biological evolution that takes place in nature - mainly because there is (in this case) an intelligence driving the selection process where in nature, it is nothing more than blind nature selecting who can reproduce.

Ah, good! I'm pleased that you showed an awareness of that (all too rare, in my experience). Kudos.

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 12:23 AM

One day the Beserk One might suprise us all and realize that if book is printed with two copies of, say, Chapter 3, it doesn't mean there is more information as opposed to repetition of the same information.

Yes but when the new chapter 3 becomes distorted and mistranslated and now reads "Chapter 4" then mutation has just made a lot more and new information.

Also the appendix task is not life threatening if removed and does not seem to be very helpful even in the task you claim it has. Even so its not use for it original task and it has shrunk greatly over the eons because of how useless it has become... just like the cave fish eyes. but maybe your theory helps in explaining why a organ that gets infected so easily and kills so many is still around at all.

You must first assume there is no God!
If you have a Wife would you mind then if someone raped her? Remember there is no good or evil, so what basis do you have for judging that person? They where just preserving there Genes, right? The killing of 6 million Jews was not evil? Maybe Sept 11th wasn't evil? You obviously have a seared conscience. If you believe this then for the rest of your life you should keep your mouth shut and not say a word about ethics to anyone because ethical talk is meaningless.

Nope those are not evil that’s just the normal behavior of talking monkeys... just selfish genetics and memes to me.

Captain Ochre

February 24th 2003, 12:39 AM

02-23-2003 @ 01:04 AM
J. J. Ramsey:

It seems that in the context of a creation-evolution debate, "creationist" refers to someone contending that modern lifeforms are at least partially a product of divine intervention.

That's how evolutionists typically use it, whether mindful of the way they are marginalizing the opposition or not. The article linked to earlier for me to review betrayed some fairly strong evidence of using the term to marginalize Dembski, and I've run across other examples.
Michael Behe, for example, believes in common descent via natural selection, if I'm not mistaken. So he's an evolutionist, right? Of course not. He doesn't think that the entire process, including abiogenesis, was undirected, therefore he's categorized as a creationist. In the public mind, "creationists" are the people who want to force the Bible to be taught in public schools. While some (or even most) evolutionists probably don't use the term deliberately to advance the naturalistically underpinned understanding of evolution (common descent/abiogenesis), there seems little doubt that the use of the term is as collectively deliberate as the terms "anti-abortion" and "pro-life" in the abortion debate.

This especially appears to be what those arguing in favor of evolution seem to mean by "creationist."

Agreed; see above.

Now intelligent-design advocates get a little coy on the subject, but the basic line of ID argument is that natural mechanisms are insufficient to produce the complexity of life, so supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is necessary.

Now you're using another key term in the debate: "Supernatural". Can you define that term scientifically? Do ID proponents use it? Drop that term, and let's see what's left: "the basic line of ID argument is that [unintelligent] mechanisms are insufficient to produce the [specified] complexity of life, so [intelligent] intervention by a [...] designer is necessary.

Exactly, though it is deliberately presented as inductive (probabilistic) by ID proponents and consistently stated as deductive (necessary) by opponents.

In practice, supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is basically divine intervention, so this makes intelligent-design advocates creationists in the above sense.

Well, nice try, but nonsense. What would stop a atheist from doing design-theory research, assuming that it followed an acceptable scientific paradigm? Nothing at all, afaics, and he's free even to deny that a god exists if he finds that the universe had an intelligent cause (flip side of theistic evolutionists).
It just happens that the scientific establishment generally buys into a naturalistic framework for all of science, thus the scenario I suggest is unlikely. Real science is a search for truth, and isn't restricted to philosophical naturalism. Methodological naturalism will have an enduring place in science, but it isn't the be-all end-all that some seem to think--in my humble opinion, of course.

Socrates

February 24th 2003, 12:45 AM

------------------------------------------------------------
One day the Beserk One might suprise us all and realize that if book is printed with two copies of, say, Chapter 3, it doesn't mean there is more information as opposed to repetition of the same information.
------------------------------------------------------------

Yes but when the new chapter 3 becomes distorted and mistranslated and now reads "Chapter 4" then mutation has just made a lot more and new information.No, these processes will just destroy information. Would you care to provide an example were random copying errors would truly produce a new coherent chapter?

Also the appendix task is not life threatening if removed and does not seem to be very helpful even in the task you claim it has. Care to document that by studies of newborn babies with appendices removed, i.e. at the stage where it is most useful?

Even so its not use for it original task and it has shrunk greatly over the eons because of how useless it has become... Such enormous question-begging. The creation model explains the appendix much better, because of its usefulness to the newborn.
... just like the cave fish eyes.Which is loss of information, consistent with the Fall. A pure ID model is deficient with explaining some things (despite all the good they have done with quantifying the design criterion in terms of specified complexity), but the Biblical Creation/Fall model allows for deterioration in organs.
but maybe your theory helps in explaining why a organ that gets infected so easily and kills so many is still around at all.AS I said, the Fall. One could ask, why hasn't evolution gotten rid of such a harmful organ over millions of years?

PS: as I've said a number of times, the major creationist organisations do NOT support any compulsion to teach creation in schools. This is more deceitful evolutionary propaganda.

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 01:59 AM

When was I talking about teaching in public schools???

No, these processes will just destroy information. Would you care to provide an example were random copying errors would truly produce a new coherent chapter?

How did it destroy information if the original remains? A gene that gets copied and has a few mutations now produces a protein of a new shape that could catalyze a new reaction and that new reaction would be a new trait. The copying and mutations of genes and the mutation of genes has been documented and proven, the relation of genes has been documented and proven, the relation of chromosomes has been documented and proven… there is no issue here that can be argued over!

Care to document that by studies of newborn babies with appendices removed, i.e. at the stage where it is most useful?

Sure I would love to! I'm not saying the the appendix does not still have a use but that its use over time has change and its size and shape have change because of that. Just as the tail (Coccyx) no long sticks out of are body.

What really get me is why you hate evolution so was it because you believe if evolution makes genesis false then it makes the bible false and then it make the whole religion false?

Socrates

February 24th 2003, 02:16 AM

When was I talking about teaching in public schools???I was referring to Capt. Ochre's comment, although he wasn't necessarily endorsing it, but which was similar to things 10D has said:

“In the public mind, “creationists” are the people who want to force the Bible to be taught in public schools.’

------------------------------------------------------------
No, these processes will just destroy information. Would you care to provide an example were random copying errors would truly produce a new coherent chapter?
------------------------------------------------------------

How did it destroy information if the original remains? A gene that gets copied and has a few mutations now produces a protein of a new shape that could catalyze a new reaction and that new reaction would be a new trait. Examples please. And I don't mean a loss of specificity — make sure you understand the information concepts, as for example explained in Is antibiotic resistance really due to increase in information? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_22october2001.asp)

The copying and mutations of genes and the mutation of genes has been documented and proven,And not doubed by creationists. But generating new information is quite another matter. Did you understand the rebuttal of the gene duplication mechanism I cited in Post# 22575 earlier in this thread.

the relation of genes has been documented and proven, the relation of chromosomes has been documented and proven…That there is similarity is not disputed. The origin of this similarity is quite another matter. You have interpreted the observation as being due to evolution from a common ancestor.

there is no issue here that can be argued over!Only because you conflate observations with their interpretations and clearly have no idea what information is.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Care to document that by studies of newborn babies with appendices removed, i.e. at the stage where it is most useful?
--------------------------------------------------------------

Sure I would love to!We're waiting.

I'm not saying the the appendix does not still have a useThat's all that's needed for it to fit into the Creation model even without the Fall.

but that its use over time has change and its size and shape have change because of that.This presupposes the truth of evolution to argue for evolution! Circular reasoning anyone? Evidently the Beserk One had no idea what “Begging the Question” means.

Just as the tail (Coccyx) no long sticks out of are body.Again, question begging. The coccyx has important functions for attaching muscles needed for our upright posture (and for defecation).

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 08:35 AM

Sure I would love to!

I was saying I would love to do a study! I personally don't know and I would like to... is there any documentation on this subject of appendix use?

Again, question begging. The coccyx has important functions for attaching muscles needed for our upright posture (and for defecation).

It also carries nerves for control the toes and another appendage... but I don't think its grabbing tree limbs any more now is it? As for question begging I don't think you understand what I was getting at.
quote:

That there is similarity is not disputed. The origin of this similarity is quite another matter. You have interpreted the observation as being due to evolution from a common ancestor.

If god did it would he not make all the same genes in every species I identical? Even if god made them different the differences would not follow a pattern of linage and be progressive from one species to another now would they... or would god by the tricking?

That there is similarity is not disputed. The origin of this similarity is quite another matter. You have interpreted the observation as being due to evolution from a common ancestor.

Nope, where again?

Examples please. And I don't mean a loss of specificity — make sure you understand the information concepts, as for example explained in

1. Copy a gene or segment of one.
2. Mutate that copy.
3. DNA makes protein, protein shape is dependent on amino acid sequence, amino acid sequence is depend on Codon ( 3 letters) in DNA sequence (really tRNA, reverse of mRNA template of DNA).
4. Proteins do everything and catalyze all reactions in he body. New proteins dependent on shape could catalyze a new reaction.
5. The new reaction is a trait because it produces a new product.
6. There are many variations on the above I could also mention.

Socrates

February 24th 2003, 09:26 AM

I was saying I would love to do a study! I personally don't know and I would like to... is there any documentation on this subject of appendix use? Yes, e.g. Roberts, N., Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal? Scientific American 285(5):84, November 2001, and a New Scientist article in the last few weeks.

----------------------------------------------------------
Again, question begging. The coccyx has important functions for attaching muscles needed for our upright posture (and for defecation).
----------------------------------------------------------

It also carries nerves for control the toes and another appendage... but I don't think its grabbing tree limbs any more now is it? As for question begging I don't think you understand what I was getting at. I get it all right, and you've done it again! I showed that it has a useful function, so makes sense as a designed organ. You merely asserted that it once did something else.

---------------------------------------------------------
That there is similarity is not disputed. The origin of this similarity is quite another matter. You have interpreted the observation as being due to evolution from a common ancestor.
---------------------------------------------------------
If god did it would he not make all the same genes in every species I identical?You answer this below. The genes code for proteins.

Even if god made them different the differences would not follow a pattern of linage and be progressive from one species to another now would they... or would god by the tricking? The lineages differ depending on the protein chosen. But your whole argument was actually theological not scientific! But the data make sense if God was trying to send a "Biotic Message" that there is a SINGLE designer, but the differences confound evolutionary expectations. See Common structures = common ancestry? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#homology)

-------------------------------------------------------
Examples please. And I don't mean a loss of specificity — make sure you understand the information concepts, as for example explained in
-------------------------------------------------------

1. Copy a gene or segment of one.
2. Mutate that copy.OK so far.

3. DNA makes protein, protein shape is dependent on amino acid sequence, amino acid sequence is depend on Codon ( 3 letters) in DNA sequence (really tRNA, reverse of mRNA template of DNA).Yeah, yeah, spare us the kindergarten genetics lesson.

4. Proteins do everything and catalyze all reactions in he body. New proteins dependent on shape could catalyze a new reaction. Irrelevant to evolution if the "new" reaction is really the result of loss of specificity like the wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase discussed here (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_22october2001.asp). Here, the mutant is tending towards a general catalyst rather then the highly specific ones required for life. Or else it's like the A-l Milano mutation (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2003/0221.asp) which is actually a huge loss of specificity but a gain in a general anti-oxidant capacity. But these information losses are beneficial, but are still going in the wrong direction for evolution from goo to you via the zoo.

Your faith is touching.

Berserker

February 24th 2003, 11:28 AM

Yes, e.g. Roberts, N., Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal? Scientific American 285(5):84, November 2001, and a New Scientist article in the last few weeks.

Well humans are animals but I was looking for just humans, I know what is is used for in say rabbits for example.

I get it all right, and you've done it again! I showed that it has a useful function, so makes sense as a designed organ. You merely asserted that it once did something else.

Well considering it shape and it vertebra it must been a tail! If God made it there why would he make it have the same structures as a tail? It could server its function better if it were entirely fused in with the hip.

The lineages differ depending on the protein chosen. But your whole argument was actually theological not scientific! But the data make sense if God was trying to send a "Biotic Message" that there is a SINGLE designer, but the differences confound evolutionary expectations. See Common structures = common ancestry?

When I said lineage I meant something like this: If we took a common gene from a monkey, chimp and human and compare the differences in the genes sequence we would see that there are differences that humans and apes share but not the monkey. this points to a lineage of a ancestors in which monkeys diverge then apes and then humans from apes. If God put this patterns of lineage in hes being very tricky. If so then occam's razor comes in to play and belief now must be based on which sound more likely: it being lineage or a deity is trying to trick you?

Irrelevant to evolution if the "new" reaction is really the result of loss of specificity

How is it a loss of specificity?

You know attack a person qualities does not help your argument?

ItalianGold

February 24th 2003, 10:58 PM

Socrates:
Now doctors no longer remove tonsils or appendices.

Ah, geeeez - if you're gonna have ANY credibility at all, you can't go sayin' dumb things like this, Dude.

There were nearly 500,000 appendectomies and 800,000 tonsillectomies performed last year just in the USA. And FYI, the incidence of tonsillectomies is on the RISE again!! Seems those pesky bugs responsible for chronic and acute infections have evolved into antibiotic resistant super-bugs!!
:bonk:

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 01:16 AM

I made a slip of the keyboard a while back
----------------------------------------------------------------
Now doctors no longer remove tonsils or appendices.
----------------------------------------------------------------which I long since corrected as follows:
Sorry, I meant to say, no longer routinely remove tonsils and appendices—my slip. I had my tonsils removed myself, so it would be silly to assume that I think there is no possible case for them. But the point still stands—tonsilectomies are far less common nowadays because they are recognized to have an important role in fighting infection, because of their lymphoid tissue. But sometimes, since they are the front-line soldiers, they become overwhelmed and need to be removed.But Italian Pyrite has only just caught up with this thread and trolls further back in time:
Ah, geeeez - if you're gonna have ANY credibility at all, you can't go sayin' dumb things like this, Dude.And then he brings up a new topic but merely shows his misinformation once again:
Seems those pesky bugs responsible for chronic and acute infections have evolved into antibiotic resistant super-bugs.When IP demonstrates that any new information has been responsible for antibiotic resistance, as opposed to natural selecting for those which already resistant, or due to an information-losing mutation which, e.g. disables a control gene allowing overproduction of the antidote, please wake us up. But please first read :read: Anthrax and antibiotics: Is evolution relevant? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2001/1115anthrax.asp)

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 01:53 AM

The Beserk One asked for evidence of the function of the appendix.

I answered:

-------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, e.g. Roberts, N., Does the appendix serve a purpose in any animal? Scientific American 285(5):84, November 2001, and a New Scientist article in the last few weeks.
-------------------------------------------------------------But then BO replied:
Well humans are animals but I was looking for just humans, I know what is is used for in say rabbits for example.If you had bothered to read these articles, you would have realised that they gave functions of the appendix in humans as well.

Then I pointed out that allegedly vestigial organs have functions:
------------------------------------------------------------
I get it all right, and you've done it again! I showed that it has a useful function, so makes sense as a designed organ. You merely asserted that it once did something else.
------------------------------------------------------------to which BO replied:Well considering it shape and it vertebra it must been a tail! If God made it there why would he make it have the same structures as a tail? It could server its function better if it were entirely fused in with the hip.BO has yet to prove this, or that it doesn't work fine as it is. Instead he acts like he has special revelation about what a Creator should or would do. He also ignores my point about the Biotic Message (http://www.answersingenesis.org/pbs_nova/0924ep1.asp#homology).

Then we get on to the issue of new information:
------------------------------------------------------------
Irrelevant to evolution if the "new" reaction is really the result of loss of specificity
------------------------------------------------------------and his limp reply:
How is it a loss of specificity?Aside from his speculation about my identity which is not allowed here, he once again hasn't read the article to which I referred, which clearly explains this, so I'll have to spoonfeed him :dunce: by copy/pasting (and it's also relevant to the superbug question Italian Pyrite trolled with):

The other clue is the statement ‘many of the mutations located around the active site pocket result in increased catalytic activity for hydrolysis of extended-spectrum substrates.’ Mutations far from the active site also increase extended spectrum catalysis. This provided an advantage to the bacteria containing these mutations, because they could destroy more types of antibiotics. But here was yet another example of an information loss conferring an advantage.

To understand this properly, it’s necessary to realize enzymes are usually tuned very precisely to only one type of molecule (the substrate), and this fine-tuning is necessary for living cells to function. Mutations reduce specificity and hence would reduce the effectiveness of its primary function, but would enable it to degrade other substrates too. But this loss of specificity means loss of information content. Dr Spetner analyzes this with rigorous mathematics using standard definitions of information. He presents the two extremes:
[list=1]
An enzyme has activity for only one substrate out of n possible ones and zero for the others—here the information gain is log2n.
The second is where there is no discrimination between any of the substrates—here the information gain is zero. [/list=1]The comparison of ribitol, xylitol and arabitol activities of wild and mutant ribitol dehydrogenase (from Lee Spetner, True Origins website).

Real enzymes are somewhere in between, and Dr Spetner shows how to calculate their information. As explained above, living organisms require enzymes to do a specific job, so their information content is very close to the maximum in case 1. Quite close to the other extreme are ordinary acids or alkalis, which hydrolyse many compounds. These have wonderful extended-spectrum catalytic activity, but are not specific, so have low information content, so would be useless for the precise control required for biological reactions. All observed mutations reduce the specificity and trend towards the second extreme case. The trend described in the β-Lactamases is just the same as that described in ribitol dehydrogenase, the enzyme some bacteria use to metabolize ribitol, a derivative of a type of sugar.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/images/spetner1_fig2.gif

That is, the mutant aquired the new ability to metabolize xylitol, so it was thought to be an example of new information arising, and that it could trend towards a highly specific xylitol dehydrogenase. But on further inspection, it turned out not only to reduce its ability to perform its original specific function of metabolizing ribitol, but also to increase the ability to synthesize lots of other things, including arabitol. The trend is towards loss of specificity and producing an ordinary broad-spectrum catalyst, i.e. from case 1 to case 2. A graph of wild v. mutant β-Lactamase activity on various antibiotics would be essentially the same as this graph of wild v. mutant ribitol dehydrogenase activity on the different types of sugars.

Berserker

February 25th 2003, 08:39 AM

Ok so I was right then? :brow:

You still have not given me a proper rebuttal on how what I explained is not information production but instead attack me on a personal level.

I'll tell you a little secret between you and me: I'm not human :wink: and I can never be angered or annoyed. In fact your behavior is actually the mating courtship dance for my species. :blush: :kiss: :rofl:

I am afraid I can’t pull out the scientific American article right now could you give use some quotes that explain how the appendixes is uses in modern humans?

Right now thousands of people cannot feel or use their toes and genitalia because they broke their coccyx. If it were fusing in with the hip this would not happen.

That’s a very nice article and I had read it before in fact but how does one case of mutational decay invalidates any other case of mutation improvement? I just did a quick search on goggle and came up with this article below of that demonstrates information increase:
http://www.netbiosciencenews.com/NR/2000/Apr00/penicillin-resistance%20gene042000.htm

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 11:22 AM

Beserker wrote:

You still have not given me a proper rebuttal on how what I explained is not information production but instead attack me on a personal level. You still not demonstrated that you have understood the concept of information despite my many references, but instead whinge about your own person.
I am afraid I can’t pull out the scientific American article right now could you give use some quotes that explain how the appendixes is uses in modern humans? I can't either, but it's well known that it's part of the Gut Associated Lymphoid Tissue, and makes immunoglobulins. Here are other quotes:
The mucosa and submucosa of the appendix are dominated by lymphoid nodules, and its primary function is as an organ of the lymphatic system. [Frederic H. Martini, Ph.D., Fundamentals of Anatomy and Physiology, p. 916, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1995.]
In view of its rich blood supply and histological differentiation, the vermiform appendix is probably more correctly regarded as a specialised than as a degenerate, vestigial structure. [Williams, P.L. and Warwick, R., 1980. Gray's Anatomy, Churchill Livingstone, 36th edition.] It can be removed because our body has lots of backup systems, e.g. other GALT to take over the job. Likewise, although our gall bladder obviously has a use, our bodies can manage without it. People can also get by on just one lung or one kidney.

Right now thousands of people cannot feel or use their toes and genitalia because they broke their coccyx. If it were fusing in with the hip this would not happen. And (even if you're correct) if they had no coccyx at all, they wouldn't have had any feeling at all if they'd never had a coccyx. So you've proved my point that the coccyx is far from useless!! :bonk:

That’s a very nice article and I had read it before in fact but how does one case of mutational decay invalidates any other case of mutation improvement? I never said it did. Rather, I showed that all known cases of "new" functions arising from mutations are actually due to loss of specificity.

I just did a quick search on goggle and came up with this article below of that demonstrates information increase:
http://www.netbiosciencenews.com/NR...0gene042000.htm
And once again, the opposite is true. Please pay special attention to this sentence, especially the bold parts:

“A thorough study by the researchers revealed the PBPs in the penicillin-resistant pneumococci had undergone subtle alterations in their DNA blueprints, reducing the ability of PBPs to bind penicillin, thus providing penicillin resistance to the bacteria.”So even here, there is a loss of specificity, so the PBPs no longer bind to the antibiotic which normally targets specific structures. But once again, in this environment the information loss is beneficial. So let's be clear again that creationists do not deny beneficial mutations.

Berserker

February 25th 2003, 01:53 PM

TenDimensions

February 25th 2003, 04:24 PM

02-23-2003 @ 11:02 PM
Blake Reas:

You must first assume there is no God!
If you have a Wife would you mind then if someone raped her? Remember there is no good or evil, so what basis do you have for judging that person? They where just preserving there Genes, right? The killing of 6 million Jews was not evil? Maybe Sept 11th wasn't evil? You obviously have a seared conscience. If you believe this then for the rest of your life you should keep your mouth shut and not say a word about ethics to anyone because ethical talk is meaningless.

Ethical talk is meaningless when spoken in absolutes. I've tried to make a lot of people understand that just because I believe that there is no God and morals are a human invention that are relative to each other (moral relativism) doesn't mean that there are no morals. It just means that one man's crusade is another man's atrocity and the history is written by the victory (e.g. Sept 11th).

Or we could call it a hierarchy of Morals could we not? You call this evidence then I will remember that if I ever see someone about ready to die in a burning house, I will say all actions are neutral there is nothing really good about saving this person!

There is a hierarchy to morals - Kohlberg put together six stages of moral development. And in my opinion the idea that morals can only exist simply because God says so is not a demonstration of the highest levels of morality.

People do good and bad things for a lot of reasons - some of those reasons are better than others. I happen to think that if you do something because you've determined on your own it is the "right" thing to do it is better than doing it because you don't want to get caught or because God says it's wrong.

Personally I think your position is a cop out on Morals

Why? Because I think very often one person's moral act is another man's sin? Because very obviously morals have shifted and changed throughout history and they are constantly changing?

And this proves something? Is this supposed to prove my ethical system false? I do not see where except for blind assertions.

I don't think I ever was attempting to prove your ethical system false - my bad if it came across that way. What I was trying to do is show that you can have a decent ethical system without looking to the metaphysical to define it.

TenDimensions

February 25th 2003, 04:26 PM

You guys want to see evolution in action?

Start at the beginning post of this thread and read through to the end.

:rofl:

Berserker

February 25th 2003, 04:33 PM

Wow your right 10D! Look where we are now? Give us 10 more pages and we will be talking about purple monkeys! :yipee:

TenDimensions

February 25th 2003, 04:43 PM

02-23-2003 @ 08:11 AM
Socrates:

I have done no such thing. Au contraire I have noted natural selection as an important part of the Creation/Fall model.

Okay, I think we're missing each other here somehow.

I say additional raw genetic material. Then you say that's not anything more than adding more hard drives to a computer. I agree.

But then I say that you need to randomly shuffle and selection has to occur on that new raw material - I also mention that you forgot about it and then you reply that you have no problem with natural selection as it is an important part of the Creation/Fall model.

So, seriously, where did we miss each other? There is evidence for more raw genetic material and you have no problem with natural selection - so what the heck am I missing?

I understand you're looking for proof of new "information" - let's put that on hold just for one second.

Do you accept the possibility that more raw genetic material combined with shuffling/recombination and natural selection could yield new information?

TenDimensions

February 25th 2003, 05:00 PM

02-23-2003 @ 11:02 PM
Captain Ochre:

No, afaics. It's an admitted induction in the first place. If you think that it's weaker than the straw man (that's too informationally laden to have occurred by chance!=impossible) version, then yes I agree.

This is really interesting to me. I've always been under the impression that "proof by induction" is completely valid and acceptable as a means of proving something. At least that's how I learned it in my math and logic classes. It is an admittedly weaker way of conducting a proof but sometimes that's the only way it can be proven.

Agreed, but the fact that we observe apparent intelligences producing complex specified information, that's exactly what the inference is built upon. I'm not sure what evidential competition your examples faced . . .

So two things here:
1) I think the inference is flawed because you're using as "proof" that because no other complexity has been seen other than by intelligence that must mean it can only be intelligence that creates complexity. Isn't this a clear example of argument from ignorance?

2) This inference is also limiting in the sense that it provides no room for the possibility that complexity can arise from something other than intelligence. What limits would this inference have on it? Would it only apply to the definition of "complexity"? For that matter - how "complex" must something be before it's obvious that some intelligence must be behind it?

TenDimensions

February 25th 2003, 05:35 PM

02-23-2003 @ 11:12 PM
Captain Ochre:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
02-23-2003 @ 12:44 AM
TenDimensions:
Through mutation and natural selection good old "mother nature" has come up with some very nice solutions to the problem of plain survivability and reproductive success.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are you assuming your conclusion? It looks like it to me.

That sentence certainly looks like I am! :blush:

A change in frequency of alleles over time? Agreed. Example of innovation? I see no evidence of that.

So at the heart of the matter is - Can new raw genetic material when recombined/reshuffled/mutated and then naturally selected upon come up with new combinations that express themselves positively in the phenotype such that additional selection will cause the cycle to continue?

I obviously happen to think the answer to that is yes and is proven (through induction) by the evidence.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As I mentioned elsewhere, it is most interestingly being applied to the creation of electronic circuits now - producing bizarre results that work!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a hidden intelligence in those algorithms: They are constructed to save the best electrical performance, and the algorithm probably has zero chance of extinction. Naturalistic evolution doesn't care if something (a species, genera, etc.) lives or dies. It either does or it doesn't. Construct an algorhythm with that kind of framework and see what you get.
That particular game (evolutionary algorithms) is typically rigged.

Well, I'm going to differ with you slightly on this. The part that is rigged is generally the intelligence behind the selection process and that's for a couple of really good reasons:

1) when applying evolution principles to actually produce results and solve problems it's not really beneficial to allow the solution set to roam free through an infinite set of conditions - not to mention impossible to code for.

2) the real environment where real biological evolution takes place is just simply too complicated to reproduce algorithmically at this point in time - and as mentioned in point 1 - not exactly productive.

The purpose of using evolution principles in solving problems is that you can develop an algorithm where all you do is plug in the type of electrical output you want to achieve under what circumstances and then the machine takes care of the rest by evolving possible solutions while moving towards the desired result. Other than the fact it is directed evolution - it is still evolution nonetheless.

And the fact of the matter is that certain solutions have to "die off" during the running of the programs and other solutions have to survive. Again, the selection process is looking for a certain outcome and so therefore is not a simulation of what occurs in the wild - but the mutation, randomization, and reproductive processes are absolutely on the mark.

Now - if by extinction you meant the whole thing would just output zero if not prevented by coding - that may be true, but again only for the two reasons I cited above - mainly because you're attempting to produce results and allowing natural forces to completely reign would be counter-productive. Sort of like not properly containing the explosion in a combustion engine - sure the explosion can naturally go in different directions, but why let it if you're actually trying to harness its power?

Which means - if the same mutation, randomization, and reproductive processes can happen in the wild, I'm not sure why it's much of a leap to accept that "natural" selection would cause the organism to evolve in a very similiar fashion.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sure, this is slightly different from the biological evolution that takes place in nature - mainly because there is (in this case) an intelligence driving the selection process where in nature, it is nothing more than blind nature selecting who can reproduce.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ah, good! I'm pleased that you showed an awareness of that (all too rare, in my experience). Kudos.

Thanks - contrary to popular belief some of us cold-hearted, morally relativistic, atheistic evolutionists do listen and learn. :rofl:

J. J. Ramsey

February 25th 2003, 05:56 PM

02-25-2003 @ 04:00 PM
TenDimensions:
I've always been under the impression that &quot;proof by induction&quot; is completely valid and acceptable as a means of proving something. At least that's how I learned it in my math and logic classes.

Are you sure that you are not confusing two very different meanings of "induction"? I've seen two:

Finding a pattern based on multiple empirical observation. This is inductive reasoning often seen in science.
A mathematical proof that a particular series sum{S(i)} (where sum() is my text equivalent of what would normally be presented with a capital Sigma in typical mathematical notation) can be calculated a particular some formula K(i). IIRC, the proof is in two parts, one showing that K(i) = sum{S(i)} for the initial value of i, which is usually 1, and a part showing thal K(i+1) = K(i) + S(i+1). This is a mathematical proof by induction.

J. J. Ramsey

February 25th 2003, 06:19 PM

JJR:
Now intelligent-design advocates get a little coy on the subject, but the basic line of ID argument is that natural mechanisms are insufficient to produce the complexity of life, so supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is necessary.

Captain Ochre:
Now you're using another key term in the debate: "Supernatural". Can you define that term scientifically?

I'm not sure if this is scientific or not, but generally when I use the term "supernatural," I mean something beyond the natural, where "natural" means things like matter, energy, physical laws, chance processes, etc.

Captain Ochre:
Do ID proponents use it?

To the best of my knowledge, no. However, they seem to be arguing that no natural process can bring about the complexity of life that we see, which means that the remaining causes are beyond the natural.

JJR:
In practice, supernatural intervention by an intelligent designer is basically divine intervention, . . .

Captain Ochre:
Well, nice try, but nonsense. What would stop a atheist from doing design-theory research, assuming that it followed an acceptable scientific paradigm?

That's why I said in practice, Captain Ochre. Theoretically, yes, an atheist could do design-theory research. However, the reality is that those working on intelligent design are theists, and the intelligent designer in question is understood to be God. You know it; I know it; and the critics of ID know it.

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 07:05 PM

02-25-2003 @ 09:00 PM
TenDimensions:
So two things here:
1) I think the inference is flawed because you're using as &quot;proof&quot; that because no other complexity has been seen other than by intelligence that must mean it can only be intelligence that creates complexity. Isn't this a clear example of argument from ignorance?

It would be if the proof were deductive, as you present it above. Absense of evidence is admissible for purposes of inductive reasoning. That's one of the reasons why inductive arguments are weaker! :wink: (I should add weaker generally, and some inductive arguments are stronger than others).

2) This inference is also limiting in the sense that it provides no room for the possibility that complexity can arise from something other than intelligence.

Well, no.
Inductive proofs may be essentially coercive, iirc, but a probabilistic proof such as ID does not exclude other possibilities; it simply attempts to designate one as more likely than another.
It may be possible for formulate ID into an deductive argument yet, but I've never seen Dembski do so.

What limits would this inference have on it? Would it only apply to the definition of &quot;complexity&quot;? For that matter - how &quot;complex&quot; must something be before it's obvious that some intelligence must be behind it?

Complexity alone doesn't cut it, no matter what the degree of complexity. I'm tempted to refer you to Dembki's online material, since the explanation is far from simple, I'm nowhere near an expert on it, and I'm interested in other threads as well.

Stratnerd

February 25th 2003, 09:37 PM

I'm nowhere near an expert on it, and I'm interested in other threads as well.

I've gone through several of Dembski's online materials now and I have yet to see a specific outline of the protocol required to detect design. I suppose you need to buy the book(s), which is a really odd way of advancing and promoting your cause!

Do any of the advocates of ID know how it's done?

Captain Ochre

February 25th 2003, 10:52 PM

02-26-2003 @ 01:37 AM
Stratnerd:

I've gone through several of Dembski's online materials now and I have yet to see a specific outline of the protocol required to detect design. I suppose you need to buy the book(s), which is a really odd way of advancing and promoting your cause!

But a solid strategy for selling books . . .:wink:

Do any of the advocates of ID know how it's done?

Try hostile book reviews. See what they say.

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 11:18 PM

TenDimensions:
I've always been under the impression that “proof by induction” is completely valid and acceptable as a means of proving something. At least that's how I learned it in my math and logic classes.
JJR rightly responds:
Are you sure that you are not confusing two very different meanings of "induction"? I've seen two:

Finding a pattern based on multiple empirical observation. This is inductive reasoning often seen in science.Indeed, this is the broader meaning of induction, going from the particular to the general, and it is a formal logical fallacy. The famous example is saying that if we find 1000 black crows, therefore the 1001st crow must also be black.

A mathematical proof that a particular series sum{S(i)} (where sum() is my text equivalent of what would normally be presented with a capital Sigma in typical mathematical notation) can be calculated a particular some formula K(i). IIRC, the proof is in two parts, one showing that K(i) = sum{S(i)} for the initial value of i, which is usually 1, and a part showing thal K(i+1) = K(i) + S(i+1). This is a mathematical proof by induction.Indeed, and only in logic or mathematics can induction be valid, because there is a way of showing that the something can in reality apply to all members of the infinite set of numbers, but showing that if it applies to one it applies to the next. One cannot do this with a collection of objects in the real world. E.g. Bertrand Russell's inductive turkey, who believed that because he had not had his head chopped off in any preceding day, he would never get it chopped off.

PS: to write capital Sigma, use the code & Sigma ; but with no spaces — see, Σ

Socrates

February 25th 2003, 11:33 PM

In your quote of that site you missed out on
"But in penicillin-resistant strains, "branched" muropeptides‹so-called because of the presence of two additional amino acids, either a serine and an alanine or two alanines, that branch off from the main peptide‹are abundant in the cell wall."Yes, and these insertions are still just a greater AMOUNT of the MEDIUM, but as I pointed out, still cause LOSS of information. The same thing could happen if you inserted two letters randomly into an English sentence — sure, more letters, but it's more likely to corrupt the information, e.g. by making a word meaningless. That's what's happened in the case you mentioned to some extent. These extra amino acids have reduced the specificity so that penicillin binds less well, so it is a beneficial information loss.

Now that's 2 new codons which is new information... now your changing your original argument to "loss of specificity only" instead of "lose of information only" which is a vague concept and better to hid under.Rubbish — I made it clear that these terms are equivalent!!

-------------------------------------------------------------
had a coccyx. So you've proved my point that the coccyx is far from useless!!
-------------------------------------------------------------

You have misinterpreted me: My original statement was that we do not use it as a prehensile tail anymore... and that its existence is a sign we did.Not at all. You have merely assumed that it is a vestige of a prehensile tail. I have presented hard operational-scientific evidence that is is a useful organ, so is consistent with "design". Just because God didn't kiss your patoot and design it your way is irrelevant, especially as you have not documented that your way is in fact optimal in the bigger picture, including development from the embryo.

Stratnerd

February 25th 2003, 11:38 PM

Mighty Socrates,

Please give the simplest example of information gain in line with the discussion above.

What would be a gain in information for a bacteria that degraded antibiotic x,y,z with enzyme E.

What would be a gain in information for a bacteria that degraded antibiotic x with enzyme E.

Dee Dee Warren

February 26th 2003, 07:04 PM

Dear Berserker:

I have a favor to ask, and I am certain that you meant no harm at all, but please refrain from speculating on the "real" names of members who have chosen not to reveal them. Thank you so much, and I appreciate it deeply.

Dee Dee Warren

February 26th 2003, 07:06 PM

Hey Stratnerd, that's a funky new avatar.

Stratnerd

February 26th 2003, 07:31 PM

welsh flag! i just tracked down my great-granddad to Tythegston, Wales and I was feeling a bit "nostalgic"

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 08:58 PM

Stratnerd asks:

Please give the simplest example of information gain in line with the discussion above.

What would be a gain in information for a bacteria that degraded antibiotic x,y,z with enzyme E.

What would be a gain in information for a bacteria that degraded antibiotic x with enzyme E.You need to provide more data. Meanwhile, which part of my Post# 23791 above is still unclear? I.e. is the new ability to degrade an antibiotic the result of new specificity towards that antibiotic, or just the loss of specificity of an enzyme specified towards something else so the enzyme is tending towards a general catalyst?

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 09:06 PM

Dee Dee: Hey Stratnerd, that's a funky new avatar.

Stratnerd: welsh flag! i just tracked down my great-granddad to Tythegston, Wales and I was feeling a bit "nostalgic"I knew that, FWIW! I've seen it at AiG talks, as an example of the dragon stories widespread around the world. It pays not to be dogmatic, but some of them suggest human-dinosaur encounters.

The Welsh creationist Bill Cooper wrote a book After the Flood which documents how ancient documents trace European kings back to the sons of Noah, but use the name "Shaef" for Japheth which suggests an independent non-Biblical source. He has a section on ancient Britain based on Wlesh writers such as Nennius — the Welsh are the descendants of the ancient Britons, preceding the Anglo-Saxons.

Stratnerd

February 26th 2003, 10:10 PM

Mighty Socrates,

So information is gained if a bacterial lineage gains specificity?

but some of them suggest human-dinosaur encounters sure wish we'd dig up that dinosaur with wings and 4 legs and fur

Socrates

February 26th 2003, 11:04 PM

Stratnerd:
So information is gained if a bacterial lineage gains specificity?Be more specific.

------------------------------------------------------------
Soc. but some of them suggest human-dinosaur encounters
------------------------------------------------------------
Strat:
sure wish we'd dig up that dinosaur with wings and 4 legs and fur.Fur doesn't fossilise, and in legends, the story grows with the telling, and conflation of different types of creature could occur as well.

Berserker

February 26th 2003, 11:15 PM

Socrates,

Ok ok just explain the premise of your argument again as concise as possible. I think the problem here is we don't understand what we are premise is and we are arguing for the wrong thing.

Stratnerd

February 26th 2003, 11:29 PM

> Be more specific.

A pun?

A bacterial enzyme, say ribitol dehydrogenase, breaks down three substrates, say xylitol, ribitol, and L-arabitol. There's a mutation, then produces a lineage where that same enzyme only breaks down a single substrate, say ribitol.

Berserker

February 26th 2003, 11:46 PM

Yes that is "specific" but I think that is th opposite of what he wants... Socrates wants and example of a gene that did x but now does y or x & y... am I right on this Socrates???

Dee Dee Warren

February 27th 2003, 08:22 AM

Socrates wants and example of a gene that did x but now does y or x & y... am I right on this Socrates???

How did Boom get involved in this?? Sorry, I could not resist.

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 08:45 AM

¿Que?

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 11:15 AM

Berserker:

¿Que?It's ¿Como? except on Fawlty Towers, at least so I've been told by native Latin Americans ;) The specificity increase would be the reverse of the trend shown in the diagram in Post #23791.

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 11:25 AM

Mightly Socrates,

The specificity increase would be the reverse of the trend shown in the diagram in Post #23791.

But that constitutes an increase in information? These might seem like dumb questions but I just want to see the stuff on information stated explicitly as possible. In the end it makes for a more efficient discussion [and possibly some tests]. If the if scenario I proposed (repeated below) isn't then please give a scenario that does indicate increasing information and why it can't happen.

A bacterial enzyme, say ribitol dehydrogenase, breaks down three substrates, say xylitol, ribitol, and L-arabitol. There's a mutation, then produces a lineage where that same enzyme only breaks down a single substrate, say ribitol.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 12:02 PM

If a mutation in ribitol dehydrogenase increased its activity with ribitol and reduced its activity with xylitol and arabitol, then that would be an increase in specificity or information. As shown, the observed mutation had the opposite effect.

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 12:08 PM

If a mutation in ribitol dehydrogenase increased its activity with ribitol and reduced its activity with xylitol and arabitol

And Dembski is saying that can't happen? Why?

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 04:14 PM

Socrates,

Que = what

Como = How

Don't lecture me on Spanish both my parents speak as their first language.

I had no clue what her highness was talking about so a responded in my most confused state: speaking Spanish.

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 04:27 PM

In Portuguese, also spoken in latin america, "como" is used as "huh" and I suspect that the same is true in Spanish. But it the use of "que" or "como" is totally dependent on context... but then you were using it so you probably know the context (where's the icon of a smiley hitting itself on the head?)

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 04:45 PM

Ya I should have used something like this: http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 04:54 PM

Beserker,

If gaining specificity means a gain of information and this shouldn't happen then a transfer of a three-substrate degrading bacteria to a single substrate growth medium might be a good test of ID claims of the impossibility of increasing information. If there arises a strain that only metabolizes a single substrate then ID claims are falified, no? Why not?

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 05:26 PM

Yes if thats what they claim! thats a good labratory project there wonder if I could try it sometime.

I don't know, I think if a gene makes a protein (or many proteins) that does x,y,z and now just does x that would be most likely due to degradation of the gene and be a loss of information... but then again I’m not Socrates I don't know what he believes disproves evolution.

Socrates

February 27th 2003, 08:43 PM

Stratnerd:
In Portuguese, also spoken in latin america, “como” is used as “huh” and I suspect that the same is true in Spanish.What's what my Latin American native Spanish speakers told me. And “como” seems to be used to say “what?” in the sense of “What did you say?”, even though a stilted literal translation of “Como” is “how”, maybe here in the sense of “How do you mean?”.

Idioms aren't always the same in different languages (but try to tell the average Biblioskeptic that). For example, if you need to clear your throat, in y English or German you “have a frog in your throat”. But in French you would say that it's a “chat” (cat), and apparently in Hebrew it would be a bug and an ant in Turkish. Not sure about Spanish.

Stratnerd

February 27th 2003, 08:57 PM

Concordo.... agora vamos falar ao informacao, sim?

Berserker

February 27th 2003, 11:55 PM

hello red haring people what were we arguing about originally!?!?

Look I speak Spanish (some) I know what I'm saying why is this a issue here? Is this linguistic forum? Last time I looked this was Critical Think forum in which everyone was just waiting to pounce on another person for making a fallacy in their arguments!

at lest Stratnerd knows what I'm talking about... in Portuguese though!

Stratnerd

February 28th 2003, 12:51 AM

Eu nao sei nada meu amiginho! - Meu "portuguese" e horrível - I can speak it but I couldn't write it to save my life....

Anyways, so I suspect that if you have a gene that codes for an enzyme from breaks down three enzymes and later that gene's enzyme only breaks down a single substrate then you do have an increase in information via increased specificity. However, you may not have any new information. What if you had a gene duplication event of the gene that coded from the single-substrate enzyme and this duplicated gene took on a new an single substrate?

This is what I mean by making the discussion efficient.... I need an ID person to make the predictions in case this doesn't hold up. But it seems like there should be a very simple prediction with a very simple (relatively speaking) test of that prediction.

Stratnerd

March 2nd 2003, 02:44 PM

Socrates or Capt'n O.,

If gaining specificity means a gain of information and this shouldn't happen, right? Then the transfer of a three-substrate degrading bacteria to a single substrate growth medium should not lose the ability to degrade the two other substrates, right? If there arises a strain that only metabolizes a single substrate then ID claims are falified, no? Why not?

Socrates

March 2nd 2003, 10:17 PM

The ID/SC claim is that evolution requires zillions of information-increasing mutations. So far, we have yet to see even one, even on the lines I've given. But because the information argument (like the 2nd Law) is probabilistic, we may well see an info-increasing heritable mutation once in a blue moon. But if evolution were true, one would expect to see them all the time. But it really is time that evolutionary propagandists quit the "all change=evolution" equivocation.

Berserker

March 3rd 2003, 11:19 AM

the 2nd law or thermodynamic only states energy is to be lost in a open system... why is it everyone thinks that means thing need to decay physically!?!

I don't get this Socrates it seems we have shown you many situations of information increase and/or specificity increase what is it you think is not possible again??? http://www.sciforums.com/images/smilies/confused.gif Please give us something clear (In one sentence or at lest a paragraph all its own) so we can refute it correctly.

Stratnerd

March 3rd 2003, 08:51 PM

Socrates....

I asked
If gaining specificity means a gain of information and this shouldn't happen, right? Then the transfer of a three-substrate degrading bacteria to a single substrate growth medium should not lose the ability to degrade the two other substrates, right? If there arises a strain that only metabolizes a single substrate then ID claims are falified, no? Why not?
Is this your response?

The ID/SC claim is that evolution requires zillions of information-increasing mutations. So far, we have yet to see even one, even on the lines I've given. But because the information argument (like the 2nd Law) is probabilistic, we may well see an info-increasing heritable mutation once in a blue moon. But if evolution were true, one would expect to see them all the time. But it really is time that evolutionary propagandists quit the "all change=evolution" equivocation. because I asked very simple "yes" or "no" questions.....

:yipee: (just because my five-year old asked me too)

Socrates

March 4th 2003, 08:24 AM

The Beserk one:

the 2nd law or thermodynamic only states energy is to be lost in a open system... why is it everyone thinks that means thing need to decay physically!?!:dufus: The 2nd Law relates to ENTROPY not energy!

I don't get this Socrates it seems we have shown you many situations of information increase and/or specificity increase what is it you think is not possible again??? No you haven't -- you've shown us examples of loss of information, but are too confused to know that.

Please give us something clear (In one sentence or at lest a paragraph all its own) so we can refute it correctly.In your dreams.

Berserker

March 4th 2003, 09:27 PM

The 2nd Law relates to ENTROPY not energy!

Entropy is the lost of energy in open systems :rofl:

So your not going to tell us this magic situation that evolution can't do? How are we to refute it then if we don’t know what it is? Is it that you can't come up with such a situation because in the other case I showed you about a gain of information those seem to refute my perspective of your argument quite well... so either you just stalling or your not explaining your argument right, I have been giving you the benefit of the doubt but I won't for much longer. :angel:

Socrates

March 4th 2003, 11:33 PM

I corrected the Beserk One's misapprehension:

------------------------------------------------------------
The 2nd Law relates to ENTROPY not energy!
------------------------------------------------------------
But he still persisted in his error:

Entropy is the lost of energy in open systems Loss of USEFUL energy, or energy available to do work. Get the terms right --- the 2nd Law is sometimes even called the Law of Entropy. Also, the 2nd Law applies to all systems, but the usual formulation simply in terms of entropy (ΔS>=0) concerns an isolated system.

Stratnerd

March 6th 2003, 05:43 PM

Socrates,

I'd appreciate any comment you have about a previous post I made :

If gaining specificity means a gain of information and this shouldn't/couldn't happen, right? Then the transfer of a three-substrate degrading bacteria to a single substrate growth medium should not lose the ability to degrade the two other substrates, right? If there arises a strain that only metabolizes a single substrate then ID claims are falified, no? Why not?

I already consider myself stupid so please spare yourself and me the extra comments... but I'm looking for "yes's" or "no's" or what you might be a proper experiment of ID claims.

Berserker

March 6th 2003, 05:49 PM

Socrates,

that was a lack of detail on my part... not a error. :angel:
It still means matter can take on more complex forms as long as there is wasted energy.

Goochdad

March 6th 2003, 05:55 PM

03-02-2003 @ 08:17 PM
Socrates:

The ID/SC claim is that evolution requires zillions of information-increasing mutations. So far, we have yet to see even one, even on the lines I've given.

Here's one:

The nylon-eating bacteria (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

Since information in evolution is only defined in the context of survivability in a given environment (as opposed to Shannon information) the nylon-eating bacteria is a clear case of new information arising in the genome of a creature.

QED

Captain Ochre

March 7th 2003, 01:35 AM

03-06-2003 @ 09:55 PM
Goochdad:

Here's one:

The nylon-eating bacteria (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm)

Since information in evolution is only defined in the context of survivability in a given environment (as opposed to Shannon information) the nylon-eating bacteria is a clear case of new information arising in the genome of a creature.

QED

Socrates is going to corrrectly point out that the existence of an on/off switch for ancient sequence which produces a nylon enzyme has not been ruled out.
Unless I beat him to it . . .

Berserker

March 7th 2003, 02:41 AM

point out that the existence of an on/off switch for ancient sequence which produces a nylon enzyme has not been ruled out.

¿Que? What does a operon have to do with anything? The "ancient" sequence would still need to exist... and so far none has been found... so now it comes down to Occam's Razor: Either this is evolution in action or a yet to be found in nature, totally useless in nature, gene for digesting nylon has existed since the time god made all life.

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 03:03 AM

03-07-2003 @ 01:35 PM
Captain Ochre:
Socrates is going to corrrectly point out that the existence of an on/off switch for ancient sequence which produces a nylon enzyme has not been ruled out.
Unless I beat him to it . . .
So God in his infinite wisdom produced an enzyme that only became useful about 70 years ago when nylon was invented?

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 03:09 AM

That's unless AiG beats both of us to it! :smile: See their article That depends on what your definition of “information” is. (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative7-24-2000.asp), which addresses both the nylon example specifically and information in general which Goochdad and Celsus still don't get! :dufus: One day even these ignoramuses :doh: might understand that creationists DO believe in beneficial mutations, but the observed ones are still information-losing ones.

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 03:20 AM

:doh:
It's even more amusing that Goochdad's link (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm) already has a refutation (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update) of the AiG paper!
:yipee:

Joel

Captain Ochre

March 7th 2003, 03:21 AM

03-07-2003 @ 07:03 AM
Celsus:

So God in his infinite wisdom produced an enzyme that only became useful about 70 years ago when nylon was invented?

Could be--and how would you know that it had no other use prior to that?
Does your imagination disappear when you're not advocating evolution? :wink:

Captain Ochre

March 7th 2003, 03:30 AM

03-07-2003 @ 07:20 AM
Celsus:

:doh:
It's even more amusing that Goochdad's link (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm) already has a refutation (http://nmsr.org/nylon.htm#update) of the AiG paper!
:yipee:

That supposed refutation doesn't deal with the substance of (what I expect would be) the AiG argument. Finding the plasmid sequence "nearly identical" with the original, and surmising that it is based on a non-coding sequence argues against the mutation being a creation of new information--at least in the sense of information content more significant than (along the lines of) "Ooh! I broke a nail! But now I can type faster!!!"

You guys been playing "Science Sez" too much, or what?

[edit to add}
Almost forgot to mention that the claim that the mutation didn't exist X years ago seem totally unfounded. What's to stop the same frame-shift from happening to the same sequence prior to the invention of nylon?

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 03:30 AM

03-07-2003 @ 03:21 PM
Captain Ochre:
Could be--and how would you know that it had no other use prior to that?
Does your imagination disappear when you're not advocating evolution? :wink:
First question: I'm no expert, but short answer--if it did have another use, then it still does, but we don't know about it. What's proven that information has been added, although it seems as though the creationists don't even want to so much as look at the link provided, despite certain posters' propensities for posting AiG links. Second question: Not quite. It's only that I have to stretch my imagination to understand creationism. :teeth:

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 03:31 AM

Holy... uh ... something or other. We're in cross-posting hell!

And quit editing your posts! :argh: :argh:

:wink:

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 03:50 AM

03-07-2003 @ 03:30 PM
Captain Ochre:
That supposed refutation doesn't deal with the substance of (what I expect would be) the AiG argument. Finding the plasmid sequence "nearly identical" with the original, and surmising that it is based on a non-coding sequence argues against the mutation being a creation of new information--at least in the sense of information content more significant than (along the lines of) "Ooh! I broke a nail! But now I can type faster!!!"

You guys been playing "Science Sez" too much, or what?
No but it defends the sidelong criticisms of AiG's articles to its original point, which is to show increases in information.

[edit to add}
Almost forgot to mention that the claim that the mutation didn't exist X years ago seem totally unfounded. What's to stop the same frame-shift from happening to the same sequence prior to the invention of nylon?
Because the mutation is deleterious in the absence of nylon--it causes the bacteria to be less efficient at eating other things. Hence, we can expect that natural selection would weed it out. Secondly, the article states quite bluntly:
Sorry, AiG, but just because something is on a plasmid doesn't mean it's always been there! In fact, the plasmid involved in this case is very well known and characterized. Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail.

Joel

Captain Ochre

March 7th 2003, 04:00 AM

03-07-2003 @ 07:50 AM
Celsus:

No but it defends the sidelong criticisms of AiG's articles to its original point, which is to show increases in information.

The frame-shift is acting mol as an on/off switch.
That's not particularly significant on the information front.

Because the mutation is deleterious in the absence of nylon--it causes the bacteria to be less efficient at eating other things. Hence, we can expect that natural selection would weed it out.

If it was weeded out prior to the existence of nylon, then it existed prior to the invention of nylon.
QED (watch QED show up like a brimstone-reeking Djinn).

Secondly, the article states quite bluntly:
Sorry, AiG, but just because something is on a plasmid doesn't mean it's always been there! In fact, the plasmid involved in this case is very well known and characterized. Scientists have studied both the original (pre-mutation) plasmid and the novel (post-mutation) plasmid, in great detail.

I think that they should look for the mutated plasmid in populations that haven't been around nylon. Bummer job for the scientists (needle-in-haystack work), but the results might be worth it!

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 04:15 AM

03-07-2003 @ 04:00 PM
Captain Ochre:
If it was weeded out prior to the existence of nylon, then it existed prior to the invention of nylon.
QED (watch QED show up like a brimstone-reeking Djinn).
Eh? I was arguing hypothetically. Anyway, I was wrong. It's not just that it is "less efficient" at consuming other materials, but that it needs nylon to survive.

I think that they should look for the mutated plasmid in populations that haven't been around nylon. Bummer job for the scientists (needle-in-haystack work), but the results might be worth it!
Moot point. I was wrong (careless reading). The bacteria wouldn't survive in the absence of nylon.

Joel

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 07:10 AM

Celsus just parrots the misnamed atheistic mob NMSR, although that's actually insulting to parrots which actually have some rudimentary comprehension of what they vocalize.

One can be sure that if this was really evolution in action, it would be trumpeted everywhere rather than by a few atheistic gutter sites. The Captain is certainly right that the article by the NMSR bozos refers to the AiG article without addressing the substance of it. The AiG article also pointed out that a new ability to digest nylon could be the result of less specificity, ergo less information.

And right at the end, they persist with the straw man that creationists deny beneficial mutations, which we do NOT.

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 09:00 AM

Hello Socrates,

Although it's now fairly clear that you didn't read the link mentioned, let's go to an original source (which is not cited by NMSR):

T. Yomo, I. Urabe, and H. Okada, "No Stop Codons in the Antisense Strands of the Genes for Nylon Oligomer Degradation", PNAS, 1992, Vol. 89, pp. 3780-3784.

From the abstract:
Genes for nylon oligomer-degrading enzymes are unique in the sense that the enzymes encoded by them are found not to have any appropriate substrates during most of the period of their evolution. Furthermore, these nylB genes form a family not related to any other known gene families.
From the main article:
Flavobacterium sp. KI72 metabolizes by-products of nylon manufacture by using newly evolved enzymes, 6-aminohexanoate-cyclic-dimer hydrolase [EC 3.5.2.12] (F-EI) and 6-aminohexanoate-dimer hydrolase [EC 3.5.1.46] (F-EII). The F-EI gene (F-nylA) and the F-EII gene (F-nylB) are on the plasmid pOAD2 harbored by this bacterium. In addition, the F-EII' gene (F-nylB'), which is homologous to the F-EII gene, is present on the same plasmid (6, 7). The primary structures of the F-EII and F-EII' enzymes are very similar (88% identity), but the activity of F-EII' toward 6-aminohexanoate dimer is <1% of that of F-EII. Thus these genes seem to be the descendants that diverged through the duplication of a common ancestral gene.
Further down:
We suppose that the mechanisms described above are working not only on the sense and antisense strands of the nylB gene family but also on the regions where new genes are going to be born. In fact, it will take a long time until an [nonstop frame (NSF)] has evolved into a new gene. As shown in Fig.4 [sorry that's in the article itself!], nonessential NSFs are apt to disappear during mutations, which are the actual steps of evolution. Therefore, the mechanism of preserving nonessential NSFs always open is essential for the birth of new enzymes.

Gene duplication has been proposed to be a general mechanism for evolution of new enzymes. Indeed, this is one of the important mechanisms for making nonessential NSFs, which are the starting point for new enzymes. However, without the mechanism of maintaining the duplicated gene open, it seems improbable for the gene to become a new gene with quite a different sequence.
So that puts to rest Socrates' assertion that I just "parrot the misnamed atheistic mob NMSR." This also refutes the speculative assertion from the linked AiG article, that "All that would be needed to enable an enzyme to digest nylon is a mutation causing loss of specificity in a proteolytic (protein-degrading) enzyme", since the researchers involved observe a clear increase in information through the duplication of genes.

Now since Socrates argues:

And right at the end, they persist with the straw man that creationists deny beneficial mutations, which we do NOT.
That is wonderful! Now do you accept that natural selection will weed out deleterious mutations (i.e. that those with harmful mutations be eliminated from the gene pool due to their poorer ability to survive)? Do you accept, conversely, that over generations, those with beneficial mutations will increase in proportion to the rest of the population?

Joel

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 09:46 AM

The parrot Celsus cites some impressive-sounding stuff, but the words "these genes seem" and "We suppose". And this pilllock wonders why I won't strain myself to re-hunt down the remaining context for a quotation that's crystal clear as it stands. He also raises the same old canards about gene duplication already addressed, and sets up more straw men about creationists denying that natural selection would harmful mutations and preserve beneficial ones. The point remains, even these rare beneficial mutations are not information-gaining. See also Muddy waters. Clarifying the confusion about natural selection (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n3_muddy_waters2.asp).

Stratnerd

March 7th 2003, 10:00 AM

Socrates or Capt'n O,

What would constitute a simple experiment that would show that increasing information is impossible?

Why hasn't the ID done this? Or have they?

"these genes seem" and "We suppose".

but the words what? you call yourself a "scientist" but this is the language we all use in science.... odd.

Celsus

March 7th 2003, 10:25 AM

Sigh. Socrates, do you know what ad hominem, shifting the goal posts and red herrings are? I have tried to ignore these for the benefit of people who might be lurking on this thread. In effect, your constant posting of AiG articles, which have already been debunked before you mention them, is really, well sad. For example, your latest link states:
It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.
This is exactly refuted by primary research (among thousands of other papers) that I cite above! The fact that they are humble enough to use qualifying terms like "seem" and "suppose" is merely because science does not usually involve hard proofs like those of mathematics. An "old canard" like gene duplication, when physically observed is empirical evidence that you can't just refute through deductive principles (since it affects the premises of the argument). Denying it is like denying that the earth revolves around the sun (please don't tell me you're a geocentrist as well).

Joel

P.S. Are you also asserting that animals with beneficial mutations still have the same chance of survival as animals with harmful mutations? Please answer the question: yes or no. It's quite simple.

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 09:36 PM

Socrates, do you know what ad hominem, shifting the goal posts and red herrings are?Of course, I debate various misotheistic bigots like you all the time, so I get plenty of chances to observe them in my opponents! I have tried to ignore these for the benefit of people who might be lurking on this thread. In effect, your constant posting of AiG articles, which have already been debunked before you mention them, is really, well sad. Refuted only in your dreams. Why should we take your word for it, esp. when you're ignorant of the concept of information?

It has been shown convincingly that observed mutations do not add information, and that mutation is seriously hampered on theoretical grounds in this area.

This is exactly refuted by primary research (among thousands of other papers) that I cite above!Which does no such thing! An "old canard" like gene duplication, when physically observed is empirical evidence that you can't just refute through deductive principles (since it affects the premises of the argument).Who's denying gene duplication. I obviously meant that it was a canard that it would increase information, as I've pointed out many times. Denying it is like denying that the earth revolves around the sun (please don't tell me you're a geocentrist as well).And if you had bothered to check, you would find that this is easily solved by the elementary physical concept of reference frames (search these words on our site). This means that the geocentrists are wrong to assert that the Earth is the ONLY valid reference frame, and the Biblioskeptics are wrong to assert that the Bible is errant to refer to the sun rising etc.

Also, this question is fully in the realm of operational science in the present, while goo-to-you evolution is a belief about the past.
Are you also asserting that animals with beneficial mutations still have the same chance of survival as animals with harmful mutations? Please answer the question: yes or no. It's quite simple.Please answer this question: When have I ever DENIED this? When has AiG ever denied this for that matter? But the beneficial mutations, e.g. fish in caves with shrivelled eyes, beetles on windswept islands lacking the power of flight, are still information LOSSES.

ItalianGold

March 7th 2003, 10:16 PM

Socrates:

One can be sure that if this was really evolution in action, it would be trumpeted everywhere rather than by a few atheistic gutter sites. The Captain is certainly right that the article by the NMSR bozos refers to the AiG article without addressing the substance of it. The AiG article also pointed out that a new ability to digest nylon could be the result of less specificity, ergo less information.

What I wonder about is this. In the face of an information explosion the likes of which no other generation has ever seen, how far will the YEC creationists be forced to go in their attempts to deny, deny, deny?

One gets a clue just browsing the sites. It becomes increasingly clear that the reason creation "scientists" aren't doing any field work is because they are feverishly engaged in coming up with more and more elaborate excuses for new evidence. Many creation sites are hoplessly outdated, still espousing Poluxy riverbed Dino-people tracks, pre Fall vapor canopies, etc. Others, like AiG are more current, even adding to their list of "things NOT to use as anti-evolutions arguments." But none is fully engaged in addressing the mounting threats from DNA studies, genome mapping, fossil discoveries, etc. because it's simply over-whelming. In the last 2 or 3 decades, the entire nature of the arguments from anti-evolutionists has changed. They can no longer deny that HUGE changes in animal populations have taken place. They are painted into a corner with the Flood theory so that now the term "kinds" is their main argument for no-evolution. Thus we see that although they are willing to allow that from one pair of "cat kinds" there emerged lions, tigers, cheetahs, cougars, panthers and calico kitties...they just changed, did NOT "evolve."

Sadly, changing their definitions is not keeping pace with science. What is going to happen when next month, next year, whenever...the evidence becomes incontrovertible? I fear that by placing all their creationist eggs in one basket they are laying the foundation for loss of faith for many and this is unfortunate.

The measure of this desperation is typified by Socrates and his rants to any opposing view. I believe that intelligence flows through every atom of the universe and that its manifestation is Holy. But according to Socrates I'm a God-hating, ignorant bigot with an agenda to derail all righteous Christians and therfore pave for them the road to hell.

*sigh*

Berserker

March 7th 2003, 10:31 PM

Sadly, changing their definitions is not keeping pace with science. What is going to happen when next month, next year, whenever...the evidence becomes incontrovertible?

That’s impossible! The creationist here for example are incapable of every saying they are wrong on this... EVER! They will continue to refute something even after it defies logic to continue. So when the evidence becomes just to overwhelming they will just stop listening and when you hit them with enough evidence they will just call you names and say that their right just because they "know" their right and there is nothing that can change that.

Socrates for example believes that if you truthfully say that genesis is wrong that means that now the whole bible is wrong… this belief is called a slippery-slope fallacy. The idea that the bible was created by men and is there for fallible is beyond some. The idea that the bible can be taken literally is also beyond many people. The Idea that other religions have just as much merit as their own is beyond most! The truth that God and evolution can coexist is also beyond so many people (not you I see :thumb:).

Socrates

March 7th 2003, 11:53 PM

Italian Pyrite continues with scientifically ignorant and philosophically obtuse rantings: :rant:

What I wonder about is this. In the face of an information explosion the likes of which no other generation has ever seen, how far will the YEC creationists be forced to go in their attempts to deny, deny, deny?What I wonder is, with all the information explosion uncovering more and more evidence for intricate design in nature, will the evolutionary materialist bigots keep shutting their eyes and proclaiming, "I don't see any evidence of design". And with all the explanations on TW, how can IP honestly persist with the deceitful equivocation about evolution meaning simply "change".

One gets a clue just browsing the sites. It becomes increasingly clear that the reason creation "scientists" aren't doing any field work is because they are feverishly engaged in coming up with more and more elaborate excuses for new evidence.More likely, many creationists ARE involved in field work as I've pointed out. And others are showing that data discovered by secular scientists is actually more evidence for design. Many creation sites are hoplessly outdated, still espousing Poluxy riverbed Dino-people tracks, pre Fall vapor canopies, etc. That's their problem.Others, like AiG are more current, even adding to their list of "things NOT to use as anti-evolutions arguments." And you damn them for that too! Creationists can't please the likes of you.But none is fully engaged in addressing the mounting threats from DNA studies, genome mapping, fossil discoveries, etc. because it's simply over-whelming. In your dreams. And they ARE addressing these, but simply refuse to play by your self-serving materialistic RULES.In the last 2 or 3 decades, the entire nature of the arguments from anti-evolutionists has changed. They can no longer deny that HUGE changes in animal populations have taken place. And your historical evidence for this is WHAT? Even back in the days of the book The Genesis Flood, they were perfectly aware of the difference between horizontal and vertical changes. Even some better informed evolutionists are aware of this. So what part of my elementary explanation about things like AB blood group did you not understand??
They are painted into a corner with the Flood theory so that now the term "kinds" is their main argument for no-evolution. Once again, you deceitfully imply that it's something new, although the word "kind" is in the Bible, and its the term "biological species" that's the relative neologism. So what's your beef with creationists quite reasonably pointing out that the "kind" is broader than todays "species". Thus we see that although they are willing to allow that from one pair of "cat kinds" there emerged lions, tigers, cheetahs, cougars, panthers and calico kitties...they just changed, did NOT "evolve." You got that right, because no new INFORMATION was invovled, excpet that I pointed out that two or three "cat" kinds were possibly involved. Once more, your refutation is WHAT? Did you bother to read the article on ligers and wholphins (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp)?

Sadly, changing their definitions is not keeping pace with science. More elephant hurling. WHAT changing definitions and WHAT science?? And what would you know anyway?
What is going to happen when next month, next year, whenever...the evidence becomes incontrovertible?So you're a prophet now are you? I never realised that your head was THAT swelled. I fear that by placing all their creationist eggs in one basket they are laying the foundation for loss of faith for many and this is unfortunate. What do you care? In any case, AiG has shown repeatedly that standing firm on Scriptural authority and pointing out the equivocatory fallacies like "evolution means change, change is a fact, therefore Biblical creation is wrong" helps to RESTORE faith. Conversely, it's the COMPROMISERS that help to destroy faith, by telling Christians not to believe their own book. E.g. who is citing the professing Christian evolutionist Glenn Moron here? It's the overt God-haters, using this "useful idiot" to bash creation and the Bible!

The measure of this desperation is typified by Socrates and his rants to any opposing view. I believe that intelligence flows through every atom of the universe and that its manifestation is Holy. I am interested only defending the true God of the Bible, not this New Age pantheistic piffle.But according to Socrates I'm a God-hating, ignorant bigot with an agenda to derail all righteous Christians and therfore pave for them the road to hell.If haven't said this about IP, but I won't give into emotional blackmail either. If the cap fits, wear it.

Stratnerd

March 7th 2003, 11:58 PM

Socrates

March 8th 2003, 12:00 AM

The Beserk One:

Socrates for example believes that if you truthfully say that genesis is wrong that means that now the whole bible is wrong… this belief is called a slippery-slope fallacy. It's not, because I've explained very clearly that Jesus took Genesis Creation and Flood as straightforward history, and used it to teach authoritatively.The idea that the bible was created by men and is there for fallible is beyond some. Yes, because it denies what Jesus said, "Scripture cannot be broken", and the fact that He frequently equated "Scripture said" with "God said." So the Bible in Christian belief is a product of both God and humans, and therefore is inerrant. The idea that the bible can be taken literally is also beyond many people. And to me too. As I've pointed out, I take the historical narrative parts (e.g. Genesis) as historical narrative, and the poetic parts (e.g. Psalms) as poetry.
The Idea that other religions have just as much merit as their own is beyond most! Indeed so, because Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except by me" (John 14:6). All other religions have founders who rotten in their graves; Jesus rose on the 3rd day, leaving the tomb empty, and appeared to more than 500 people at once.The truth that God and evolution can coexist is also beyond so many people (not you I see ).Not that the Beserk One believes in God. He's just happy with useful idiots like IP who believe in some god of their own making, but not the True God of the Bible who will demand an account from everyone.

QED

March 8th 2003, 12:02 AM

So the Bible in Christian belief is a product of both God and humans, and therefore is inerrant.

Why? Because both God and humans are infallible?

Wait!....

(P.S. 2 Timothy 3:16 might hold the key to clarifying this. It speaks of inspiration, and lists what kinds of understanding the Bible is useful for.)

(P.P.S. "As I've pointed out, I take the historical narrative parts (e.g. Genesis) as historical narrative, and the poetic parts (e.g. Psalms) as poetry." ... Have you ever considered the structure of Genesis 1? I'm told that in the Hebrew it has a poetic meter.)

(P.P.P.S. "Jesus took Genesis Creation and Flood as straightforward history, and used it to teach authoritatively." ... Are you sure that your interpretation is correct about how Jesus understood Creation and the Flood? Could his allusions not have been of a literary nature? If I referred to events that happened in a work of fiction as though they were real events, would that mean that I believed that the works were actually non-fiction? For instance, if I said "Be careful not to be obsessive like Captain Ahab! You know what happened to him!", would that mean that I believed Ahab was a real person? Would this not apply even more powerfully to a text that Jesus knew to be a doctrinal and ethical missive that God had inspired human writers to pen?)

Berserker

March 8th 2003, 12:09 AM

Socrates,

So basically you proved every point I raised? http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/battle.gif

How can you say that everything written in the bible is infallible?

Socrates basic response: Because in the bible it is written that Jesus said that everything that is written in the bible is infallible… You see you $@#%ing idiot!, because the bibles say it is infallible therefore it is!

How can you say other religions do not have equal merit to yours?

Socrates basic response: What kind of moronic question is that? The bible clearly say other religion are total crap and the bible is right as I have proven to you… you stupid uncle @$%^er!

How can you say the bible is true?

Socrates basic response: Because it is!! @#$% off you butt parasite!

Socrates you killing me: I can’t stop laughing… need air… can’t breath! :rofl:

ItalianGold

March 8th 2003, 01:18 AM

Socrates:
idiots like IP who believe in some god of their own making, but not the True God of the Bible who will demand an account from everyone.

(Socrates pet name for me is Italian Pyrite)

But Socrates, do you love me?

Celsus

March 8th 2003, 01:27 AM

Hello again Socrates,
03-08-2003 @ 09:36 AM
Socrates:
Refuted only in your dreams. Why should we take your word for it, esp. when you're ignorant of the concept of information?
Ok, how are new genetic sequences, with new functions (e.g. nylon oligomer-degradation as cited above), not new information? Your tactic of denial ("which does no such thing!") makes conversation if you do not actually show how it does not refute the evidence that information is increasing.
Who's denying gene duplication. I obviously meant that it was a canard that it would increase information, as I've pointed out many times.
So you didn't read the quotes. It is gene duplication (which increases the length of the sequence) and subsequent mutation (which creates unique sequences) to produce new functions--hence new information. Again I ask, could you please show how this is not new information? That first paper reinforces the paper below, which shows that natural selection has a tendency for retaining sequences that become functional (through mutations), giving rise to complexity.
Also, this question is fully in the realm of operational science in the present, while goo-to-you evolution is a belief about the past.
Cute little slogan you have there. However, when presented with scientific evidence you merely assert your denials again. Where is your argument?

Are you also asserting that animals with beneficial mutations still have the same chance of survival as animals with harmful mutations? Please answer the question: yes or no. It's quite simple.Please answer this question: When have I ever DENIED this? When has AiG ever denied this for that matter? But the beneficial mutations, e.g. fish in caves with shrivelled eyes, beetles on windswept islands lacking the power of flight, are still information LOSSES.
Ok very good. Basically, you accept natural selection (differential survival rates) as a working principle. The problem seems to be the idea of mutations right? Care to refute the paper--i.e. show evidence, any evidence, that information (and subsequently, complexity) is not increasing?

Or how about another excellent PNAS paper that I heartily recommend to those interested in this topic:
Adami, C., Ofria, C. and Collier, T.C., "Evolution of biological complexity", PNAS, Vol. 97, Issue 9, pp. 4463-4468, April 25, 2000.

From the main article:
On the one hand, genomic complexity can be defined in a consistent information-theoretic manner [the "physical" complexity], which appears to encompass intuitive notions of complexity used in the analysis of genomic structure and organization. On the other hand, it has been shown that evolution can be observed in an artificial medium, providing a unique glimpse at universal aspects of the evolutionary process in a computational world. In this system, the symbolic sequences subject to evolution are computer programs that have the ability to self-replicate via the execution of their own code.
So there we have an experimental set up, using computer models based on how the genome works. How about a definition of information:
Perhaps a key aspect of information theory is that information cannot exist in a vacuum; that is, information is physical. ... In biological systems the instantiation of information is DNA, but what is this information about? To some extent, it is the blueprint of an organism and thus information about its own structure. More specifically, it is a blueprint of how to build an organism that can best survive in its native environment, and pass on that information to its progeny.
And the conclusion:
That the mechanism of the Maxwell Demon lies at the heart of the complexity of living forms today is rendered even more plausible by the many circumstances that may cause it to fail. First, simple environments spawn only simple genomes. Second, changing environments can cause a drop in physical complexity, with a commensurate loss in (computational) function of the organism, as now meaningless genes are shed. Third, sexual reproduction can lead to an accumulation of deleterious mutations (strictly forbidden in asexual populations) that can also render the Demon powerless. All such exceptions are observed in nature. Notwithstanding these vagaries, we are able to observe the Demon's operation directly in the digital world, giving rise to complex genomes that, although poor compared with their biochemical brethren, still stupefy us with their intricacy and an uncanny amalgam of elegant solutions and clumsy remnants of historical contingency. It is in no small measure an awe before these complex programs, direct descendants of the simplest self-replicators we ourselves wrote, that leads us to assert that even in this view of life, spawned by and in our digital age, there is grandeur.
(my emphasis)

Further references:
Self-Organization of Template-Replicating Polymers and the Spontaneous Rise of Genetic Information (http://www.mdpi.org/entropy/papers/e3040273.pdf)
A sample experiment using ferromagnetic polymers that self-organize from random sequences, creating new information and complexity. It also has a good definition and treatment of thermodynamics.

A simplified look at the Maxwell Demon:
What is a Maxwellian Demon? (http://www.maxwellian.demon.co.uk/name.html)

Kyle

March 8th 2003, 06:38 PM

"How can you say that everything written in the bible is infallible?

Socrates basic response: Because in the bible it is written that Jesus said that everything that is written in the bible is infallible… You see you $@#%ing idiot!, because the bibles say it is infallible therefore it is!"

Berserk, it is clear that you are not giving Socrates due credit. He obviously did not use this pathetic argument. Rather, he was careful to point out that Jesus Christ rose from the dead, proving that He is who He claimed He was in the New Testament, thus whatever He said was true, and thus Genesis is perfectly accurate. Your real beef with Socrates must be on the resurrection if anything.

Personally, I think the issue of the resurrection is much more important anyways.

Berserker

March 9th 2003, 12:53 AM

And where does it say that... in the bible!, the very thing in which the credibitly of I have been questioning!!! :rofl:

I'm not saying every thing is wrong in there (that would be a fallacy) I'm saying that its questionable... so maybe what happened to jesus in there is not as accurate as one would believe.

I don’t have a problem with Socrates http://www.guru3d.com/forum/images/smilies/embarassedlaugh.gif If you notice in all his comments above he tends to refer to us in less then honorable ways... though my version is a exaggeration it should help in letting him see how bad his behavior is.

Kyle

March 9th 2003, 02:20 PM

Yes, Beserk, but that is another issue. If you want to argue that the Bible is an unreliable source that does not lead one to believe in the reality of the resurrection, so be it. But the Bible does not have to be innerrant in order to convey the essential truth about the resurrection. Socrates, it seems to me, is merely arguing that if we accept the premise that the resurrection is true, then we also arive at the conclusion that whatever Jesus said was true, including his support of the Old Testament.

It's not using innerancy to prove innerancy. It is using the truth of an historical proposition to conclude that the Bible IS innerant. (Besides, the Biblical text is not the only basis upon which those who believe the resurrection occured rely on.)

Also, I realize that you were just exxagerating with Socrates to prove a point. All I'm saying, though, is that it is unfair to claim that Socrates is arguing that the Bible is innerant because it says so.

Berserker

March 9th 2003, 02:30 PM

But why would the resurection being true mean that genesis is true... thats a slippery slope fallacy in reverse!

Kyle

March 9th 2003, 03:01 PM

Well, theoretically, Jesus Christ's resurrection would vindicate his claims to be the Son of God, thus we may be inclined to consider anything He says as the truth. So, if He supports the historical reliability of Genesis, then we are inclined to believe Him.

It doesn't really matter to me a whole lot anyways, because if the resurrection is true I don't really care a whole lot about whether or not Genesis should be interpreted literally or figuratively.

Berserker

March 9th 2003, 03:25 PM

So then its up to Socrates... huuum he sure hasn't been around lately.

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 03:22 AM

I can see why JPH respects Kyle as an honorable skeptical opponent by the way he correctly represented my argument. And I can see from the example of Beserker also how rare this is.

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 03:41 AM

I wrote:

So the Bible in Christian belief is a product of both God and humans, and therefore is inerrant. QED responded (although he couldn't give a monkey's about the Bible anyway:

Why? Because both God and humans are infallible?No, because the infallible God superintends the human authors so that they produce the propositions He wants them too, while keeping the author's distinctie styles and personalities intact.

Wait!....

(P.S. 2 Timothy 3:16 might hold the key to clarifying this. It speaks of inspiration, and lists what kinds of understanding the Bible is useful for.)The Greek is theopneustos which the NIV accurately translates as "God-breathed". And I've been through all this before.

(P.P.S. "As I've pointed out, I take the historical narrative parts (e.g. Genesis) as historical narrative, and the poetic parts (e.g. Psalms) as poetry." ... Have you ever considered the structure of Genesis 1? I'm told that in the Hebrew it has a poetic meter.)Yes, I have considered it very carefully, once again (yamn, stretch) as already pointed out. You have been told wrong, because Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism, as in the Psalms. Genesis has all the earmarks of Hebrew narrative, e.g. the frequent waw consecutives, the unique sequence of verb tenses, accusative particles and careful definitions of terms. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew grammar that would suggest that Genesis 1-11 is a different type of literature from Genesis 12-50 which is obviously historical.

(P.P.P.S. "Jesus took Genesis Creation and Flood as straightforward history, and used it to teach authoritatively." ...
Are you sure that your interpretation is correct about how Jesus understood Creation and the Flood? Could his allusions not have been of a literary nature? If I referred to events that happened in a work of fiction as though they were real events, would that mean that I believed that the works were actually non-fiction? For instance, if I said "Be careful not to be obsessive like Captain Ahab! You know what happened to him!", would that mean that I believed Ahab was a real person? Would this not apply even more powerfully to a text that Jesus knew to be a doctrinal and ethical missive that God had inspired human writers to pen?)Also explained this before, so stop wasting my time. Jesus said AS IT HAPPENED in the days of Noah, a clear affirmation that the Flood and Ark happened. He used Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as His basis for teaching about marriage (also showing that you can't artificially separate morality and history in Biblical Christianity). There is not the slightest hint that Jesus regarded any of the miraculous acts of the OT as fables, but every indication that they were real history.

Berserker

March 10th 2003, 11:30 AM

Even if the bible was written directly by god it has been rewritten, translated and revised over the several millennia by fallible, greedy humans.

What if Jesus did not say that? What if it’s just written he did for the purpose of controlling people?

I can see why JPH respects Kyle as an honorable skeptical opponent by the way he correctly represented my argument. And I can see from the example of Berserker also how rare this is.

I can see that I have clean your mouth with soap and you have learned well... a little to well, I can't even tell if you’re trying to insult me here? :huh:

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 11:48 AM

The Beserk One said something even more beserk than usual:
Even if the bible was written directly by god it has been rewritten, translated and revised over the several millennia by fallible, greedy humans.You're science is bad enough, but your village atheist ideas about the Bible are risible in the extreme! Fact is, you haven't the slightest evidence for such crap. Rather, the earliest manuscripts of the Bible show that they were in essentially the same form as they are today (OT in Hebrew, NT in Greek). New translations are based on the same manuscript evidence, and most of the changes are updating the English.
What if Jesus did not say that? What if its just written he did for the purpose of controlling people? Once more, the only reliable record of his teachings is the New Testament, and even the earliest manuscripts of these sections of the Gospels record Jesus as saying these things.

Berserker

March 10th 2003, 12:06 PM

Aaah that the Socrates I like hearing… Ok then so what if the earliest manuscripts are wrong? Once again your belief is based off the idea that god wrote it and not people, how can you know that people did not make the whole thing up, heck any one can right a religious book and claim god told him, they don’t even need to write it just claim it… jee that reminds me of something: what’s your view of Muslims?

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 12:06 PM

(Socrates pet name for me is Italian Pyrite)

But Socrates, do you love me?Of course. But see "Love" (agape) in the Bible (http://www.tektonics.org/whatlove.html). Another worthwhile article is Offensisensitivity: Is It "un-Christian" to Engage in Satire? (http://www.tektonics.org/madmad.html).

citizenkyle

March 10th 2003, 12:08 PM

03-10-2003 @ 12:22 AM
Socrates:

I can see why JPH respects Kyle as an honorable skeptical opponent by the way he correctly represented my argument. And I can see from the example of Beserker also how rare this is.

For the record, the Kyle involved in this thread is not the same Kyle whom JPH has designated as an honorable opponent, as that Kyle is me. However, this other Kyle may very well be an honorable opponent as well. And, even though this particular compliment wasn't actually directed at me, whenever we cross paths Soc, I shall endeavor to correctly represent your arguments, no matter how much I may disagree with them. :smile:

Socrates

March 10th 2003, 12:12 PM

The Beserk One:
Aaah that the Socrates I like hearing… Ok then so what if the earliest manuscripts are wrong?First, concede that your last post was fallacious, or are you just flailing around and hoping to hit something.
Once again your belief is based off the idea that god wrote it and not people,Actually both/and, as explained. And your belief is that God had nothing to do with it. how can you know that people did not make the whole thing up,So provide some criteria for judging reliability. The Gospel writers show every evidence of both honesty and competence.
heck any one can right a religious book and claim god told him, they don’t even need to write it just claim it…And anyone can make counterfeit money, but it doesn't prove that real money doesn't exist. jee that reminds me of something: what’s your view of Muslims?As I've pointed out before, Jesus rose from the dead, leaving the tomb empty, and appeared to 500 people at once. Muhammad's body stayed dead, as Muslims themselves affirm.

QED

March 10th 2003, 02:18 PM

03-10-2003 @ 07:41 AM
Socrates:

[quote]
Why? Because both God and humans are infallible?[/list]No, because the infallible God superintends the human authors so that they produce the propositions He wants them too, while keeping the author's distinctie styles and personalities intact.

Ok, so you believe that God corrected the human authors' imperfections while they were writing the propositions He wished to communicate. Does that mean He ensured that the propositions were correctly conveyed, or that there was no factual error that resulted from the authors' stylistic methods, or both?

The Greek is theopneustos which the NIV accurately translates as "God-breathed"

Two questions:
1) Why, in the list of the things for which scripture is profitable, does nothing appear which encompasses the idea of historical research?
2) Assuming that you believe that thepneustos does not mean that
the Bible flowed at some point from God's respiratory system, would you agree that the usage here is equivalent to the English "God-inspired"?

Yes, I have considered it very carefully, once again (yamn, stretch) as already pointed out. You have been told wrong, because Hebrew poetry is characterized by parallelism, as in the Psalms. Genesis has all the earmarks of Hebrew narrative, e.g. the frequent waw consecutives, the unique sequence of verb tenses, accusative particles and careful definitions of terms. There is absolutely nothing in the Hebrew grammar that would suggest that Genesis 1-11 is a different type of literature from Genesis 12-50 which is obviously historical.

Let me point out that "obviously" is a dangerous word. Let me point out that Genesis was composed many years before the Psalms were (how many more, depending on whether you embrace traditional accounts or scholarly accounts), and poetic styles may have changed somewhat in the interval. Let me point out that many consider Genesis to have been redacted after its original composition (possibly in such a way as to render what was originally poetry as a more narrative style account). Let me point out that there is repetition of the "morning and evening", and "it was good", at regular intervals, that the number of days in the creation week has symbolic importance, and that the root of the name "Eve" is "Earth", with possible symbolic significance there. Now you may dismiss the idea that Gen 1 was written as poetry of any sort, but surely, in light of the ambiguity of the evidence, consider it a possibility?

Also explained this before, so stop wasting my time. Jesus said AS IT HAPPENED in the days of Noah, a clear affirmation that the Flood and Ark happened. He used Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 as His basis for teaching about marriage (also showing that you can't artificially separate morality and history in Biblical Christianity). There is not the slightest hint that Jesus regarded any of the miraculous acts of the OT as fables, but every indication that they were real history.

There is every possibility that every one of these cases was Jesus referring to events from the common folklore as though they happened for illustrative purposes. People do it all the time. "This is just like what Big Brother was doing". (Notice I said he WAS DOING something, but that it is not a clear affirmation that Big Brother ever existed). Moreover, when the status of a literary passage is already well known to the audience, or when it does not matter whether the passage is historically accurate or not, it is not common practice to give any specific "indication" of their status when referring to them.
Therefore, we have no indications from Jesus whether he believed the Noachian flood to be historically factual (and if so, whether he considered it a world-wide flood or a geographically limited one).

I guess my whole purpose behind this is to ask the question: if it turns out that science is right, and Genesis is not a literally correct account of natural history, is there any damage done to the Christian faith? Does it damage the authority of the Bible? Does it damage the theological message of God's creation? I personally cannot see how it does. I can only see how it damages the position of stubborn, strict, literalism.

(also showing that you can't artificially separate morality and history in Biblical Christianity)

Perhaps you are trying to artificially conflate morality and history. The two are different subjects, you know. Jesus point about "one body" was obviously methaphorical. Is it so impossible to believe that one metaphor recalled another one?