A Reasonable Faith

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

From Meyer: "So what kind of information does DNA contain, Shannon information or specified information? Mere complexity or specified complexity? The answer is— both. First, DNA certainly does have a quantifiable amount of information-carrying capacity as measured by Shannon’s theory. Since DNA contains the assembly instructions for building proteins, the gene-expression system of the cell functions as a communication channel. Further, the nucleotide bases function as alphabetic characters within that system. This enables scientists to calculate the information-carrying capacity of DNA using Shannon’s equations . Since, at any given site along the DNA backbone, any one of four nucleotide bases may occur with equal ease, the probability of the occurrence of a specific nucleotide at that site equals 1/ 4. For the occurrence of two particular nucleotide bases, the odds are 1/ 4 × 1/ 4. For three , 1/ 4 × 1/ 4 × 1/ 4, or 1/ 64, or (1/ 4), 3 and so on. 31 The information -carrying capacity of a sequence of a specific length n can then be calculated using Shannon’s familiar expression (I =–log2p) once one computes a probability value (p) for the occurrence of a particular sequence n nucleotides long where p = (1/ 4) n. The p value thus yields a corresponding measure of information-carrying capacity or syntactic information for a sequence of n nucleotide bases. Just as mathematicians and engineers can apply Shannon’s theory to analyze a written text, a cryptographic transmission, or a section of software, mathematical biologists can apply the theory to analyze the information-carrying capacity of a DNA, RNA, or protein molecule."

All that is is a description of how to measure the information capacity of DNA (or any other 4 character based system). But that's not the question at hand, is it? I'm not asking "What is the informational capacity of a genome"; I'm asking "What is genetic information and how are you measuring it". Those are very different questions.

From Meyer: "As I write this sentence, the placement of each additional letter eliminates twenty-five other possible letters and a corresponding amount of uncertainty. It, therefore, increases the information of the sentence by a quantifiable amount as measured by Shannon’s theory . Similarly, at each site along the DNA molecule any one of the four bases is possible. Thus, the placement or presence of any one of the bases eliminates uncertainty and conveys a quantifiable amount of information according to Shannon’s theory."

Now, this would seem to say that "genetic information" = nucleotides, and the addition of any nucleotides to a sequences is "new genetic information". But if that's the case, then all his subsequent arguments about evolution not being able to increase the amount of genetic information are trivially easy to disprove. We see mutations adding nucleotides to sequences every single day. You, I, and everyone here was born with 100-200 mutations that weren't present in our parents. So you and Meyer are left with a choice....stick with this and admit the core creationist arguments are wrong, or move the goalposts. Let's see what Meyer does....

Meyer: "The sequences of nucleotide bases in DNA and the sequences of amino acids in proteins are highly improbable and, therefore, have large information-carrying capacities. Knowing this, some scientists have mistakenly described DNA and proteins as if they contained only Shannon information or possessed mere information-carrying capacity."

Ah, now it's something different! That's a good thing (for him) because as we've seen, relying merely on Shannon Theory means a first year undergrad can easily disprove his arguments. So what is the actual definition of "genetic information" and a method for measuring it? Um.......dunno. :wacko:

The best we have is from pg. 86 where he quotes the following, "an arrangement or string of characters, specifically one that accomplishes a particular outcome or performs a communication function". So is that the definition? That definition isn't tied to probabilities or just any string of letters, but instead relies on function. If so, once again any first year undergrad should be able to shoot this down, as we routinely see evolutionary mechanisms produce new genetic sequences that result in different functions. Also, that brings up "the onion test" question. Basically, the domestic onion's genome is about five times larger than the human genome. Does that mean onions have five times more information than humans? Hmmmm......

So again the question remains....what exactly is the creationist definition of "genetic information" and how are they measuring it? Specifically, if I have two genomes, A and B, how do I tell which genome has more "genetic information"?

He has about 20 more pages in the book that goes into further detail, and goes on to explain why people like you are highly mistaken in writing of DNA as mere high capacity.

Huh? Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about here.

In any event, his dealing with the issue is incredibly thorough and walks through how information is understood compared to how DNA operates step by step throughout almost an entire chapter of a nearly 500 page book.

Yet despite all that effort, people like you still can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

I just cannot get you River. As a Christian, I would think you would be less quick to attack, discredit and accuse people....especially when they are highlighting the incredible work of God as displayed through the exquisite complexity of living things. It just comes across as bitter. The guy has a PhD in philosophy of science from Cambridge and is a former geophysicist and college professor. Maybe you can pretend the guy might know a thing or two before asserting yourself as more knowledgeable on the subject than he is. Or all his claims are entirely baseless.

I think this is the core of the problem here. You're basically saying "He's a Christian, so you should just trust him". I think it was Christian Juggernaut who expressed the same thing to me earlier...he sees creationists as fellow Christians and scientists as not Christians, so when he encounters technical material that is beyond his understanding, he just naturally sides with the creationist. And here you are basically chastising me for not doing the same thing.

The problem is, I do understand all this stuff. I do have the ability to read Meyer's arguments and immediately spot the flaws and holes. So no, I'm not going to base my conclusions on a tribal framework as you suggest. I'm going to look at the arguments and compare them to the data, which is exactly what you're supposed to do in science.

Clearly information is quantifiable and it is quantifiable in DNA.

Ok then, we have genome A and genome B. How do we tell which has more "genetic information"? At this point, it really is that simple.

This is nothing more than a means of obfuscating the discussion. "Well he cant define information or complexity, therefore he's making things up." Actually he spends about 100 pages defining both but it doesn't fit your cookie cutter argument that you learned to dismiss all intelligent design claims with a magic wave of your "define information" response.

To be honest with you, that's just bizarre. The only thing I can figure is that you just aren't familiar with how things work in science and that refusing to define terms that are central to your arguments is pretty devastating. Instead, you really do seem to be exactly the sort of person Meyer wrote his book for....a conservative Christian with little science background, who will give him the benefit of the doubt simply because he's one of you. As long as his message is "Our interpretation of the Bible is right and those scientists are all wrong", you'll just eat it up unquestioningly.

You are just like the creationists you despise that do no real research but are quick to take some argument you heard from a book, article or website and forever dismiss any and all arguments that you feel are captured in that same topic.

???????? I told you I read his book and I compared it to the data in the literature and the data I'm personally familiar with. Was I not supposed to do that? Are you once again saying I should have just accepted everything he wrote because he's a Christian?

I didn't notice you posting any scientific questions

*sigh*

I have two genomes...A and B. How do we tell which one has more "genetic information"?

If you can't answer that, but still maintain the same arguments, then there's something else going on here that has absolutely nothing to do with science, and we probably should stop pretending it does.

 

[Wormwood]

All that is is a description of how to measure the information capacity of DNA (or any other 4 character based system). But that's not the question at hand, is it? I'm not asking "What is the informational capacity of a genome"; I'm asking "What is genetic information and how are you measuring it". Those are very different questions.

No, that is not what he is saying. He is saying that there are two TYPES of information: Shannon information that quantifies the range of information of the DNA and specified information. The first paragraph is a portion of what he says about the first category of information. Shannon information IS information that has an output that gives it a certain range of possibilities. We aren't talking about a hard-drive here that merely has capacity. We are talking about an information system that has range.

Huh? Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about here.

You said there is a lot of information in a rock slide. DNA has a lot more than just a lot random information. It has incredible specified information functions that classifies it by information theorists to be "complex."

Yet despite all that effort, people like you still can't say what "genetic information" is or how to measure it.

Actually I can. My bigger concern is why you keep asking this question. How do you measure "computer information"? What is "computer information?" Binary code? Maybe its just a "rock slide" of 0s and 1s? Again, you are intentionally clouding the issue and you know better. I'm not going to walk through the progression of all the material on how Shannon information and specified information is processed in the DNA to produce very unique results with complex coding, of which could not be processed randomly. You can claim that phone numbers are nothing but information capacity...10 numbers with no pattern. But if you have to contact only one specific person, you need specified information and not a random number. You can dial numbers all day and not reach the person you want to reach. So how would I define to you "phone number information?" A series of number in such an order that it produces a very specific result. That is DNA information. It doesn't just churn out random sequences of nucleotide bases. The "complexity" of those sequences to produce very specific results that could not be formed through any other sequence is known as "specified information."

So why are you asking this question to so many people on this board? Because you think they cannot answer it and you enjoy making them look foolish and can make them feel like their claims of "complexity" are false? Or is it because you don't understand these systems yourself? Asking this question is like asking someone measure the information of binary code. Its not a one-liner answer, but it is obviously very complex and specified, and I think you know it.

I think this is the core of the problem here. You're basically saying "He's a Christian, so you should just trust him."

Not at all what I am saying. I am saying, "You are a Christian, stop accusing people of being liars and misrepresenting their position." The guy has a PhD on the issue, so perhaps you could hear him out before dismissing him or attacking his claims or character.

The problem is, I do understand all this stuff. I do have the ability to read Meyer's arguments and immediately spot the flaws and holes. So no, I'm not going to base my conclusions on a tribal framework as you suggest. I'm going to look at the arguments and compare them to the data, which is exactly what you're supposed to do in science.

So far you have shown zero knowledge of his views or explanations on this topic.

Ok then, we have genome A and genome B. How do we tell which has more "genetic information"? At this point, it really is that simple.

That's like saying I have a 1 and a 0, which binary number contains more information. DNA is like a computer keyboard. Someone may look at it and say, "Its just a bunch of letters." However, those letters are organized in a particular pattern that unzips and is read to produce very specific codes to produce particular molecules. Not only that you have codes that guide the reading of codes and it is all self contained and self-regulated. One key on a piano does not hold more music than another key. In DNA, not only do we have the keys, but we have a system that causes the piano to self-play beautiful harmonies of very specific music. I guess the amount of "genetic information" depends on the piece of music that is being played. That's where the analysis of amino acids and proteins come into play to determine the "chance" of such molecules being self-constructed by the "random" stroking of keys.

As long as his message is "Our interpretation of the Bible is right and those scientists are all wrong", you'll just eat it up unquestioningly.

Another assumption and accusation. This book has NOTHING to do with the Bible or undermining scientists. You have NO idea what you are talking about.

???????? I told you I read his book and I compared it to the data in the literature and the data I'm personally familiar with. Was I not supposed to do that? Are you once again saying I should have just accepted everything he wrote because he's a Christian?

What? I haven't even seen you say one thing that remotely sounds like any argument he makes in his entire book. Moreover, I haven't seen you compare anything with anything. The only thing you have done is your usual, "define information" routine with me. If you have read the book, you should know he spends about 100 pages doing that very thing. So, please give me a detailed argument of where he is wrong and how you would refute his explanations with your own.

then there's something else going on here that has absolutely nothing to do with science, and we probably should stop pretending it does.

I have no doubt there is.

 

[River Jordan]

So how would I define to you "phone number information?" A series of number in such an order that it produces a very specific result. That is DNA information. It doesn't just churn out random sequences of nucleotide bases. The "complexity" of those sequences to produce very specific results that could not be formed through any other sequence is known as "specified information."

Awesome. We can definitely work with that. So just to be clear, you're saying nucleotide sequences that are functional are "complex, specified DNA information", correct?

 

[Wormwood]

Yes. The information creates (among other things) complex, three-dimensional proteins and other molecules that uniquely fit other complex molecule forms to cause specific reactions or build specific structures in the cell.

 

[River Jordan]

Great. So now that we agree that "complex, specified genetic information" is functional nucleotide sequences, we can examine some common creationist claims.

CLAIM: Evolution cannot add or increase the amount of genetic information.

Convergent Evolution of Hyperswarming Leads to Impaired Biofilm Formation in Pathogenic Bacteria

In this example, point mutations led to the evolution of "hyperswimmers" in multiple populations.

Multiple Duplications of Yeast Hexose Transport Genes in Response to Selection in a Glucose-Limited Environment

In this example, yeast were put into a nutrient-poor environment and evolved novel genetic sequences that increased their metabolic efficiency, which allowed them to survive in the nutrient-poor environment.

I could go on and post many more examples, but the fact has been established. This creationist talking point is demonstrably false.

 

[justaname]

I am sorry, but how do these examples refute the argument of information and the necessity of a person as the source of information?

Also how do these examples explain how we chemically achieve proteins?

And finally how are we certain these particular "evolving" processes didn't already exist consistent with the current DNA structure simply in a dormant state thereby not adding any new genetic information?

 

[River Jordan]

I am sorry, but how do these examples refute the argument of information and the necessity of a person as the source of information?

Because in each example, the new genetic information arose by natural means.

Also how do these examples explain how we chemically achieve proteins?

No one has said anything about proteins. Wormwood and I are discussing genetic information/sequences.

And finally how are we certain these particular "evolving" processes didn't already exist consistent with the current DNA structure simply in a dormant state thereby not adding any new genetic information?

The researchers sequenced the relevant portions of the genomes of both the parental strains and the evolved strains, which allowed them to identify the new sequences that had appeared in the evolved strain. I (and lots of undergraduate biology students) have done similar basic experiments where you take a single-clone strain (all the individuals are descendants of a single individual), culture them, and put them in a new environment. Then once you see them evolve to better fit the new environment, you compare the genomes of the parents to that of the evolved strain, and you identify the newly evolved sequences that produced the new trait.

That's why this whole "no new genetic information" creationist argument is so ridiculous. Undergrads across the world disprove it all the time!

 

[justaname]

Please excuse my ignorance but it seems to me the adaptation process are preexistant within the DNA of these organisms, hence the ability for repeatability. Again, maybe due to my ignorance, but the information seems to be coded or programmed if you will in the DNA prior to adaptation.

 

[River Jordan]

Again, we know for a fact that the sequences that produced the new traits were not in the original population, but were in the evolved population,and only came about after the organisms experienced new selective pressures. That's the textbook definition of evolution, and specific to the question at hand, the evolution of new, complex, specified information.

If you believe those sequences were preexisting, then please explain where they were before and how you know it.

 

[Wormwood]

River,

I would say, this is probably more an issue of terminology than improper science. For instance, it takes protein structures to make a cell functional, yet only cells create protein structures. So, the idea that life came about through "natural" causes is quite problematic and the creationist would likely couch the argument in "too complex." In terms of genes and transitions from one organism to another is a completely different and complex discussion. While it may be true that the base elements of nucleotides are the same in the cells of simpler organisms, its still not just a matter of throwing in a few more sequences and thus the complexity is really no different. We are talking about the formation of entirely different cells with completely new functions that must be organized in a specific way in order for the organ to function properly..and if not, the entire organism dies. For instance, my friend who is just shy of a PhD in this area talks about his amazement of blood-clotting functions and how amazing and perfect the system works...in ways we still cant really grasp. While its true that these are just cells that are in many ways similar to the cells of a slug operating off of the dna programming. Yet, what the programming accomplishes is what is "complex" and therefore its not ridiculous to see it as difficult to imagine it just came about naturally through a scrambling of DNA nucleotide sequencing. There is just no good way to explain how blood-clotting could have evolved. A change in environment over billions of years just doenst seem to cut the mustard...at least not in his opinion. The functions are too specific and they are all interconnected or the entire system fails. Again, complexity is not bad terminology here.

Yes, life has the amazing capability of adapting and preserving itself. Cells can change and incorporate other DNA, or certain cells become more prolific because they are more suited to thrive in a particular environment. But the reality is that these amazing systems to adapt, or incorporate information from other existing DNA strands, already exist in the programming and function of cells. Bacteria is already wired to change and survive in remarkable ways. I dont think anyone denies this (at least none that are have some knowledge in this area). Yet, I still think its quite a stretch to see such examples and say they are clear expressions of how something with no eyes developed eyeballs, or something that had organs to dwell underwater developed organs to live on land. Creationists usually claim macro vs. micro here...and I know the evolutionist screams "Its the same process!" Still its more complex than boiling it down to nucleotide sequences because then it gets into the discussion of how new organs formed and these incredible leaps in the overall complexity of an organism as a whole. Im not going to get into that discussion at this point because its not the purpose or original point of this thread.

This is not a thread about evolution. Its a thread about how reasonable it is to see a Creator behind DNA. Meyer is not an anti-evolutionist. Personally, I don't know what he believes about evolution, as he doesn't really seem interested in such discussions, but it seems he alludes to the fact that he embraces evolution..at least to some extent. His focus is on seeing the complexity of life and arguing that, scientifically, it is most reasonable to point to intelligence as the cause of life. If you walk to your home and see a window busted out, a crowbar lying on the pavement and all your money is gone from your bedroom...the most reasonable thought is that an intelligent agent did it. You don't say, "Well, to be a good scientist, I must find a natural explanation as to how all these things could have occurred without the help of an intelligent agent." I'm sure, if you tried hard enough, you could explain it all naturally, but the odds would be so outrageous that it would make no sense to do so. That is Meyer's point. Why are we excluding intelligence for the cause of life when the odds are so staggering to the contrary? Why have we said that any explanation that is "natural" is acceptable, no matter how staggering the odds and that all views of intelligence are suddenly viewed as non-science when science was never understood this way in the past and still isn't in most fields?

 

[justaname]

Again, we know for a fact that the sequences that produced the new traits were not in the original population, but were in the evolved population,and only came about after the organisms experienced new selective pressures. That's the textbook definition of evolution, and specific to the question at hand, the evolution of new, complex, specified information.

If you believe those sequences were preexisting, then please explain where they were before and how you know it.

The information is coded into the DNA. I deduce this because the test repeatable. It is a logical conclusion.

Also I have noticed these tests or observations if you will admit there is information organisms. All you have done is attempt to change the subject. First WW had to jump through flaming hoops to get you to admit the information, then you post something off topic...

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

To be honest with you, your last response is exactly why I need to start following the advice of the paper I posted about in the General Forum. The authors found that with some conservative Christians, the more science they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. Not only that, but some of my colleagues who know that I engage in conversations like this one are constantly asking me "Why are you trying to explain science to people who have a specific agenda against it?" At this point, I'm wondering that myself.

I mean, look at this discussion (and the ones like it that we've had). We spend hours and days going round and round about "genetic information", until finally.....finally, you provide a definition for it that is usable. So I come back with science that definitively falsifies a common creationist argument about "genetic information". How do you respond? "Meh....that doesn't matter anyways". You know what that says to me? It is a complete and total waste of time to present and explain science to you.

If you had just been honest with me (and yourself) from the start and made it clear that data and science are irrelevant to you, you could have saved us both a lot of time and we could have had a much better discussion.

The information is coded into the DNA.

Where?

I deduce this because the test repeatable. It is a logical conclusion.

Not if you can't identify where this information was before.

Also I have noticed these tests or observations if you will admit there is information organisms. All you have done is attempt to change the subject. First WW had to jump through flaming hoops to get you to admit the information, then you post something off topic...

????????????????? WW posted something about "genetic information". So I get WW to define the term, and then based on that definition, present the data showing the creationist argument about it is wrong. If that's off topic, then......well, I don't know....this is just bizarre. :blink:

 

[justaname]

Wormwood,

To be honest with you, your last response is exactly why I need to start following the advice of the paper I posted about in the General Forum. The authors found that with some conservative Christians, the more science they're exposed to, the more they distrust it. Not only that, but some of my colleagues who know that I engage in conversations like this one are constantly asking me "Why are you trying to explain science to people who have a specific agenda against it?" At this point, I'm wondering that myself.

I mean, look at this discussion (and the ones like it that we've had). We spend hours and days going round and round about "genetic information", until finally.....finally, you provide a definition for it that is usable. So I come back with science that definitively falsifies a common creationist argument about "genetic information". How do you respond? "Meh....that doesn't matter anyways". You know what that says to me? It is a complete and total waste of time to present and explain science to you.

If you had just been honest with me (and yourself) from the start and made it clear that data and science are irrelevant to you, you could have saved us both a lot of time and we could have had a much better discussion.


Where?


Not if you can't identify where this information was before.


????????????????? WW posted something about "genetic information". So I get WW to define the term, and then based on that definition, present the data showing the creationist argument about it is wrong. If that's off topic, then......well, I don't know....this is just bizarre. :blink:

You ask where? Is that not the task of scientists to determine? Are you suggesting the information appared ex-nahilo?
Simply because science does not have the ability to measure or locate the existence of information does not negate its existence. Can we measure human consciencness or determine where it is located? We still have come to the logical conclusion that it does exist.

You decidedly chose a different creationist argument to attempt to prove wrong, which you did not.

You are going to great lengths to play language games...it was a great task just to get you to admit there was "genetic information" to begin with...

Perhaps it is simply the format that proves to difficult for us to navigate, or perhaps it is again the definition of terms that is elusive.

From the field of quantum physics we know things are not so black and white in science, yet simply because classifications are labeled to events some people want some unseen laws to be followed through discussions.

What you may consider evolution and proof of such, I might view as adaptation and proof of such.
Interesting and relevant is the topic of black or dark matter. It is currently unmeasurable and unlocatable, yet scientists have deduced it does exist due to working models of existence. Would you suggest that is not a logical conclusion also?

 

[Wormwood]

"Why are you trying to explain science to people who have a specific agenda against it?" At this point, I'm wondering that myself.

I don't know how you can say I have an agenda against science given our discussions and my original post in this forum. To disagree with your conclusions is not to disagree with science.

We spend hours and days going round and round about "genetic information", until finally.....finally, you provide a definition for it that is usable. So I come back with science that definitively falsifies a common creationist argument about "genetic information". How do you respond? "Meh....that doesn't matter anyways". You know what that says to me? It is a complete and total waste of time to present and explain science to you.

This is a head scratcher. First, my point was that this discussion is not about evolution, and that is the road you are trying to go down. Second, I said that many Christians may not use proper terminology, but the ideas aren't necessarily wrong. I mean, it seems to me that you are arguing that music is nothing more than the keys on a piano. Chopsticks and Beethoven are both played with the same keys and so arguing that one is more "complex" than another is scientifically wrong. I think you are incorrect. Just because they use the same black and white keys does not mean the information they are producing of those same notes all amounts to the same complexity. No, the complexity of the blood clotting functions of blood cells goes far beyond mere nucleotide base codes. There are exact codes that produce exact complex micromolecules that develop particular cells that accomplish specific functions at very specific times and in very specific ways. If they don't, the entire system fails and the organism dies. Point being, just because the base "information" comes from DNA codes spun from the same bases does not mean all the information is essentially the same in complexity. I think the Christian in these cases is simply indicating that although they may not understand how DNA code functions and it all comes from the same nucleotide bases, the PRODUCT of those codes macromolecules, cells, systems and ultimately functions in the organism that are incredibly specific, complex and do not seem to be the product of a bottom-up type of adaptation or evolutionary paradigm.

Now you can disagree with that claim by those Christians all you want. The point is, they aren't discrediting science. No one is saying that DNA is not a code of nucleotide bases. And everyone agrees that those bases contain very very complex codes that must be exact to produce particular types of molecules for specific functions. This IS specified complexity and though it occurs in all diverse forms of life, its not as easy as randomly scrambling up a few nucleotide bases and POW, a monkey turned into a water buffalo. The fact that you keep trying to undermine comments about complexity as if they display a lack of knowledge of life systems tells me that you are either being purposefully antagonistic when you know better and you think no one will know enough to call you on it (like comparing Bush with Hitler in a previous discussion we had) or you don't know as much about these issues as your propose. Either way, it seems to me that you haven't been explaining much of anything in this conversation...except that you believe Christians are anti-science and implying that Meyer is a lying creationist (which shows you don't know anything about his writings).

 

[StanJ]

Faith is simple when you cognitively decide that God KNOWS ALL. What is hard is to explain that to someone who has no idea or inkling what faith in God really means. I don't call it BLIND FAITH...that was a 60's rock group headed by Eric Clapton! Real faith in God is eyes wide open.

 

[River Jordan]

You ask where? Is that not the task of scientists to determine?

No that's not how science works. You don't get to just make something up and then demand scientists go find it.

Are you suggesting the information appared ex-nahilo?

It came about via mutations. It happens every single second of every single day. You, I, and everyone else here were both born with 100-200 mutations that neither of our parents had.

Simply because science does not have the ability to measure or locate the existence of information does not negate its existence. Can we measure human consciencness or determine where it is located? We still have come to the logical conclusion that it does exist.

??????????????? WW and I just agreed on the definition for "complex, specified genetic information". Based on that definition, it's extremely easy to locate its existence as well as identify where it comes from.

You decidedly chose a different creationist argument to attempt to prove wrong, which you did not.

You are going to great lengths to play language games...it was a great task just to get you to admit there was "genetic information" to begin with...

Perhaps it is simply the format that proves to difficult for us to navigate, or perhaps it is again the definition of terms that is elusive.

No, it's pretty much what was described in the paper I cited in the General Forum. It's pointless (and maybe even counter-productive) to try and educate some people about science.

What you may consider evolution and proof of such, I might view as adaptation and proof of such.

What's the difference between the two?

I don't know how you can say I have an agenda against science given our discussions and my original post in this forum.

It's pretty simple really....you are well-versed in creationist talking points, but almost completely ignorant of the science that proves them wrong.

To disagree with your conclusions is not to disagree with science.

If you think what I've posted here are merely my personal conclusions, and not the consensus among the scientific community, then all you're doing is proving my point above.

First, my point was that this discussion is not about evolution, and that is the road you are trying to go down.

????????? Your OP quoted from "Signature in the Cell", a decidedly anti-evolution book. :wacko:

I said that many Christians may not use proper terminology, but the ideas aren't necessarily wrong. I mean, it seems to me that you are arguing that music is nothing more than the keys on a piano. Chopsticks and Beethoven are both played with the same keys and so arguing that one is more "complex" than another is scientifically wrong. I think you are incorrect. Just because they use the same black and white keys does not mean the information they are producing of those same notes all amounts to the same complexity. No, the complexity of the blood clotting functions of blood cells goes far beyond mere nucleotide base codes. There are exact codes that produce exact complex micromolecules that develop particular cells that accomplish specific functions at very specific times and in very specific ways. If they don't, the entire system fails and the organism dies. Point being, just because the base "information" comes from DNA codes spun from the same bases does not mean all the information is essentially the same in complexity. I think the Christian in these cases is simply indicating that although they may not understand how DNA code functions and it all comes from the same nucleotide bases, the PRODUCT of those codes macromolecules, cells, systems and ultimately functions in the organism that are incredibly specific, complex and do not seem to be the product of a bottom-up type of adaptation or evolutionary paradigm.

Yep, I wondered how you'd backpeddle, and now I know. This is what's so disheartening about what creationism forces people like you to do. Rather than just admit "Ok, according to what I agreed to, it is quite obvious that this creationist argument is wrong", you have to do the above. Why? Is it really that difficult for you to admit that one of the arguments you've been parroting is wrong?

Now you can disagree with that claim by those Christians all you want. The point is, they aren't discrediting science. No one is saying that DNA is not a code of nucleotide bases. And everyone agrees that those bases contain very very complex codes that must be exact to produce particular types of molecules for specific functions. This IS specified complexity and though it occurs in all diverse forms of life, its not as easy as randomly scrambling up a few nucleotide bases and POW, a monkey turned into a water buffalo.

Oh wow.....that's so unbelievably sad and disappointing to read from you. If this is the sort of appeals to "design" Christians like you are making, it's no wonder young people are flooding the exits.

The fact that you keep trying to undermine comments about complexity as if they display a lack of knowledge of life systems tells me that you are either being purposefully antagonistic when you know better and you think no one will know enough to call you on it (like comparing Bush with Hitler in a previous discussion we had) or you don't know as much about these issues as your propose. Either way, it seems to me that you haven't been explaining much of anything in this conversation...except that you believe Christians are anti-science and implying that Meyer is a lying creationist (which shows you don't know anything about his writings).

Wow....so sad. I can't believe you really think of me this way.

 

[justaname]

RJ...

Points in order.

I am not claiming to be a scientist, but yes this is how science works. Observations are made, theories are postulated, then the evidence is sought out. I thought as a self proclaimed scientist you knew this. Perhaps after I complete my current studies I will pursue and complete this task you presented me with and gather my Nobel Prize. Of course I will credit you for the reason for the endeavor. You know really all I am wafering on is the color of lab coat I should get. I think white just screams Mad Scientist too much for me, what do you think?

So then are you stating mutation itself is the source and location of information and its action? Can you prove this?

I do not agree. Again it is possible the information is coded into the DNA prior to mutation. It is a matter of perception.

You are postulating a theory here...without proper evidence.

Perception and worldview.

And just a side note about a response to WW...
Here you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of in a different thread with the term "evolutionists" with your term "scientific community". You might as well have said "Lakers Fans". Unless of course you believe yourself to be the scientific community.

If you think what I've posted here are merely my personal conclusions, and not the consensus among the scientific community, then all you're doing is proving my point above.

 

[Wormwood]

If you think what I've posted here are merely my personal conclusions, and not the consensus among the scientific community, then all you're doing is proving my point above.

The consensus among the scientific community is that life arose naturally and was not created. Is that your position as well? As my article points out, this view is not based on any actual provable scientific methods. There are no viable models for spontaneous generation. Period.

Oh wow.....that's so unbelievably sad and disappointing to read from you. If this is the sort of appeals to "design" Christians like you are making, it's no wonder young people are flooding the exits.

Okay, well show me the model for the evolutionary development of blood clotting if I am wrong here. (although Im sure I'll just get another "God of the gaps" line. Sigh)

Wow....so sad. I can't believe you really think of me this way.

I don't know what to think about you, River. I have never seen you encourage another Christian in their faith on this site. I have only seen you write comments that are demeaning and try to make others look and feel foolish. Finally, in the midst of all your comments about the wealth of science behind your views that are so obvious, I have never seen you give a straight-forward explanation in an effort to gently explain why you feel someone is wrong. Rather, you imply they are stupid and are its no wonder scientists scoff at Christians. Not helpful. You see, I believe that people who really know what they are talking about are able to explain it simply to people who are not as well versed in the area so that they can understand. The only thing I see from you is a lot of self-promoting and copy and pasted links that are supposed to end all discussion. To me this says you don't know as much on these issues as you lead people to believe.

 

[justaname]

I would have to agree with WW on his last comment...perhaps you should consider this RJ as you are recalculating your approach as you say you are in the thread in the General Forum.

 

[River Jordan]

I am not claiming to be a scientist, but yes this is how science works. Observations are made, theories are postulated, then the evidence is sought out. I thought as a self proclaimed scientist you knew this.

That's not what you're describing though. You're describing: 1) Read (and misunderstand) an abstract of someone else's work, 2) make something up to explain their results, and 3) demand they investigate it.

So then are you stating mutation itself is the source and location of information and its action? Can you prove this?

In the cases I posted, absolutely. Remember, WW and I had agreed that functional nucleotide sequences = complex, specified genetic information. I've posted examples of new functional nucleotide sequences evolving via mutation and selection. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that evolution can indeed produce new complex, specified genetic information, contrary to what creationists have claimed.

Now obviously this conclusion is unacceptable to some people, which explains all the bizarre responses in this thread.

I do not agree. Again it is possible the information is coded into the DNA prior to mutation. It is a matter of perception.

Again, you're just imagining/inventing something so you don't have to acknowledge the reality that these studies demonstrate. And that's exactly what the paper I posted in the GF talks about. I see these studies and results and take them for what they are. People of a more fundamentalist type glance at them, reject the conclusions, and invent imaginary explanations. IOW, this is about psychology and theology, not science.

You are postulating a theory here...without proper evidence.

No, I posted the paper that provides the evidence. Just because some people can't be bothered to look at it, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Perception and worldview.

Actually, I agree. The reason you wave these studies away as "adaptation" rather than evolution has nothing to do with the actual science. Rather, your reaction stems directly from your worldview.

Here you are doing the same thing that you accuse me of in a different thread with the term "evolutionists" with your term "scientific community". You might as well have said "Lakers Fans". Unless of course you believe yourself to be the scientific community.

I'm sorry, that doesn't make sense.

And btw, can you please figure out the quote-reply functions? It's really difficult to post back to you the way you're doing it now.

The consensus among the scientific community is that life arose naturally and was not created. Is that your position as well?

You're getting more and more bizarre with each post. Where did you see me say anything about life not being created? :wacko:

As my article points out, this view is not based on any actual provable scientific methods. There are no viable models for spontaneous generation. Period.

Why do you care? It's quite obvious that even if there were, you would reject them out of hand.

Okay, well show me the model for the evolutionary development of blood clotting if I am wrong here.

Why? I have two papers on the evolution of different blood clotting cascades (there are different types) and one blog entry from a scientist that directly refutes the arguments about it made by ID creationists. But let's recap for a second...

You and I both agreed that functional nucleotide sequences = complex, specified genetic information.

I posted examples of the observed evolution of new functional nucleotide sequences and observed that the studies negate the creationist argument about evolution not being capable of generating new complex, specified genetic information.

But rather than recognize the reality of those studies, or even address them at all, you claimed it was "more an issue of terminology than improper science", even though we'd just finished agreeing on terminology.

And now here you are, asking me to post more science to you? Again, why? You've just very clearly shown that you are exactly the sort of person the science/Biblical literalist paper was talking about, so why in the world do you think I should do this again? Ask yourself....are you asking for this information because you are truly interested in it? Or are you repeating yet another creationist argument that you've been assured will stump me? Your answer will tell me a lot about how honest you're being with both me and yourself.

I don't know what to think about you, River. I have never seen you encourage another Christian in their faith on this site. I have only seen you write comments that are demeaning and try to make others look and feel foolish. Finally, in the midst of all your comments about the wealth of science behind your views that are so obvious, I have never seen you give a straight-forward explanation in an effort to gently explain why you feel someone is wrong. Rather, you imply they are stupid and are its no wonder scientists scoff at Christians. Not helpful. You see, I believe that people who really know what they are talking about are able to explain it simply to people who are not as well versed in the area so that they can understand. The only thing I see from you is a lot of self-promoting and copy and pasted links that are supposed to end all discussion. To me this says you don't know as much on these issues as you lead people to believe.

Ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance cannot.