A Reasonable Faith

[justaname]

R.J.

Your quote...
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.

Within this you have done nothing in regards to complete the task you are requiring of me in my interpretation, unless you are stating that evolution is the source and location of information and its action. Evolution in and of itself does nothing to "produce" anything contrary to what you have claimed.

 

[River Jordan]

Within this you have done nothing in regards to complete the task you are requiring of me in my interpretation,

What exactly do you think I'm requiring you to do?

unless you are stating that evolution is the source and location of information and its action. Evolution in and of itself does nothing to "produce" anything contrary to what you have claimed.

See, here's the difference between us. I posted scientific examples of the direct observation of mutation and selection (evolution) producing new functional genetic sequences that resulted in new traits, which WW had previously agreed constituted "complex, specified genetic information". IOW, I have demonstrated my point.

OTOH, you have done nothing but say "you're wrong" in response.

That's the difference. Apparently you think so highly of yourself, that nothing more than your say-so is sufficient to establish reality, whereas I feel demonstrating a point is much more compelling.

 

[justaname]

What exactly do you think I'm requiring you to do?


See, here's the difference between us. I posted scientific examples of the direct observation of mutation and selection (evolution) producing new functional genetic sequences that resulted in new traits, which WW had previously agreed constituted "complex, specified genetic information". IOW, I have demonstrated my point.

OTOH, you have done nothing but say "you're wrong" in response.

That's the difference. Apparently you think so highly of yourself, that nothing more than your say-so is sufficient to establish reality, whereas I feel demonstrating a point is much more compelling.

Please demonstrate to me how evolution "produces" anything. Have yet to do this, both in this dialogue and the experiments you posted about.

Your task you presented me with is showing where exactly in the DNA code information is stored...basically unfold all of the mysteries of the DNA strand.

 

[River Jordan]

Please demonstrate to me how evolution "produces" anything.

I already did. I posted two papers describing studies demonstrating that mutation and selection produced new genetic sequences that weren't present in the original population.

Your task you presented me with is showing where exactly in the DNA code information is stored...basically unfold all of the mysteries of the DNA strand.

You've completely lost track of this conversation.

After I posted the above papers, you tried to argue that the information was already coded in the genome of....well, you never said. So I asked you where this information was, and you said it was up to the researches to figure that out. Naturally I pointed out that it's not the responsibility of the researchers to chase down your made-up scenarios.

If you cannot or will not do anything to substantiate your imaginary speculation, then it remains just that....an imaginary speculation, and there's nothing more to discuss about it.

 

[justaname]

I already did. I posted two papers describing studies demonstrating that mutation and selection produced new genetic sequences that weren't present in the original population.


You've completely lost track of this conversation.

After I posted the above papers, you tried to argue that the information was already coded in the genome of....well, you never said. So I asked you where this information was, and you said it was up to the researches to figure that out. Naturally I pointed out that it's not the responsibility of the researchers to chase down your made-up scenarios.

If you cannot or will not do anything to substantiate your imaginary speculation, then it remains just that....an imaginary speculation, and there's nothing more to discuss about it.

Circular...

The subject is information in genetic forms, not evolution first of all. Evolution is not information. You have completely side stepped every direct response and question.

Mutation in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information. Selection in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information. Evolution in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information. You have used all of these to answer the question I turned around on you.

All of the "producing" comes from the organism itself coupled with information. My logical conclusion is the organism has the "information for mutation" within itself, hence repeatability in the lab. Pretty basic. This is the point where you tell me to unpack the DNA code and point exactly where that information is otherwise it is imaginary speculation.

It is the organism coupled with information that "produces" the selected mutation that "produces" the idea in your head that evolution is happening. You are attempting to get me to believe the results are the producing agents because you posted some articles?


It seems you don't want to have a discussion, only banter creationists, fundamentalists, and Christians. Good day.

 

[StanJ]

Evolution is the ONLY science that accepts theory as fact. It boggles the mind.

 

[River Jordan]

The subject is information in genetic forms, not evolution first of all. Evolution is not information.

Once again you've lost track of the conversation. The subject is "genetic information" and what produces it. Creationists like Meyer say evolution can't do it, and as I've shown, they're wrong.

You have completely side stepped every direct response and question.

If you're going to accuse me of something, at least back it up. What questions am I side stepping?

Mutation in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information. Selection in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information. Evolution in and of itself produces nothing nor is the source or location of information.

And we know for a fact that you're wrong. According to the definition of "complex, specified genetic information" that Wormwood agreed to, evolution does indeed produce it, as is demonstrated by countless observations.

All of the "producing" comes from the organism itself coupled with information. My logical conclusion is the organism has the "information for mutation" within itself, hence repeatability in the lab.

That's just non-scientific gibberish. Mutations are nothing more than copying errors in DNA. It's basic chemistry, not some imaginary "information for mutation" that you imagine exists.

It is the organism coupled with information that "produces" the selected mutation that "produces" the idea in your head that evolution is happening.

Again, that's just gibberish. It's sad to see what creationism is forcing you to say.

You are attempting to get me to believe the results are the producing agents because you posted some articles?

Actually, I expected exactly what I've since seen, and what was predicted by the paper I posted in the GF. Your only interest in the science of evolutionary biology is to deny it, no matter what. You approach biology the same way geocentrists approach NASA's satellite images....make up bizarre reasons to deny observed reality.

It seems you don't want to have a discussion, only banter creationists, fundamentalists, and Christians. Good day.

No, all I've done is show you science. Your blind, reflexive denial of it is what's making you look ridiculous, not me.

Evolution is the ONLY science that accepts theory as fact. It boggles the mind.

*sigh*

Just like gravity, pathogen-caused disease, and atomic makeup of matter, evolution is a fact (we see it happen) and a theory (the framework that explains how it happens).

 

[StanJ]

*sigh*

Just like gravity, pathogen-caused disease, and atomic makeup of matter, evolution is a fact (we see it happen) and a theory (the framework that explains how it happens).

No, NOT just like gravity or pathogens or atomic composition. That is all proven and well established, they are called LAWS. What YOU see and interpret through the coloured glasses of your evolutionary mindset is not FACT. Instead of believing God you look to prove Him and His written word wrong or even worse, antiquated.
As you and anyone can see, theories evolve and change IF the scientists are willing and able to do so. The theory of relativity has changed since 1905 and I have no doubt it will continue to. Physicists don't wear cement overshoes unlike evolutionists do.
The core assumptions of evolution are always used to speculate on facts. They use words like SUGGESTS, IMPLIES, LIKELY, and so on. They build full skeletons from a FEW bones and claim it as factually representative. IMO that is very dishonest but the majority of museum goers or followers of the THEORY of evolution, have NO idea.

 

[River Jordan]

No, NOT just like gravity or pathogens or atomic composition. That is all proven and well established, they are called LAWS.

Um....no.

Atomic Theory of Matter

Germ Theory of Disease

Gravitational Theory

What's really amazing here is not that you're wrong, but that you're wrong while simultaneously being so arrogant about it. Pretty much the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

What YOU see and interpret through the coloured glasses of your evolutionary mindset is not FACT.

So what you're recommending is, if I see something happen right in front of my eyes, if it goes against what you believe, I'm supposed to somehow convince myself that it didn't happen? :wacko:

Instead of believing God you look to prove Him and His written word wrong or even worse, antiquated.

Sorry, but not everyone thinks in such black/white terms. That's your limitation, not mine.

As you and anyone can see, theories evolve and change IF the scientists are willing and able to do so. The theory of relativity has changed since 1905 and I have no doubt it will continue to. Physicists don't wear cement overshoes unlike evolutionists do.

Again, it's not that you're wrong that's so astounding. It's that you're wrong and simultaneously arrogant about it. Of course evolutionary theory has changed over the years. Are you interested in learning about it, or would that even matter to you?

The core assumptions of evolution are always used to speculate on facts. They use words like SUGGESTS, IMPLIES, LIKELY, and so on. They build full skeletons from a FEW bones and claim it as factually representative. IMO that is very dishonest but the majority of museum goers or followers of the THEORY of evolution, have NO idea.

And you can't figure out why Christians are being labelled "anti-science". Amazing.

 

[StanJ]

Um....no.

Atomic Theory of Matter

Germ Theory of Disease

Gravitational Theory

What's really amazing here is not that you're wrong, but that you're wrong while simultaneously being so arrogant about it. Pretty much the Dunning-Kruger Effect in action.

Typical that you are equivocal about a subject until someone calls you on it THEN you get specific. Maybe you should try doing that upfront, but that would not be your MO now would it?

The point still is that theories are theories. The LAW of gravity is still a law of physics no matter how you try to equivocate on it. Pathology is still a medical science despite your pulling up an exception, and so on.

What is amazing is how little you believe in God's laws. Why even bother calling yourself a Christian if you don't believe God is above ALL that and cannot be explained by science?

So what you're recommending is, if I see something happen right in front of my eyes, if it goes against what you believe, I'm supposed to somehow convince myself that it didn't happen?

Typically, you prevaricate about what I post. How you can justify doing that when my words are right there is beyond me?

Sorry, but not everyone thinks in such black/white terms. That's your limitation, not mine.

The Bible teaches us to do that River. Emulating our God and Savior should be any Christian's goal, not looking for ways to prove him wrong or try and make things appear grey.
That's what FAITH is, and for a Christian, it is NOT a limitation, it is a Blessing.

Again, it's not that you're wrong that's so astounding. It's that you're wrong and simultaneously arrogant about it. Of course evolutionary theory has changed over the years. Are you interested in learning about it, or would that even matter to you?

I KNOW all I need to know about it River and it is found wanting in the eyes of God's word. As you consider being faithful to God's word as arrogant and closed minded, I thank you.
You entire approach in all this is to just belittle and vilify Christian faith, not support your POV with ANY scripture or facts.

And you can't figure out why Christians are being labelled "anti-science".

I don't really care what labels unbelievers use, what I don't get is why someone would care if they ARE a Christian. You are way too concerned with worldly opinion than you are about God's opinion, and that is SAD.

 

[justaname]

For those who want truth on the subject instead of banter...
http://creation.mobi/mutations-new-information

Can mutation create new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘information’. Also, ‘new’ does not necessarily imply ‘better’ or even ‘good’. When evolutionists cite examples of ‘new’ information, they are almost invariably citing evidence of new traits, but these traits are caused by the corruption of existing information. Mutations can create new varieties of old genes, as can be seen in white-coated lab mice, tailless cats, and blue-eyed people. But damaging mutations cannot be used to vindicate molecules-to-people evolution. Breaking things does not lead to higher function (and presupposes a pre-existing function that can be broken). Also, not all new traits are caused by mutation! Some come about by unscrambling pre-existing information, some from decompressing packed information, some from turning on and off certain genes.

This article agrees with my theory, the information is pre-existing.

If we say a mutation is a change in the sequence of DNA the change in and of itself must be prompted or initiated, hence the mutation is not the source or location of information but rather is the result of information telling it to change.

 

[River Jordan]

Typical that you are equivocal about a subject until someone calls you on it THEN you get specific.

Oh, I didn't realize you weren't being specific. So what exactly did you mean when you said "Evolution is the ONLY science that accepts theory as fact"?

The point still is that theories are theories. The LAW of gravity is still a law of physics no matter how you try to equivocate on it. Pathology is still a medical science despite your pulling up an exception, and so on.

Yep, all that's true. Theories remain theories, the law of gravity is a mathematical expression of the force of gravity, and pathology is a medical science.

What is amazing is how little you believe in God's laws. Why even bother calling yourself a Christian if you don't believe God is above ALL that and cannot be explained by science?

Not sure what you're talking about here.

The Bible teaches us to do that River. Emulating our God and Savior should be any Christian's goal, not looking for ways to prove him wrong or try and make things appear grey.
That's what FAITH is, and for a Christian, it is NOT a limitation, it is a Blessing.

I'm sure that's what you believe. But not everyone thinks that way.

I KNOW all I need to know about it River and it is found wanting in the eyes of God's word. As you consider being faithful to God's word as arrogant and closed minded, I thank you.
You entire approach in all this is to just belittle and vilify Christian faith, not support your POV with ANY scripture or facts.

Ah, so there's absolutely no point in discussing this any more with you. You already know everything you need. Thanks for your time.

This article agrees with my theory, the information is pre-existing.

I can find websites that say the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe, or that reptilian aliens secretly run the world's governments, or that bigfoot likes blueberry bagels.

 

[StanJ]

Oh, I didn't realize you weren't being specific. So what exactly did you mean when you said "Evolution is the ONLY science that accepts theory as fact"?

I meant exactly what I said. The scientific theories you did show don't claim to be fact, as most evolutionists will claim their science is.

Not sure what you're talking about here.

Then I suggest you pay attention or stop obfuscating.

I'm sure that's what you believe. But not everyone thinks that way.

I really don't care how people think. I care that God's Word is truth and ANYONE who says otherwise is a liar. You can't serve two masters River.

Ah, so there's absolutely no point in discussing this any more with you. You already know everything you need. Thanks for your time.

The point IS, that you DON'T discuss. You equivocate, obfuscate and prevaricate. You mostly answer with questions and deflect so much that you yourself forget what the issue was or is.

I can find websites that say the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe, or that reptilian aliens secretly run the world's governments, or that bigfoot likes blueberry bagels.

and they are about as credible as those on evolution.

 

[River Jordan]

I meant exactly what I said. The scientific theories you did show don't claim to be fact, as most evolutionists will claim their science is.

Oh sure. No one claims it to be a fact that germs cause disease, matter is made up of atoms, and gravity pulls objects towards each other. No...not at all.

I really don't care how people think. I care that God's Word is truth and ANYONE who says otherwise is a liar. You can't serve two masters River.

Right...and you have deemed yourself 100% absolutely infallible in your ability to interpret God's word, which means anyone who dares interpret differently is wrong by definition. So I guess everyone should stop interpreting and just go straight to you. Good to know.

 

[justaname]

Oh, I didn't realize you weren't being specific. So what exactly did you mean when you said "Evolution is the ONLY science that accepts theory as fact"?


Yep, all that's true. Theories remain theories, the law of gravity is a mathematical expression of the force of gravity, and pathology is a medical science.


Not sure what you're talking about here.


I'm sure that's what you believe. But not everyone thinks that way.


Ah, so there's absolutely no point in discussing this any more with you. You already know everything you need. Thanks for your time.


I can find websites that say the earth doesn't move and is orbited by the rest of the universe, or that reptilian aliens secretly run the world's governments, or that bigfoot likes blueberry bagels.

More banter without research...

 

[StanJ]

Oh sure. No one claims it to be a fact that germs cause disease, matter is made up of atoms, and gravity pulls objects towards each other. No...not at all.


Right...and you have deemed yourself 100% absolutely infallible in your ability to interpret God's word, which means anyone who dares interpret differently is wrong by definition. So I guess everyone should stop interpreting and just go straight to you. Good to know.

That's not what you alluded to by the links your provided River and as usual you prevaricate not only about what others post, but about what you post. This dancing of yours is getting old.

No, just a lot better and wiser than you about God's word River. How old are you exactly because your age is definitely showing now?

 

[Wormwood]

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

Did you even read the original post? That is what this forum is about....the ridiculous improbability of life spontaneously generating. I assume, as a Christian, that you would believe that God created life. So, I'm not really sure why you have been challenging all of the quotes and comments here. That's why Im asking the question. Meyer is not an anti-evolutionist. It has nothing to do with the arguments of his ID work. I thought you read his stuff...

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

You don't know anything about me. You are worse with your labels and assumptions than the literalists you continually degrade.

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.

You are greatly over-stating your position and you know it. The behavior of bacteria, that are programmed to incorporate and reconstitute their DNA for adaptation, is a far cry from developing new species or creating new organs. It's this type of ridiculous over-reaching that makes it hard to take you seriously.

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.

River, this is ridiculous. For new organs to form, you need incredibly specific new sequences...that are far more complex than the changes to which you are referring... that form very specific combinations of micromolecules that develop entirely new cells which then must constitute new organs that must work flawlessly... which somehow must have developed a need that served a functional purpose in the previous organism. This is an entirely different discussion than what is taking place with bacteria. We have traced 10,000 generations of bacteria and have not seen them form anything but varying kinds of bacteria. Again, bacteria are designed to incorporate such changes and other organisms are not. Again, over-reaching...

Ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance cannot.

You are far too proud to make discussions with you productive or meaningful. This will be my last response to you.

 

[River Jordan]

That's not what you alluded to by the links your provided

You're right, I didn't allude to it...I stated it outright. I said, "Just like gravity, pathogen-caused disease, and atomic makeup of matter, evolution is a fact (we see it happen) and a theory (the framework that explains how it happens)" and in the next post provided the links that explained in more detail exactly what I'd just said.

But as you noted, I"m just being too darned specific. Sorry 'bout that.

No, just a lot better and wiser than you about God's word River. How old are you exactly because your age is definitely showing now?

Huh. I didn't realize this was an age-based system. So I guess the more important question is how old you are, in case I meet someone older than you and, by the rules, am mandated to follow their interpretations.

 

[StanJ]

You're right, I didn't allude to it...I stated it outright. I said, "Just like gravity, pathogen-caused disease, and atomic makeup of matter, evolution is a fact (we see it happen) and a theory (the framework that explains how it happens)" and in the next post provided the links that explained in more detail exactly what I'd just said.

No sense continuing to try and communicate with someone who can't seem to read or understand and insists on prevaricating despite the written evidence.

Huh. I didn't realize this was an age-based system. So I guess the more important question is how old you are, in case I meet someone older than you and, by the rules, am mandated to follow their interpretations.

No, the question IS what I asked. There is a reason the Bible teaches to not put a novice into office....they can get rather conceited and do exactly what you do with everyone you can't get to agree with you. If it was just me it could be a different matter but the proof is in the pudding.
River as you don't seem to be able to receive proper instruction, I really don't feel like wasting my time with you anymore so don't expect any more responses from me on ANY of your posts.

 

[River Jordan]

Did you even read the original post? That is what this forum is about....the ridiculous improbability of life spontaneously generating. I assume, as a Christian, that you would believe that God created life. So, I'm not really sure why you have been challenging all of the quotes and comments here.

Then you've lost track of the conversation. After your OP, I responded by wondering why you insist on tying Christianity to such pseudoscience, and even beyond that, a gamble? After all, if you stake such an important argument for God on there not being a scientific explanation for the origin of life, logically if scientists were to figure it out, that would be evidence against God. Is that really what you want to do?

It's what Ken Miller referred to as "seeking God in the darkness of our ignorance, rather than in the light of our knowledge".

Meyer is not an anti-evolutionist.

Yes he is. I can't imagine anyone describing "Darwin's Doubt" as pro-evolution.

You don't know anything about me.

Yes I do, because I've seen how you respond to data and research that you were sure didn't exist, and were only asking for because you thought it would stump me. I also know that you've staked a major argument for your "reasonable faith" on there not being a scientific explanation for the origin of life. Put those two together and it's hardly speculation to have a very good idea of how you'd react to a paper outlining a chemical scenario for the origin of life.

You are greatly over-stating your position and you know it. The behavior of bacteria, that are programmed to incorporate and reconstitute their DNA for adaptation, is a far cry from developing new species or creating new organs.

This is what's so depressingly sad about creationism.....what it forces people like you to do. As you tow your goalposts out the stadium tunnel, let's remember what we'd agreed to....

In post #22 you stated, "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."

Then in the very next post, I made sure we were on the same page: "So just to be clear, you're saying nucleotide sequences that are functional are "complex, specified DNA information", correct?"

You answered "Yes".

So I posted examples of mutations and selection (evolution) producing new functional nucleotide sequences (and each one improved the fitness of the population).

Now look where you're at. Suddenly the standard is new species and organs. This is what I mean. That's shockingly dishonest of you, and not just with me, but with yourself. You knew what we'd agreed to, yet you tried this, rather than just admit, "Ok, sure, according to what I said and agreed to, evolution can produce new complex, specified information", and then gone on to discuss the evolution of new species and organs. We totally could have done that. But no....you're so conditioned to never give an inch to any "evolutionist" that dragging the goalposts to another town in a written, chronological forum where everything is a matter of record, is the preferred option.

I guess that's the great thing about working with youth. They're genuinely curious and are more interested in the best answers, rather than merely what reinforces what they already think.

River, this is ridiculous. For new organs to form, you need incredibly specific new sequences

There you go again....now it's all about organs. And guess what? First, you know I've already posted several examples of new species evolving, so why you thought might be something that would stump me...I don't know. Second, I have papers about the evolution of various organs. But we both have a pretty good idea what your reaction will be.

You are far too proud to make discussions with you productive or meaningful. This will be my last response to you.

I can't say that I blame you. Hopefully you'll understand better why creationist organizations like the Discovery Institute irritate me so much. They set people like you up for debacles like this. They tell you things like "evolution can't generate specified complexity" and well, you don't know if that's really true, but it seems convincing and the guy telling you is a Christian and is closely in line with your beliefs about creation, so you figure it's a good argument. But what creationists like Meyer don't tell you is how resoundingly the scientific community has not only rejected their arguments, but is really only debating whether these truly believe their nonsense, or are deliberately lying (like televangelists).

So good people like you go around repeating these talking points, and with the ability to search at the organization's website. I'm sure that with a lot of people, it sounds as good to them as it did to you. But then you encounter someone who knows the science, and knows exactly how it directly negates the creationists' arguments. Now what? No way you're going to concede such a big talking point like "complex, specified information" to an "evolutionist", so you do the best you can....say it doesn't matter because now the goalposts are somewhere else, and declare the whole thing over.

It's very sad to watch.