Dinosaur with feathers and scales?

[Wormwood]

So the person who argues "evolution can't add new genetic information" is now claiming that asking for a definition of "genetic information" is obfuscation. Again, that's simply bizarre. The fact remains, if you can't say what "genetic information" is, or say how we should measure it, then your argument is totally meaningless.

I clarified this point multiple times. I cannot help you if you cannot remember the things I wrote. My point was regarding information specific programming in the DNA that produced new complex features in an organism (i.e. wings, gills, eyes, fins, etc.). We can all scratch our heads about how to quantify information on a hard drive. However, what is clear to all of us is that the information on the hard drive ultimately runs a program that accomplishes particular tasks. It is one thing to say that there is an existing program in a system (for instance, in bacteria) and that information gets jumbled, swapped with other bacteria or implanted from another source (a virus) and through the process of all that jumbling, a button gets added to the Windows program. Unlike other organisms, bacteria seem to be created to be very fluid and very resilient in their environments and so rapid changes and mutations in DNA information over time is to be expected. If they develop a resistance to an antibiotic, then its not overly stunning.

However, there is a big difference in a Windows program being garbled about with other windows programs and small corruptions in the software thousands of times over to produce a new button on your desktop or something to that effect and a Windows program being turned into an iOS program or a CAD engineering program, etc. This is what I mean by new complex systems developed by the information in the DNA. The idea that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics and lizards developing bigger jaws and stronger bites, or a couple of mutts being bred into little dogs and big dogs is very different from DNA developing the ability to produce ridiculously complex systems such as eyeballs that did not exist before, wings, gills, blowholes, blood clotting systems, or immune systems.

you seriously think that is "pretty much a cow"? Wow.

Yeah, maybe I should be more accurate. Its pretty much a pig. Sorry, I'll try to be more technical in my sarcasm in the future. http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2010/02/14/raksasa-babirusa-pt-i/

Yet the vast majority of the "leaders in these fields" completely disagree with you. So how do we tell who's right?

I got an idea. Why don't we appreciate both sides as legitimate attempts to explain the information before us? Why does one side have to be scientific and the other side raving lunatics? Why cant educated people simply disagree without one being maligned or have their character or intelligence questioned?

You didn't answer the question. You claimed that scientists in these fields were constantly wrong. Do you have specific examples of published papers that contain errors? If all you have to cite are Huxley and Haeckel...scientists who worked over a century ago...then I'd say that's a pretty ringing endorsement of modern science.

You aren't following my logic here. My point is that the entire naturalistic view on life began during their time and was based on errant information about biology and its complexity. Certainly scientists more recently have been wrong about their assumptions on the cell and its complexity leading up to today. Do I really have to go through a list of supposed vestigial organs, "junk DNA," etc.? I am not faulting these scientists for being wrong. Of course scientists will learn new things and find that their previous views were wrong or misguided. Otherwise they wouldn't be learning. My point is that the assumption of Darwinian evolution was built on a weak understanding of biology...yet it has been maintained throughout the decades NOT primarily because current findings substantiate it, but because it has always been assumed. As scientists learn more, they continually change their theories in order to maintain their assumptions. At one time it was thought that life was pretty basic and just some chemicals and amino acids bumped together and a cell was born. Now we know how incredible complex and specific cells are and so new theories are being imagined at how such complexity and information specific systems could come about by random chance! No one ever questions the theory. They just rework it....the theory has become sacred and new findings will never change old assumptions. They will only reimagine what they already assume to be true. Im not faulting the Darwinian evolutionist. The creationist has assumptions too. But lets not pretend one set of assumptions are science-based while the others are religious.

 

[River Jordan]

I clarified this point multiple times. I cannot help you if you cannot remember the things I wrote. My point was regarding information specific programming in the DNA that produced new complex features in an organism (i.e. wings, gills, eyes, fins, etc.). We can all scratch our heads about how to quantify information on a hard drive. However, what is clear to all of us is that the information on the hard drive ultimately runs a program that accomplishes particular tasks. It is one thing to say that there is an existing program in a system (for instance, in bacteria) and that information gets jumbled, swapped with other bacteria or implanted from another source (a virus) and through the process of all that jumbling, a button gets added to the Windows program. Unlike other organisms, bacteria seem to be created to be very fluid and very resilient in their environments and so rapid changes and mutations in DNA information over time is to be expected. If they develop a resistance to an antibiotic, then its not overly stunning.

However, there is a big difference in a Windows program being garbled about with other windows programs and small corruptions in the software thousands of times over to produce a new button on your desktop or something to that effect and a Windows program being turned into an iOS program or a CAD engineering program, etc. This is what I mean by new complex systems developed by the information in the DNA. The idea that bacteria can become resistant to antibiotics and lizards developing bigger jaws and stronger bites, or a couple of mutts being bred into little dogs and big dogs is very different from DNA developing the ability to produce ridiculously complex systems such as eyeballs that did not exist before, wings, gills, blowholes, blood clotting systems, or immune systems.

Do you see how this has morphed from when you first posted your original claim? You first posted "There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation."

But now that you've been shown examples of populations evolving novel genetic sequences that produced new abilities that conferred a selective advantage (thereby completely falsifying your argument), you continually move your argument. First it was "a cow turning into a whale", and now it's "the evolution of wings and immune systems". I'm sure you don't appreciate it, but it's this sort of shifty behavior in the face of contrary data that's behind the horrible reputation of creationists. Rather than simply acknowledge what I've shown you and that it met your original argument, you back peddle until now you're demanding to see millions of years of evolution first hand!

So what you've done is move the goalposts to a spot where you know no one can ever meet it. Well done I guess.

I got an idea. Why don't we appreciate both sides as legitimate attempts to explain the information before us? Why does one side have to be scientific and the other side raving lunatics? Why cant educated people simply disagree without one being maligned or have their character or intelligence questioned?

Because as we've seen, creationist arguments aren't legitimate. They're knee-jerk reactions to data that doesn't conform to a specific set of religious beliefs. A lot of the creationist organizations and creationists are fairly upfront about this fact. They've declared that if the data contradicts how they read scripture, then the data is wrong by definition. That's not a "legitimate attempt to explain" anything. Not only is that not science, it's the exact opposite of science.

As this thread testifies, every argument you've copied from your creationist sources is wrong. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species. But here's what fascinates me...despite your being wrong on such a fundamental level, it won't affect your approach to this subject one iota. From what I've seen, you'll continue to make the same failed arguments that you copy from the same discredited sources.

But then, isn't that exactly what we would expect from a side of an argument that has an enormous emotional and psychological stake in their position? If creationism is all about religion and not at all about the science, and religion is a very important part of who you are as a person (both emotionally and socially), then a significant change to that position carries some very serious emotional and social risks. Thus, it's far safer to wave away pretty much everything someone like me shows you from the science and maintain your status quo.

You aren't following my logic here. My point is that the entire naturalistic view on life began during their time and was based on errant information about biology and its complexity. Certainly scientists more recently have been wrong about their assumptions on the cell and its complexity leading up to today. Do I really have to go through a list of supposed vestigial organs, "junk DNA," etc.? I am not faulting these scientists for being wrong. Of course scientists will learn new things and find that their previous views were wrong or misguided. Otherwise they wouldn't be learning.

Are you saying that you think philosophical naturalism was based on an incomplete understanding of the cell in the 1800's?

My point is that the assumption of Darwinian evolution was built on a weak understanding of biology...yet it has been maintained throughout the decades NOT primarily because current findings substantiate it, but because it has always been assumed.

This brings me to the question from my last post you didn't answer. Do you think of yourself as an expert in evolutionary biology? Is your knowledge of it at such a level that not only are you able to make such declarations, but that others should pay heed to them as well?

As scientists learn more, they continually change their theories in order to maintain their assumptions. At one time it was thought that life was pretty basic and just some chemicals and amino acids bumped together and a cell was born. Now we know how incredible complex and specific cells are and so new theories are being imagined at how such complexity and information specific systems could come about by random chance! No one ever questions the theory. They just rework it....the theory has become sacred and new findings will never change old assumptions. They will only reimagine what they already assume to be true. Im not faulting the Darwinian evolutionist. The creationist has assumptions too. But lets not pretend one set of assumptions are science-based while the others are religious.

So what do you think are the non-science based assumptions behind evolutionary theory?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

If you are also advocating Wormwood's argument that evolution cannot increase genetic information, then the very first thing you need to do is say what "genetic information" is and how you're measuring it (since it's a qualitative argument). If you're not advocating that argument, then there's nothing to discuss further.

I have already defined what genetic information is, so why are you asking me to do that again? And sure, you can easily try to avoid addressing Wormwood's argument by pretending that we need some kind of exact measurement of how information is quantified in order to define it as "new information". But unless you decide to be honest about this and consider the argument given in a broader context, then perhaps you are correct in saying that there is nothing to discuss further. It's up to you.

So we have two populations...A and B. Population A is the parent to population B. Population B has a functional genetic sequence that was not present in population A. Does population B have "new genetic information"?

I don't have any problem with that if what is meant by "new genetic information" is information added to population B that does not cause any loss of information required for survival, and that did not already exist as a designed "variation" within that organsim in order to adapt to environmental changes.

In order to accept evolution as the best explanation, we need to envision a mutation that adds a functional sequence in a manner that doesn't destroy another functional sequence that was put in place there in order to secure survival.

Oh, well then if that's your standard for "information", then nothing can increase the information content of anything, ever. No matter what happens, all that will have happened can be contained within some arrangement of parts of the alphabet. For example...

My mom went to the dairy store.

--has the same information content as--

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday.

Even though "on Monday" seems to be new, the letters that make up those two words were already in the original sentence. The letters were just copied and rearranged to make "on Monday". Thus no new information was added to the second sentence.
Is that about the same way you're thinking about genetics?

I understand what you mean River, and sure it is conceptually possible, but what are the chances of something like that happening? You would need a genome that could be distored from "My mom went to the dairy store" to something like "My mo wet t the ir stre on Monday" (ignoring the fact that you actually added an "n" to the equation), and that somehow made that organism more likely to survive than to perish due to flaws that distort things that were put in place in order to ensure survival. This would have to occur, not only once, but millions and millions and millions of times. And this is supposed to be the mechanism that creates eyes, kidneys, lungs, brains, etc etc??? Most of which require changes that involve so much complexity and interdependence that it totally baffles our minds.

Honestly, if this is your understanding of evolutionary biology, then I guess I understand where you're coming from. Not only does it contradict your reading of scripture, but you've been fed some extremely strange notions about the science as well. I guess this is what people who only know the Bible from extreme atheist groups sound like when they try and talk about scripture.

You've lost me there River, what does my comment have to do with my "reading of scripture"? I said nothing based on scripture, but on the fact that primitive one-celled organisms supposedly have survived with practically no changes at all over millions and millions of years, whereas larger animals just seem to keep changing over and over and over again. So why bring in scripture into the discussion?

How would you know? Not only do you refuse to go read the material in the scientific journals, but you don't possess the necessary expertise to understand them. That's not an insult, it's just a fact. When I tried to discuss technical subjects with you before you admitted that you lacked the expertise to discuss them in depth. Given that, you have two options...either take the time and do the work necessary to acquire that expertise, or remain in your current state of ignorance. But keep in mind, no one can study the subjects for you; you have to do it yourself.

I don't "refuse to go to read the material in scientific journals". That is a distortion of the truth, and it totally ignores the problem I pointed out.

Firstly, in order for me to understand the "scientific journals" I would most likely need to be tutored by others how to correctly interpret them. And interpreting them "correctly" depends almost entirely on what paradigm is used. If it is based on completely naturalistic explanations, uniformitarianism, etc, etc, then I have no other choice than to accept that paradigm, whether is based on truth, or a humanistic worldview that denies the existance of a diety.

Secondly, I don't see why anyone who is well-versed in science... such as yourself?... would not be able to break things down to someone like me in a convincing manner. Someone like you should be able to clearly demonstrate what undeniable evidence there is for evolution, without being evasive, without mocking creationists, without trying to restort to clever rhetorical provocations, without simply appealing to authority, and without constantly distorting arguments made by people who are critical of evolution.

I understand your frustration, but I doubt that you are truly disputing my position that you are generally ignorant in the fields we are discussing (molecular and population genetics). I mean, are you actually arguing that you do have the expertise necessary to read published articles in those fields, fully understand them, and discuss them in depth?

I understand what I understand. If you understanding is so superior than mine, then I trust that my understanding would be enough to recognize that fact. But so far you haven't given me any reason to believe so. You would most definitely have a greater understanding of genetics that I do, but that does not automatically mean that your beliefs concerning evolution are correct.

Now you are very welcome to school me concerning any missunderstandings I might have concerning genetics, or indeed, anything else. But simply saying "study more" is not going to get you anywhere with me. I have heard that cop-out so many times before and yet I find it astonishing that people who say things like that never seem to be able to defend their implication that the point of contention in these discussions can be determined by something hidden in the woodwork of scientic journals.

 

[River Jordan]

I have already defined what genetic information is, so why are you asking me to do that again?

You have? Where exactly did you do that?

And sure, you can easily try to avoid addressing Wormwood's argument by pretending that we need some kind of exact measurement of how information is quantified in order to define it as "new information".

Um, this is pretty simple. If you guys cannot provide a way to quantify "genetic information", then you have no basis from which to claim that "genetic information" has increased, decreased, or remained the same.

I don't have any problem with that if what is meant by "new genetic information" is information added to population B that does not cause any loss of information required for survival, and that did not already exist as a designed "variation" within that organsim in order to adapt to environmental changes.

In order to accept evolution as the best explanation, we need to envision a mutation that adds a functional sequence in a manner that doesn't destroy another functional sequence that was put in place there in order to secure survival.

And the examples I provided demonstrate exactly that...the evolution of genetic sequences that were not in the parent population, and that result in new traits that confer a selective advantage. So again, this creationist argument is demonstrably false.

I understand what you mean River, and sure it is conceptually possible, but what are the chances of something like that happening? You would need a genome that could be distored from "My mom went to the dairy store" to something like "My mo wet t the ir stre on Monday" (ignoring the fact that you actually added an "n" to the equation), and that somehow made that organism more likely to survive than to perish due to flaws that distort things that were put in place in order to ensure survival. This would have to occur, not only once, but millions and millions and millions of times. And this is supposed to be the mechanism that creates eyes, kidneys, lungs, brains, etc etc??? Most of which require changes that involve so much complexity and interdependence that it totally baffles our minds.

But again, this process has been directly observed. One of the papers I provided was very analogous to the mom went to the store example. There, different segments of different genes were copied and recombined in a new way into a "chimeric gene". This newly evolved gene conferred a selectively beneficial trait on the population (more efficient metabolism).

Don't assume that your lack of knowledge on this subject is representative of the state of the science.

You've lost me there River, what does my comment have to do with my "reading of scripture"?

As I explained earlier, everything you say on this subject is rooted in how you read scripture; it's the basis for your entire position and approach. It surely isn't rooted in a thorough and objective review of the science, is it?

I said nothing based on scripture, but on the fact that primitive one-celled organisms supposedly have survived with practically no changes at all over millions and millions of years, whereas larger animals just seem to keep changing over and over and over again. So why bring in scripture into the discussion?

Because your objection is simplistic and wrong, which is what one would expect from someone who's opinions about science were rooted in religion.

I don't "refuse to go to read the material in scientific journals". That is a distortion of the truth, and it totally ignores the problem I pointed out.

Really? So you've read every paper that I've linked to? If so, why haven't you specifically responded to any of them?

Firstly, in order for me to understand the "scientific journals" I would most likely need to be tutored by others how to correctly interpret them. And interpreting them "correctly" depends almost entirely on what paradigm is used. If it is based on completely naturalistic explanations, uniformitarianism, etc, etc, then I have no other choice than to accept that paradigm, whether is based on truth, or a humanistic worldview that denies the existance of a diety.

Again we see how you think of the education process. I don't know where you got this notion that education is a professor telling students how they must interpret things, but you couldn't be more mistaken. Science education is mostly about learning the jargon and the concepts, so that when you read a paper you know what they're talking about and you can evaluate for yourself whether their conclusions are supported by their data and results. No one ever gives you a paper and says "This is how you must interpret it".

I think you're projecting your church experiences onto what you imagine a university is like.

Secondly, I don't see why anyone who is well-versed in science... such as yourself?... would not be able to break things down to someone like me in a convincing manner. Someone like you should be able to clearly demonstrate what undeniable evidence there is for evolution, without being evasive, without mocking creationists, without trying to restort to clever rhetorical provocations, without simply appealing to authority, and without constantly distorting arguments made by people who are critical of evolution.

Why are there still geocentrists? Surely there are scientists who are able to communicate the fact of heliocentrism to them in a convincing manner? Do you chalk up the existence of geocentrists to the inability of cosmologists to craft and communicate convincing arguments?

I understand what I understand. If you understanding is so superior than mine, then I trust that my understanding would be enough to recognize that fact. But so far you haven't given me any reason to believe so. You would most definitely have a greater understanding of genetics that I do, but that does not automatically mean that your beliefs concerning evolution are correct.

You're missing the point. If you don't have the necessary understanding of molecular and population genetics to read a paper, fully understand it, and discuss it in depth, then you also don't have the necessary skill set to evaluate the arguments of creationists.

IOW, when you see a creationist make an argument about what has or hasn't been observed in genetics, on what basis do you decide that it's a valid argument? It can't be on a thorough understanding of molecular and population genetics (because you don't have it), and it can't be on a thorough knowledge of the published data (because you don't have it). And when you parrot that creationist argument and I counter with examples from the published literature, what do you do? You don't have the necessary scientific knowledge to fully consider and evaluate the arguments and compare them to the data.

So on what basis do you decide that the creationist arguments are scientifically valid and the scientific community is completely wrong?

 

[Wormwood]

Do you see how this has morphed from when you first posted your original claim? You first posted "There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation."

But now that you've been shown examples of populations evolving novel genetic sequences that produced new abilities that conferred a selective advantage (thereby completely falsifying your argument), you continually move your argument.

This is just simply untrue. You are taking me out of context and are ignoring major points of this lengthy conversation. For the record, I'll post quotes from me at the earliest stages of this discussion.

[SIZE=medium]Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity or a complete transformation of a species. You are misrepresenting your case. #25[/SIZE]

This was my very first post on this topic. Here I clearly point to the type of mutations I am talking about that are not the basis of modern medicine. Now you may want to argue what constitutes "greater complexity" (to which I would say bacteria giving birth to bacteria after 50,000 generations is not "greater complexity" whereas a species developing a blowhole to exist in water more efficiently IS greater complexity). Yet I qualify the statement even more by saying "a complete transformation of a species." So how can you say I moved the goal posts and I was originally talking about new information and only later started talking about cows into whales. No, I STARTED the conversation by talking about "complexity" and a "complete transformation of a species." You simply have no answers for my arguments so your only recourse is to try to discredit me. The record of the conversation is clear for all to see. Maybe you should revisit it?


In my second comment to you I said,

The word "evolution" here is entirely misleading. So, bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is very different from a cow spending a lot of time in the water and, by the unobserved guesswork of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, happens to give birth to a cow-whale with a blow hole on its head so it can be more at ease in the water than its mother.

Ive been referring to DNA information changes specific to the transformation of an animal that create new complex systems in the organism from the very beginning. Even if we say that the mutated bacteria have "new" information that allows them to become resistant to antibiotics, this is NOT Darwinian evolution. Most of the DNA changes of bacteria occur from present DNA being swapped and transferred through various means. It is not new information, but adopting DNA from elsewhere. On the rare occurrence where a mutation might prove beneficial for a bacteria to resist antibiotics, it is NOT becoming a new organism with new appendages, gills, eyes, etc. I have never deviated from this point. I provided context for all my claims and the only way you can misunderstand my claims is if you are ignoring their context or blatantly trying to misrepresent me. I'll assume its the former. I suggest you read more slowly and allow my own statements to qualify my meaning.

First it was cows and whales and now its immune systems? No, my point has always been the same. The complexity of many of these systems simply do not allow for gradual mutations that can account for their existence. You cant have slowly evolving breathing/eating systems in a whale. You either have it or die. You cant have a blood system that slowly develops clotting. You either have it or bleed out. I have made this claim from the beginning...and you refuse to see it and continue to claim Im lying and changing my position. In my third post on this topic I said,

River, dear girl, my point is quite simple. Creationists differentiate between what you are describing with bacteria and Darwinian evolution. What is happening in your petri dish in your biology class is not the same thing as a cow turning into a whale (as much as your profs would proclaim it along with the fairy dust of a few million years). There is entirely different information at work here with two entirely different organisms. What is strikingly evident, for animals such as the blue whale, is that you cannot have a slowly changing petri dish type change from a land mammal to a sea-dwelling whale. Their ability to close off airways for swimming and eating, constrict vessels to deal with water pressures over their massive bodies that can have a wide range of water pressures from one end to the other while maintaining temperature and blood flow as they dive downward or go upward are just a few concepts that cannot slowly be incorporated.

The only way you can see me as moving the goal posts is if you never knew where the goal posts were to begin with. I have been sticking with the same phrases and arguments from the very beginning. I have only extrapolated on my meaning as we have progressed...as one would expect.

Because as we've seen, creationist arguments aren't legitimate. They're knee-jerk reactions to data that doesn't conform to a specific set of religious beliefs.

Ah, yes. Punctuated equilibrium is well documented. Sigh. Your blindness to your own presuppositions is staggering.

Are you saying that you think philosophical naturalism was based on an incomplete understanding of the cell in the 1800's?

No I am saying that naturalists pretty much overwhelmed the discussion of origins when organic material was discovered to be based in non-organic elements. This led to very simplistic assumptions about the cell that have since been proven false. Yet now the claim is that science and naturalism are essentially one and the same. It was never viewed this way before.

This brings me to the question from my last post you didn't answer. Do you think of yourself as an expert in evolutionary biology? Is your knowledge of it at such a level that not only are you able to make such declarations, but that others should pay heed to them as well?

This is a head-scratcher. Are you still working to discredit me as a means of dismissing my points? Let me ask you something. When you were in your first year of undergrad and were learning things in your textbooks, would it have been inappropriate for you to post something you read in a textbook because you were merely a freshman in a class? Did you being a freshman make your textbook less true? At what point are we allowed to have opinions or be informed by scholars in various fields? It would seem that you are suggesting that people can read all sorts of books and learn from PhDs in person and through literature, but they cannot hold a valid opinion on any such matters until they are at a point where they could label themselves as "experts" worthy of being published. Wow. Do you realize how scary this proposition is? Sounds like some sort of communist brain-washing where authorities are set up to determine who is an authority and only the authorities appointed by the authorities hold valid views worth being taught. How convenient for the authorities...and how utterly dangerous for freedom and imagination.

So what do you think are the non-science based assumptions behind evolutionary theory?

The assumption is Darwinian evolution. If microbiologists decoded within the DNA a message that said, "created by intelligence" they would try to figure out how that message was formed in the DNA over millions of years by bottom-up processes. No matter how complex biological systems are proven to be, there will always be the assumption that it started from nothing through an unguided process. I will always assume it was created for a purpose. Both are assumptions, but neither wants to ignore the beauty of understanding these systems and use that understanding to better life today.

 

[River Jordan]

This was my very first post on this topic. Here I clearly point to the type of mutations I am talking about that are not the basis of modern medicine. Now you may want to argue what constitutes "greater complexity" (to which I would say bacteria giving birth to bacteria after 50,000 generations is not "greater complexity" whereas a species developing a blowhole to exist in water more efficiently IS greater complexity).

Of course I would ask what you mean by "greater complexity". As with your previous incorrect argument about "increase in genetic information", you are again making a quantitative argument (more, less, or the same amount of "complexity"). Are the examples I provided not the observed evolution of increased complexity? The evolved organisms have new traits that weren't present in the original population, so does that make them more complex? If not, then like "genetic information" you need to provide a means by which you are measuring "complexity". Absent such a means, then all your quantitative claims are by definition, meaningless.

I mean, I don't know why (actually, I think I do) this is soooooo difficult for you and UD to understand. If you make quantitative claims, you have to have a means of measurement. That basic fact should be obvious to anyone.

Yet I qualify the statement even more by saying "a complete transformation of a species."

Yep, and again you were provided with observed examples of the evolution of new species.

So how can you say I moved the goal posts and I was originally talking about new information and only later started talking about cows into whales. No, I STARTED the conversation by talking about "complexity" and a "complete transformation of a species." You simply have no answers for my arguments so your only recourse is to try to discredit me. The record of the conversation is clear for all to see. Maybe you should revisit it?

Seriously? I have no answers? Again, to review...all your arguments about evolutionary biology in this thread are demonstrably false. We know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

Do you still dispute any of that?

In my second comment to you I said,

"The word "evolution" here is entirely misleading. So, bacteria becoming more resistant to antibiotics is very different from a cow spending a lot of time in the water and, by the unobserved guesswork of the theory of punctuated equilibrium, happens to give birth to a cow-whale with a blow hole on its head so it can be more at ease in the water than its mother. "

Ah, but you're forgetting where you started. Your first post in this thread stated...

"Darwinian evolution is not the foundation of modern medicine. All creationists believe in adaptation and variation within kinds based on the limits prescribed in the genetic code. There is no scientific observation of a species receiving additional information in their DNA that permitted new abilities by way of natural selection or mutation. Modern medicine is not based on this theory of mutating DNA which leads to greater complexity or a complete transformation of a species. You are misrepresenting your case."

After you posted that, I responded by pointing out that 1) Darwinian evolution is very important in modern medicine, 2) "kinds" is a meaningless term, 3) no one has said what this "limit in the genetic code" is, and 4) from our earlier discussion you still have yet to define "information in the DNA" or provide a means to measure it. Only then did you post your childish version of "a cow giving birth to a cow-whale". Rather than admit your arguments were demonstrably wrong, you immediately retreated to this absurdity.

But I'll tell you what....we can drop all this right now. I apologize for accusing you of moving the goalposts. Now, let's both participate in this discussion in good faith and answer each other's questions.

Let's start by clearing up a very simple issue, i.e., "new genetic information".

If I have a single-clone population (population A), culture it for several generations until I have a descended population (population B ), and population B has a functional genetic sequence that wasn't present in population A, and the sequence produces a trait that confers a selective advantage, is that the evolution of "new genetic information"? If not, why? If it's not "new", where was it before? If it's not "genetic information", what exactly is "genetic information"?

Even if we say that the mutated bacteria have "new" information that allows them to become resistant to antibiotics, this is NOT Darwinian evolution.

What exactly do you mean by "Darwinian evolution"?

Most of the DNA changes of bacteria occur from present DNA being swapped and transferred through various means. It is not new information, but adopting DNA from elsewhere.

As I posted to UD, is this your position?

My mom went to the dairy store.

--has the same information content as--

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday.

Even though "on Monday" seems to be new, the letters that make up those two words were already in the original sentence. The letters were just copied and rearranged to make "on Monday". Thus no new information was added to the second sentence.

Is that about the same way you're thinking about genetics?

First it was cows and whales and now its immune systems? No, my point has always been the same. The complexity of many of these systems simply do not allow for gradual mutations that can account for their existence. You cant have slowly evolving breathing/eating systems in a whale. You either have it or die. You cant have a blood system that slowly develops clotting. You either have it or bleed out. I have made this claim from the beginning...and you refuse to see it and continue to claim Im lying and changing my position.

Why not? Please forgive me, but your say-so isn't enough to convince me. Please explain in specific detail the basis for these assertions.

Ah, yes. Punctuated equilibrium is well documented. Sigh. Your blindness to your own presuppositions is staggering.

????????? That doesn't even address my point. We know for a fact that the creationist arguments you've posted here are wrong, yet you and other creationists continue to repeat them. Thus, creationist arguments are not legitimate and the people who continue to make them are not highly regarded. And of course that leads to an obvious question...why do you and other creationists continue to repeat arguments even after you've been shown that they're false? Well, many creationists and the organizations they belong to tell us. It's because of their belief that everything must conform to their reading of scripture, and if something seems to contradict that reading, it is deemed to be wrong.

What part of that strikes you as unreasonable?

No I am saying that naturalists pretty much overwhelmed the discussion of origins when organic material was discovered to be based in non-organic elements. This led to very simplistic assumptions about the cell that have since been proven false. Yet now the claim is that science and naturalism are essentially one and the same. It was never viewed this way before.

Are you saying that science and philosophical naturalism are now one and the same? If so, then how is it that so many scientists are not philosophical naturalists?

This is a head-scratcher. Are you still working to discredit me as a means of dismissing my points? Let me ask you something. When you were in your first year of undergrad and were learning things in your textbooks, would it have been inappropriate for you to post something you read in a textbook because you were merely a freshman in a class. At what point are we allowed to have opinions or be informed by scholars in various fields? According to you, people can read all sorts of books and learn from PhDs in person and through literature, but they cannot hold a valid opinion on any such matters until they are at a point where they could label themselves as "experts" worthy of being published. Wow. Do you realize how scary this proposition is? Sounds like some sort of Communism where the authorities will determine who is an authority and only the authorities hold valid views worth being taught. How convenient for the authorities...and how utterly dangerous for "science."

All that and you still didn't answer the question. Do you see how such behavior comes across as not operating in good faith? Let's try again...

Do you think of yourself as an expert in evolutionary biology? Is your knowledge of it at such a level that not only are you able to make such declarations, but that others should pay heed to them as well?

The assumption is Darwinian evolution.

What specifically do you mean by that?

If microbiologists decoded within the DNA a message that said, "created by intelligence" they would try to figure out how that message was formed in the DNA over millions of years by bottom-up processes. No matter how complex biological systems are proven to be, there will always be the assumption that it started from nothing through an unguided process. I will always assume it was created for a purpose. Both are assumptions, but neither wants to ignore the beauty of understanding these systems and use that understanding to better life today.

Ah, but here's where your problem is. As we've seen, the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species by natural mechanisms are directly and repeatedly observed facts. Every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, etc. we've ever seen arise has come about via natural mechanisms. Not one time have we ever seen the supernatural, instantaneous creation of....anything.

So essentially what you're doing here is saying that even though every new trait, ability, genetic sequence, and species we've seen arise since the first days we started looking has done so naturally, in the past everything was completely different and all those things arose via supernatural creation...something we've never seen. And not only that, you are trying to say this position is on equal footing with the conclusion that since all we've ever seen is those things arise naturally, the same is probably true in the past.

Do you apply this sort of thinking to other areas of your life?

 

[UppsalaDragby]

You have? Where exactly did you do that?

In post #111, where I defined genetic information as "the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism".

Um, this is pretty simple. If you guys cannot provide a way to quantify "genetic information", then you have no basis from which to claim that "genetic information" has increased, decreased, or remained the same.

I explained exactly what an "addition" of information means in the context of this discussion. If you distort the word "dog" so that it reads "dig" then you are not ADDING information, you are changing it. And if you are going to argue that "dog" can be changed to "dog dig" then you would need to explain how that could be possible in a single-celled organism.

And the examples I provided demonstrate exactly that...the evolution of genetic sequences that were not in the parent population, and that result in new traits that confer a selective advantage. So again, this creationist argument is demonstrably false.

http://creation.com/new-genetic-information
http://creation.com/mutations-new-information
http://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of-genetic-information
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evidence-of-new-genetic-information/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evolution-is-just-mistakes/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/loss-genetic-information-responsible-evolution-leaps/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/increasing-organisms-genetic-information/
http://www.icr.org/article/do-bacteria-evolve-resistance-antibiotics/¨
http://creationwiki.org/New_genetic_information

But again, this process has been directly observed. One of the papers I provided was very analogous to the mom went to the store example. There, different segments of different genes were copied and recombined in a new way into a "chimeric gene". This newly evolved gene conferred a selectively beneficial trait on the population (more efficient metabolism).

Don't assume that your lack of knowledge on this subject is representative of the state of the science.

All you are doing here is providing a link to an article that CONFIRMS what I wrote in my post. As far as I understand the issue, which I clearly admitted in my post, it is definitely possible that information can be distorted in such a way that a "function" that did not exist in the parent population could arise in a daughter population. And neither did I claim that this could not be done in a beneficial manner.

However, what I asked for was not an article in support of this followed by a snotty remark, so why waste time throwing out red herrings?

As I explained earlier, everything you say on this subject is rooted in how you read scripture; it's the basis for your entire position and approach. It surely isn't rooted in a thorough and objective review of the science, is it?

Yes, and?

Your claim was that what I wrote contradicted my reading of scripture. How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

Because your objection is simplistic and wrong, which is what one would expect from someone who's opinions about science were rooted in religion.

Well, OK.. you are completely entitled to say that, but you haven't explained how having an opinion "rooted in religion" is wrong, whereas having an opinion rooted in scientific concensus is right.

It will be interesting to hear you explain how the basis for your beliefs are stronger than mine.

Really? So you've read every paper that I've linked to? If so, why haven't you specifically responded to any of them?

Why would I need to read every paper that you linked? I CLEARLY addressed the problem involved in doing that and you CLEARLY ignored what I wrote.

Have you read every paper written by everyone who has something to say concerning the matter? NO, of course you haven't! So please don't act as though you have the right to talk down to me. All you have done is provide about 50 or so links that no one could possible respond to. That is a dishonest debating tactic which is not permitted on some forums. No one likes to debate links! Try elephant hurling to someone else, I don't fall for it.

Again we see how you think of the education process. I don't know where you got this notion that education is a professor telling students how they must interpret things, but you couldn't be more mistaken. Science education is mostly about learning the jargon and the concepts, so that when you read a paper you know what they're talking about and you can evaluate for yourself whether their conclusions are supported by their data and results. No one ever gives you a paper and says "This is how you must interpret it".

I think you're projecting your church experiences onto what you imagine a university is like.

I don't have any "church experiences". That is YOUR assumption. I am non-denominational and don't spend much time in churches. Your defense of the educational process is touching, but extremely exaggerated, as usual. No professor tells their students to "interpret things" this way or that way.. they just teach what they have been taught. And what they have been taught is to provide naturalistic explanations for the origin of life on earth and that the explanation for the diversity of life is evolution. There might be local variations where you live, but generally this seems to be the case.

Why are there still geocentrists? Surely there are scientists who are able to communicate the fact of heliocentrism to them in a convincing manner? Do you chalk up the existence of geocentrists to the inability of cosmologists to craft and communicate convincing arguments?

I guess the reason there are still geocentrists around is that no "cosmologist" that can pinpoint where the center of the universe actually is. Perhaps you should have brought up the more common "why are there still flat-earthers" question, but gee.. the leader of the flat earth society is an evolutionist...
Come on River, you might as well ask why there are scientist who still wet their beds. It proves absolutely nothing in this discussion to point out people who don't respond to reason. It applies to you as much as it does to me, which you should have had the sense to realize.

You're missing the point. If you don't have the necessary understanding of molecular and population genetics to read a paper, fully understand it, and discuss it in depth, then you also don't have the necessary skill set to evaluate the arguments of creationists.
IOW, when you see a creationist make an argument about what has or hasn't been observed in genetics, on what basis do you decide that it's a valid argument? It can't be on a thorough understanding of molecular and population genetics (because you don't have it), and it can't be on a thorough knowledge of the published data (because you don't have it). And when you parrot that creationist argument and I counter with examples from the published literature, what do you do? You don't have the necessary scientific knowledge to fully consider and evaluate the arguments and compare them to the data.
So on what basis do you decide that the creationist arguments are scientifically valid and the scientific community is completely wrong?

Sure, but what "arguments of creationists" have I been discussing here that exceeds my "skill sets", and that you seem to be completely incapable of explaining without appealing to a detailed study of things such as molecular and popular genetics? What molecules do you consider support your claims? Break it down for me River... surely you can do that..

And btw, where did I say that the scientific community was "completely wrong"? You need to be more specific if you think you are in a position to build up a case against me.

 

[River Jordan]

In post #111, where I defined genetic information as "the set of instructions contained within a cell in order to build an organism".

So if population B has a set of genetic instructions that wasn't present in population A (it's parents) that result in a different phenotype, it is the evolution of "new genetic information". Given that we've seen exactly that, the creationist argument that evolution can't increase genetic information is demonstrably false.

http://creation.com/new-genetic-information
http://creation.com/mutations-new-information
http://creation.com/dawkins-and-the-origin-of-genetic-information
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evidence-of-new-genetic-information/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evolution-is-just-mistakes/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/loss-genetic-information-responsible-evolution-leaps/
https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/increasing-organisms-genetic-information/
http://www.icr.org/article/do-bacteria-evolve-resistance-antibiotics/¨
http://creationwiki.org/New_genetic_information

And....? Is there something in those articles you find to be particularly compelling?

All you are doing here is providing a link to an article that CONFIRMS what I wrote in my post. As far as I understand the issue, which I clearly admitted in my post, it is definitely possible that information can be distorted in such a way that a "function" that did not exist in the parent population could arise in a daughter population. And neither did I claim that this could not be done in a beneficial manner.

That, plus what you posted above, means that the example I provided falsifies the creationist argument that evolution can't increase the amount of genetic information.

Yes, and?

Your claim was that what I wrote contradicted my reading of scripture. How on earth did you arrive at that conclusion?

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that the root issue here is how you feel evolutionary theory contradicts your reading of scripture.

Well, OK.. you are completely entitled to say that, but you haven't explained how having an opinion "rooted in religion" is wrong, whereas having an opinion rooted in scientific concensus is right.

It will be interesting to hear you explain how the basis for your beliefs are stronger than mine.

Given that we're discussing science, a scientifically-based position is obviously superior to one based in religion. Otherwise, you must also believe that those who believe, for religious reasons, that the sun orbits the earth are on equal footing with those who believe the earth orbits the sun for scientific reasons.

Why would I need to read every paper that you linked? I CLEARLY addressed the problem involved in doing that and you CLEARLY ignored what I wrote.

Have you read every paper written by everyone who has something to say concerning the matter? NO, of course you haven't! So please don't act as though you have the right to talk down to me. All you have done is provide about 50 or so links that no one could possible respond to. That is a dishonest debating tactic which is not permitted on some forums. No one likes to debate links! Try elephant hurling to someone else, I don't fall for it.

Your objection would have merit if just one time you would show that you both read and fully understood one of the papers I post. I can't recall you ever doing anything like, "I've read the paper, and here in the methods section it says....".

But again, if you can't understand the jargon or the concepts within the papers, on what basis can you ever evaluate their conclusions?

I don't have any "church experiences". That is YOUR assumption. I am non-denominational and don't spend much time in churches. Your defense of the educational process is touching, but extremely exaggerated, as usual. No professor tells their students to "interpret things" this way or that way.. they just teach what they have been taught. And what they have been taught is to provide naturalistic explanations for the origin of life on earth and that the explanation for the diversity of life is evolution. There might be local variations where you live, but generally this seems to be the case.

So is it your view that universities should teach students that supernatural explanations for phenomena are acceptable in science? Do you believe universities should teach students that the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth is something other than evolution? If so, what exactly?

I guess the reason there are still geocentrists around is that no "cosmologist" that can pinpoint where the center of the universe actually is. Perhaps you should have brought up the more common "why are there still flat-earthers" question, but gee.. the leader of the flat earth society is an evolutionist...
Come on River, you might as well ask why there are scientist who still wet their beds. It proves absolutely nothing in this discussion to point out people who don't respond to reason. It applies to you as much as it does to me, which you should have had the sense to realize.

You're not addressing the point. Why are there still people who strongly believe that the sun and other planets orbit the earth? Do you attribute their existence to the inability of cosmologists to convincingly demonstrate that the earth and other planets actually orbit the sun?

Sure, but what "arguments of creationists" have I been discussing here that exceeds my "skill sets", and that you seem to be completely incapable of explaining without appealing to a detailed study of things such as molecular and popular genetics? What molecules do you consider support your claims? Break it down for me River... surely you can do that..

For starters, your arguments about "genetic information". On one hand you see creationists arguing that evolution can't increase the amount of genetic information in a genome. OTOH you see scientists saying that it can, and citing actual documentation of it happening. On what basis did you conclude that the creationist argument was correct enough for you to start repeating it? And if you concluded that the scientists' arguments were wrong, on what basis did you reach that conclusion? If you don't have a good grasp of molecular and population genetics, exactly how did you reach your conclusions on these fairly technical questions?

And btw, where did I say that the scientific community was "completely wrong"? You need to be more specific if you think you are in a position to build up a case against me.

Wouldn't they have to be? Virtually the entire scientific community says that these creationist arguments are terribly wrong. Every scientific organization across the world that has gone on record on the issue has clearly stated that creationism and ID creationism is scientifically invalid. Do you believe they are wrong?

 

[Wormwood]

Yes I'm sure its convenient to you if you can create the rules for the discussion as we go. Lets be honest here. You are arguing that my claims are false because I am not defining "complexity" according to your standards, whereas on the other hand, you want to claim that Darwinian evolution has been proven scientifically because bacteria grow immune to antibiotics and lizards can be bred to have larger jaws and stronger bites. Sigh. So in order for my argument to be legitimate, I have to define some informational/genetic threshold that is restrictive to Darwinian evolution, otherwise, any minute genetic change is determined as verifiable proof that protozoa can become human beings...given enough time. Can you see the double standard and the assumption here? You are assuming that any small change in genomes (that we hardly understand due to their complexity) is verifiable proof that new organs, limbs, and so forth can be developed through this same process, even though it cannot be proved or demonstrated. So essentially, I have to prove people did not evolve from protozoa based on evidence you have displayed that proves no such thing is even possible! Consider the following statement by Robert Carter:

The development of new functions is the only thing important for evolution. We are not talking about small functional changes, but radical ones. Some organism had to learn how to convert sugars to energy. Another had to learn how to take sunlight and turn it into sugars. Another had to learn how to take light and turn it into an interpretable image in the brain. These are not simple things, but amazing processes that involve multiple steps, and functions that involve circular and/or ultra-complex pathways will be selected away before they have a chance to develop into a working system. For example, DNA with no function is ripe for deletion, and making proteins/enzymes that have no use until a complete pathway or nano-machine is available is a waste of precious cellular resources. Chicken-and-egg problems abound. What came first, the molecular machine called ATP synthase or the protein and RNA manufacturing machines that rely on ATP to produce the ATP synthase machine? The most basic processes upon which all life depends cannot be co-opted from pre-existing systems. For evolution to work, they have to come up from scratch, they have to be carefully balanced and regulated with respect to other processes, and they have to work before they will be kept.

None of your examples give the kind of evidence needed to produce the kind of results you are blindly assuming.

1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine

The mutations you are pointing to are not evidence of Darwinian evolution (my original point). Many "mutations" or changes in DNA are not accidental, but are based on programmed algorithms in the DNA. These functions and abilities are becoming better understood to know how life as we know it functions. To suggest that this understanding came about or is only understandable from a protozoa to person paradigm is completely false and misleading of both the science involved as well as the history of evolutionary biology.

2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage

Adaptive immunity is often brought up by the evolutionist as an example of ‘new’ genes (traits) being produced by mutation. Here we have an example of a mechanism that takes DNA modules and scrambles those modules in complex ways in order to generate antibodies for antigens to which the organism has never been exposed. This is a quintessential example of intelligent design. The DNA changes in adaptive immunity occur only in a controlled manner among only a limited number of genes in a limited subset of cells that are only part of the immune system, and these changes are not heritable.

3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions

Im not going to get into this now. I think there is a lot of speculation and guesswork in this field guided by underlying assumptions.

4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

Natural selection does not provide the evidence you need to develop functional gains. Generally they are about highlighting specific traits or even decompressing compressed information tucked away in the genome.

I don't have time to address everything else in your post, and I am certainly not going to waste my time tackling the straw men you are trying to set up about my credibility. I find such questioning humorous and a reflection of your own insecurity on these issues.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

Again, I really don't know why this very fundamental and basic concept is apparently so difficult for you and UD to grasp.

If you're going to make arguments about amounts of things (like complexity or genetic information), then you have to have a way to measure those things.

Why is that such a struggle for you? I mean, I'm just baffled at how this has gone. My inclination is to conclude that the reason you guys are unable to address this fundamental issue is because you have no idea how to answer, but you're too defensively entrenched to ever admit it. Or you're afraid that as soon as you answer, I'll present you with a documented example that meets your criteria. I don't know....either way it's just bizarre to watch you guys stumble all over each other as you do everything you can to avoid simply saying "this is what I mean by complexity/genetic information, and this is how we measure it".

Also, you keep making claims about "Darwinian evolution", and even though I keep asking you what you mean by that, you won't answer (see what I mean about conversing in good faith?). In my world, "Darwinian evolution" refers to evolution with natural selection as the primary mechanism, steady gradual population change, and/or anagenesis as the primary means of speciation. Is that what you mean when you say "Darwinian evolution"?

None of your examples give the kind of evidence needed to produce the kind of results you are blindly assuming.

What "results" do you think I'm blindly assuming? The data I've presented in this thread was merely to demonstrate the arguments you've been copying from creationists to be wrong. Despite your claims, we know for a fact that 1) mutation and the evolution of new traits are very important to modern medicine; 2) evolution produces novel genetic sequences that produce new traits, which confer a selective advantage; 3) the fossil record does include gradual transitions; and 4) natural selection is an important factor in the evolution of new species.

The mutations you are pointing to are not evidence of Darwinian evolution (my original point).

It's kinda hard to talk about "evidence of Darwinian evolution" when every time I ask you what you mean by "Darwinian evolution" you refuse to answer. That's the whole "converse in good faith" thing again.

Many "mutations" or changes in DNA are not accidental, but are based on programmed algorithms in the DNA. These functions and abilities are becoming better understood to know how life as we know it functions. To suggest that this understanding came about or is only understandable from a protozoa to person paradigm is completely false and misleading of both the science involved as well as the history of evolutionary biology.

First, do you have a citation for this non-random mutation claim? Second, if you want to compare competing models for the history of life on earth, then please share with me one new insight into biology that the creationist model has produced. (Note I'm not asking for examples of creationists making contributions, but contributions that have come from creationism.)

Adaptive immunity is often brought up by the evolutionist....

Um....no one brought up adaptive immunity. If you're going to just copy from creationists, at least understand what you're copying.

Im not going to get into this now. I think there is a lot of speculation and guesswork in this field guided by underlying assumptions.

Based on what? What is the basis for your opinion...a thorough study of the subject?

Natural selection does not provide the evidence you need to develop functional gains. Generally they are about highlighting specific traits or even decompressing compressed information tucked away in the genome.

Natural selection is the mechanism by which the new traits become established in the population. Specific to the examples I provided, once the traits arose it was via selective pressures that they spread and became "fixed" in the population. No one has argued otherwise.

So back to that whole "good faith conversation" thing...

Let's start by clearing up a very simple issue, i.e., "new genetic information".

If I have a single-clone population (population A), culture it for several generations until I have a descended population (population B ), and population B has a functional genetic sequence that wasn't present in population A, and the sequence produces a trait that confers a selective advantage, is that the evolution of "new genetic information"? If not, why? If it's not "new", where was it before? If it's not "genetic information", what exactly is "genetic information"?

Also...


Is this your position?

My mom went to the dairy store.

--has the same information content as--

My mom went to the dairy store on Monday.

Even though "on Monday" seems to be new, the letters that make up those two words were already in the original sentence. The letters were just copied and rearranged to make "on Monday". Thus no new information was added to the second sentence.

Is that about the same way you're thinking about genetics?


Finally, do you think of yourself as an expert in evolutionary biology? Is your knowledge of it at such a level that not only are you able to make such declarations, but that others should pay heed to them as well?

I know you don't like that question, but think of it this way...if we were in court and you testified about the state of the science in biology, genetics, paleontology, and other fields the way you have in this thread, what do you think would be the very first thing the other attorney would ask you? That's right, you'd be asked about your qualifications. And no one would see that as unreasonable or some sort of sign of insecurity. When someone says "the science says this...", and what they're saying is directly contrary to what the vast majority of the scientific community has been saying for 100+ years, it makes perfect sense to call into question that person's qualifications.

And if it turns out that person really doesn't have the qualifications necessary for them to be an expert in any of those fields, then their opinions on the science are worth no more than those of any random person off the street.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

So if population B has a set of genetic instructions that wasn't present in population A (it's parents) that result in a different phenotype, it is the evolution of "new genetic information". Given that we've seen exactly that, the creationist argument that evolution can't increase genetic information is demonstrably false.

Well firstly, it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs. Otherwise all you are talking about is a variation somewhere within those classifications. As you are well aware, what evolutionists suggest goes way beyond such variations.

And secondly, as I pointed out, you are ignoring the context. The context is evolution, and what creationists obviously mean by "new information" is not simply distorted information, but information that enables the kinds of changes required from transforming a simple organism to a more complex one.
Anyone can play the game you are playing and pretend that "dog" distorted to "dig" is new information, but you cannot do so without ignoring the fact that such information cannot produce a "digging dog", without adding something that doesn't somehow destroy any of the original functions. And if there are sequences that can be distorted without effecting survival, then why are they there in the first place?

And....? Is there something in those articles you find to be particularly compelling?

To use your own argument, do geocentrists find things that challenge their worldview compelling? However, the reason I put them there was to show you how easy it is to simply post links on a forum. It's call elephant hurling.

No, that's not what I meant. I meant that the root issue here is how you feel evolutionary theory contradicts your reading of scripture.

Well the comment I made did not mention anything about how evolutionary theory contradicts scripture, so why are you trying to change the subject? IF you want to have a discussion about evolution contra scripture AGAIN, then we can do so, but things can easily get messy if you just blurt out comments like that without making an effort to keep the discussion somewhat on track.

Given that we're discussing science, a scientifically-based position is obviously superior to one based in religion.

I'm not the one who brought up religion, YOU did. And here is what you said:

"Because your objection is simplistic and wrong, which is what one would expect from someone who's opinions about science were rooted in religion."
And if you are going to make the argument that the religion I base my opinions on is inferior to the one you do, then you will need to define in which way you consider it to be "inferior".

For example, if evolution of life on earth from a common ancestor is a complete and utter lie, and God actually did create life as a set of different types of animals and so on, then how is the former idea superior to the latter?
Is the former superior because it is indorsed by scientists? Is it superior because you simply want to create a context in which you can define it as superior?

Why is it superior???

I could just as easily create a context and say that what YOU say is wrong because it is rooted in what people say, rather than God. And from my perspective, MY argument IS superior, because we KNOW that what scientists believe is CONSTANTLY incorrect, and that God, as we understand God to be CANNOT be wrong.
And simply making the argument that they are learning by their mistakes doesn't help you unless you know in advance how many mistakes have been detected, and how many there are left to be made. Do you get my point? And more importantly, if the paradigm at the base of the theory of evolution is incorrect, then how does one detect the error? Setting up Cambrian rabbits doesn't do that because it presupposes one knows what the Cambrian is. So how do you do it River? How?

As soon as scientists are at liberty to use theories to explain away anything that could be considered a problem for evolution then we have a problem. Examples of fossils supposedly showing gradual changes is evidence of evolution. But now even sudden changes are also considered evidence of evolution. Huge morpholicical changes is evidence of evolution, stasis is evidence of evolution. Diversity is evidence, similarity is evidence. Heterosexuality, homosexuality.. you name it.

Everything fits in nicely doesn't it?

Your objection would have merit if just one time you would show that you both read and fully understood one of the papers I post. I can't recall you ever doing anything like, "I've read the paper, and here in the methods section it says....".

But again, if you can't understand the jargon or the concepts within the papers, on what basis can you ever evaluate their conclusions?

I evaluate conclusions "basically" the same way that you do. You obviously don't base your opinions exclusively on the scientific papers you read. As clever as you might think you are, the bulk of what you understand is only a minute fraction of what is available, so in the great majority of cases you depend on others to break things down for you. And that is EXACTLY what I am asking YOU to do. If I am using arguments that are disproven by the papers you provide, then surely you can explain why you think they do so, rather than implying that need to dig way down in the details before I can see the light. But as far as I understand the matter, the things being discussed here are on a higher level than molecular biology. You cannot prove transitions have occurred from one higher classification level to another, by appealing to evidence on a molecular level. So why are you trying to argue that anyone who hasen't read all the papers is too ignorant to involve yourself in a discussion like this?

So is it your view that universities should teach students that supernatural explanations for phenomena are acceptable in science? Do you believe universities should teach students that the best scientific explanation for the diversity of life on earth is something other than evolution? If so, what exactly?

I think at least there should be some kind of alternative explanation available, so that people aren't constantly given the false impression that evolution is the only explanation. But I'm not concerned with trying to figure out a way to radically change the education system. Let me ask you this, if you suddenly were given a revelation from God that what he wrote in Genesis actually occured in a more literal sense than you think it did. What if it actually DID contradict the beliefs of evolutionists?

What would YOU do?

You're not addressing the point. Why are there still people who strongly believe that the sun and other planets orbit the earth? Do you attribute their existence to the inability of cosmologists to convincingly demonstrate that the earth and other planets actually orbit the sun?

Why on earth do I need to defend what OTHER people believe? It is their job to defend what they believe, not mine. Whether or not one person is convinced by something has nothing to do with whether or not another person is convince by something else. As I said, arguments like that are a waste of time. And when I ask YOU to present your case in a CONVINCING manner, I DIDN'T simly say that if something is correct then it has to convince everyone! But rather I qualified it by saying "without being evasive, without mocking creationists, without trying to restort to clever rhetorical provocations, without simply appealing to authority, and without constantly distorting arguments made by people who are critical of evolution."

Of course you ignored that and just tried to twist it around into a clever argument.

Wouldn't they have to be?

No, not at all. What most creationists disagree with are thing that are believed to occur on a higher level, not things that can be observed under a microscope. I haven't made any comments here at all that deal with what occurs on a molecular level, and neither did I say that everything that evolutionists believe is incorrect, so my guess is that you are just throwing in things like that in order to make it appear that I am.

Again, I really don't know why this very fundamental and basic concept is apparently so difficult for you and UD to grasp.

If you're going to make arguments about amounts of things (like complexity or genetic information), then you have to have a way to measure those things.

Why is that such a struggle for you? I mean, I'm just baffled at how this has gone. My inclination is to conclude that the reason you guys are unable to address this fundamental issue is because you have no idea how to answer, but you're too defensively entrenched to ever admit it. Or you're afraid that as soon as you answer, I'll present you with a documented example that meets your criteria. I don't know....either way it's just bizarre to watch you guys stumble all over each other as you do everything you can to avoid simply saying "this is what I mean by complexity/genetic information, and this is how we measure it".

Why are you going off on a big spin about something that I have already addressed?

ONE change in the genome of a cell that does not cause any other information to be lost is ONE unit of measurement. THERE'S your measurement!

So stop pretending that anyone is "struggling"!

 

[Wormwood]

Again, I really don't know why this very fundamental and basic concept is apparently so difficult for you and UD to grasp.
If you're going to make arguments about amounts of things (like complexity or genetic information), then you have to have a way to measure those things.

I think you are guilty of the very thing you claim about creationists. Because there is a lack of scientific understanding on an issue of how the cell processes the complex information systems of DNA, etc, you want to argue that a non-quantifiable answer is proof that you are right. It simply is not. Basically you are assuming that some small change in the DNA of a bacteria that is designed to shift, transfer, adapt and mutate its DNA is proof that blood-clotting systems, eyeballs, and so forth can be created by the same process. I find this to be not only a gross over-exaggeration of what is being observed, but also a naivety of the complexity of the systems you claim can be whipped up by some mutations being observed by bacteria. It is like a scientist finding an American flag on the moon and then observing a human being jump. "Ahh, look how they moved upward and defied gravity by bending and thrusting themselves in the air with their legs! Since that is how they move off the ground, that must also be how they got to the moon!"

The point is not about trying to draw a line of exactly where adaptation ends and macro-evolution begins. The point is that there are irreducibly complex systems that are chicken and egg problems for the evolutionary scheme. There is no way for a cell to learn how to create proteins from scratch when proteins are a necessity for the creation of other proteins (for example). The whole point of a THEORY is that it is supposed to explain what we see. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to show how this theory could create the complex systems we see, rather than saying that a miniscule change in bacteria extrapolated over millions of years obviously brought about eyes, ears, blood-clotting, immune systems, migration instincts, feathers, etc. If you are going to say, "This is how it slowly developed" then YOU have to provide adequate answers as to how what you are saying could actually answer what we are discovering. The fact is, your answers DO NOT prove this and science is revealing that life is complex and many systems are circular and show no means of how they could be developed by a slow, bottom-up process.

How many times are we going to go over this definition of creationism and macro/Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution is the concept that a single-celled organism brought about all the plant and animal life we see today. Dogs producing big dogs and little dogs is not Darwinian evolution. 50,000 generations of bacteria producing bacteria is not proof of Darwinian evolution.

It seems this argument keeps going round and round. I have no interest in continually going over things I have already said or getting bogged down with defining terms over and over. It seems your views on evolution are more about word games than they are about any actual proof of what you are asserting. The fact that something can move a certain direction one inch is not proof that it can move thousands of miles upwards and break out of the earth's atmosphere. Me defining the limits of how high a person can jump is ridiculous. You need to prove the protozoa to person assumption rather than claiming you are right until I can give strict definitions of variations and their limits on a DNA scale (which is still being understood). The burden of proof is on you, and throughout this very long conversation, I have seen nothing new or noteworthy. Thank you for the discussion.

 

[River Jordan]

Well firstly, it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs. Otherwise all you are talking about is a variation somewhere within those classifications. As you are well aware, what evolutionists suggest goes way beyond such variations.

Well, I suppose if anyone was looking for a good example of how creationism forces its advocates into absurd and ridiculous positions, this would be about perfect. So whether or not a change to a genome constitutes "new genetic information" is primarily dependent on the taxonomic classification of the organism?

If that's where you really want to plant your flag, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

And secondly, as I pointed out, you are ignoring the context. The context is evolution, and what creationists obviously mean by "new information" is not simply distorted information, but information that enables the kinds of changes required from transforming a simple organism to a more complex one.
Anyone can play the game you are playing and pretend that "dog" distorted to "dig" is new information, but you cannot do so without ignoring the fact that such information cannot produce a "digging dog", without adding something that doesn't somehow destroy any of the original functions. And if there are sequences that can be distorted without effecting survival, then why are they there in the first place?

Is the difference between "My mom went to the dairy store" and "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" just that the latter has "distorted" the information that was in the former?

To use your own argument, do geocentrists find things that challenge their worldview compelling? However, the reason I put them there was to show you how easy it is to simply post links on a forum. It's call elephant hurling.

I not only post links to papers, I describe what's in them as well. You just posted links without any context or comment.

Well the comment I made did not mention anything about how evolutionary theory contradicts scripture, so why are you trying to change the subject? IF you want to have a discussion about evolution contra scripture AGAIN, then we can do so, but things can easily get messy if you just blurt out comments like that without making an effort to keep the discussion somewhat on track.

Like I said, it seems pretty obvious to me that with you, everything about this issue is about scripture. It has to be, because it sure as heck isn't rooted in the science.

I'm not the one who brought up religion, YOU did. And here is what you said:

"Because your objection is simplistic and wrong, which is what one would expect from someone who's opinions about science were rooted in religion."
And if you are going to make the argument that the religion I base my opinions on is inferior to the one you do, then you will need to define in which way you consider it to be "inferior".

For example, if evolution of life on earth from a common ancestor is a complete and utter lie, and God actually did create life as a set of different types of animals and so on, then how is the former idea superior to the latter?
Is the former superior because it is indorsed by scientists? Is it superior because you simply want to create a context in which you can define it as superior?

Again, given that we're debating science, the view that is actually based in an understanding of the science is superior to one that is based in religion...when it comes to that subject. What you seem to be arguing is that your religiously-based view (creationism) is at least on equal footing with the scientific view (evolution) when it comes to the history of life on earth. But by the exact same reasoning, we must also grant that the religiously-based view of geocentrism is on equal footing with the scientific view of heliocentrism.

And at this point, I honestly wouldn't put it past you to try and make that argument.

I could just as easily create a context and say that what YOU say is wrong because it is rooted in what people say, rather than God. And from my perspective, MY argument IS superior, because we KNOW that what scientists believe is CONSTANTLY incorrect, and that God, as we understand God to be CANNOT be wrong.

And do you allow that same context to be applied to anyone outside your faith, or are you going to invoke the fallacy of special pleading?

And simply making the argument that they are learning by their mistakes doesn't help you unless you know in advance how many mistakes have been detected, and how many there are left to be made. Do you get my point? And more importantly, if the paradigm at the base of the theory of evolution is incorrect, then how does one detect the error? Setting up Cambrian rabbits doesn't do that because it presupposes one knows what the Cambrian is. So how do you do it River? How?

As soon as scientists are at liberty to use theories to explain away anything that could be considered a problem for evolution then we have a problem. Examples of fossils supposedly showing gradual changes is evidence of evolution. But now even sudden changes are also considered evidence of evolution. Huge morpholicical changes is evidence of evolution, stasis is evidence of evolution. Diversity is evidence, similarity is evidence. Heterosexuality, homosexuality.. you name it.

Everything fits in nicely doesn't it?

Don't confuse the fact that evolutionary theory hasn't been falsified with the idea that it can't be falsified.

I evaluate conclusions "basically" the same way that you do.

Oh no you don't. Not even close.

You obviously don't base your opinions exclusively on the scientific papers you read. As clever as you might think you are, the bulk of what you understand is only a minute fraction of what is available, so in the great majority of cases you depend on others to break things down for you.

Actually, I usually don't. If something really piques my interest, I do everything I can to go see for myself.

And that is EXACTLY what I am asking YOU to do. If I am using arguments that are disproven by the papers you provide, then surely you can explain why you think they do so, rather than implying that need to dig way down in the details before I can see the light. But as far as I understand the matter, the things being discussed here are on a higher level than molecular biology. You cannot prove transitions have occurred from one higher classification level to another, by appealing to evidence on a molecular level. So why are you trying to argue that anyone who hasen't read all the papers is too ignorant to involve yourself in a discussion like this?

To you guys, not at all. The emotional and psychological stakes are too high.

I think at least there should be some kind of alternative explanation available, so that people aren't constantly given the false impression that evolution is the only explanation. But I'm not concerned with trying to figure out a way to radically change the education system.

What alternative do you think should be taught in college science courses?

Let me ask you this, if you suddenly were given a revelation from God that what he wrote in Genesis actually occured in a more literal sense than you think it did. What if it actually DID contradict the beliefs of evolutionists?

What would YOU do?

I don't know. If it happens, I'll let you know.

Why on earth do I need to defend what OTHER people believe? It is their job to defend what they believe, not mine. Whether or not one person is convinced by something has nothing to do with whether or not another person is convince by something else. As I said, arguments like that are a waste of time. And when I ask YOU to present your case in a CONVINCING manner, I DIDN'T simly say that if something is correct then it has to convince everyone! But rather I qualified it by saying "without being evasive, without mocking creationists, without trying to restort to clever rhetorical provocations, without simply appealing to authority, and without constantly distorting arguments made by people who are critical of evolution."

Of course you ignored that and just tried to twist it around into a clever argument.

Ok thanks.

No, not at all. What most creationists disagree with are thing that are believed to occur on a higher level, not things that can be observed under a microscope. I haven't made any comments here at all that deal with what occurs on a molecular level, and neither did I say that everything that evolutionists believe is incorrect, so my guess is that you are just throwing in things like that in order to make it appear that I am.

Ok thanks.

Why are you going off on a big spin about something that I have already addressed?

ONE change in the genome of a cell that does not cause any other information to be lost is ONE unit of measurement. THERE'S your measurement!

So stop pretending that anyone is "struggling"!

Oh yes, I got it now. "Genetic information" is primarily determined by taxonomic classification.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Wormwood,

"I think you are guilty of the very thing you claim about creationists. Because there is a lack of scientific understanding on an issue of how the cell processes the complex information systems of DNA, etc, you want to argue that a non-quantifiable answer is proof that you are right. It simply is not."

Where I sit, the issue seems pretty straightforward. A creationist parrots the argument that "evolution can't add new genetic information". To me, a functional genetic sequence that wasn't there previously constitutes "new genetic information". It's new because it wasn't there before and it's "genetic information" because it's a functional sequence. Thus, the observation of the evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't there before falsifies the creationist argument. It really is that simple.

However, with you guys "new genetic information" seems to be "whatever I think hasn't been observed and can't happen", which gives us things like cows turning into whales and "genetic information" being determined by taxonomy. And from that, somehow in creationist world a challenge to demonstrate the evolution of new genetic information is thought of as the same thing as a challenge to demonstrate universal common ancestry!

This is why creationists are not at all taken seriously in the scientific community. Your arguments are just plain ridiculous.

"Basically you are assuming that some small change in the DNA of a bacteria that is designed to shift, transfer, adapt and mutate its DNA is proof that blood-clotting systems, eyeballs, and so forth can be created by the same process. I find this to be not only a gross over-exaggeration of what is being observed, but also a naivety of the complexity of the systems you claim can be whipped up by some mutations being observed by bacteria."

If you'll notice, I never once made that argument.

"The point is not about trying to draw a line of exactly where adaptation ends and macro-evolution begins. The point is that there are irreducibly complex systems that are chicken and egg problems for the evolutionary scheme.

No there aren't. Every example of "irreducible complexity" that creationists came up with turned out to not only be evolvable, but to have a pretty good line of evidence indicating how it evolved.

"There is no way for a cell to learn how to create proteins from scratch when proteins are a necessity for the creation of other proteins (for example). The whole point of a THEORY is that it is supposed to explain what we see. Thus, the burden of proof is on you to show how this theory could create the complex systems we see, rather than saying that a miniscule change in bacteria extrapolated over millions of years obviously brought about eyes, ears, blood-clotting, immune systems, migration instincts, feathers, etc. If you are going to say, "This is how it slowly developed" then YOU have to provide adequate answers as to how what you are saying could actually answer what we are discovering. The fact is, your answers DO NOT prove this and science is revealing that life is complex and many systems are circular and show no means of how they could be developed by a slow, bottom-up process."

So now you're asking me to fully explain the evolutionary history of every trait, biological system, and structure that you can name? Tell you what, let's look into one of those systems and see if there is any evidence indicating an evolutionary history. Let's look at the blood clotting system in vertebrates. You wanna do that?

"How many times are we going to go over this definition of creationism and macro/Darwinian evolution? Darwinian evolution is the concept that a single-celled organism brought about all the plant and animal life we see today. Dogs producing big dogs and little dogs is not Darwinian evolution. 50,000 generations of bacteria producing bacteria is not proof of Darwinian evolution."

This is why I asked. As I said, in my world "Darwinian evolution" refers to a specific mode of evolutionary change, whereas you use the term to refer to universal common ancestry.

"It seems this argument keeps going round and round. I have no interest in continually going over things I have already said or getting bogged down with defining terms over and over. It seems your views on evolution are more about word games than they are about any actual proof of what you are asserting. The fact that something can move a certain direction one inch is not proof that it can move thousands of miles upwards and break out of the earth's atmosphere. Me defining the limits of how high a person can jump is ridiculous. You need to prove the protozoa to person assumption rather than claiming you are right until I can give strict definitions of variations and their limits on a DNA scale (which is still being understood). The burden of proof is on you, and throughout this very long conversation, I have seen nothing new or noteworthy. Thank you for the discussion."

You're welcome.

 

[UppsalaDragby]

Well, I suppose if anyone was looking for a good example of how creationism forces its advocates into absurd and ridiculous positions, this would be about perfect. So whether or not a change to a genome constitutes "new genetic information" is primarily dependent on the taxonomic classification of the organism?

If that's where you really want to plant your flag, then I'll just let that speak for itself.

Well, where you are planting your flag is no less absurd and ridiculous than where anyone else chooses to. Your contention, remember, is that distortion of information within the genome is the kind of "new genetic information" required to change organisms throughout every level of taxonomic classification. So rather than desparately look for a way to wiggle out of this, why not just admit that not only are YOUR claims dependent on the classification system, the burden is on YOU, to prove that such transitions have occurred, just as Wormwood pointed out.

Is the difference between "My mom went to the dairy store" and "My mom went to the dairy store on Monday" just that the latter has "distorted" the information that was in the former?

Huh?? Where did the extra letters "on Monday" come from?

Like I said, it seems pretty obvious to me that with you, everything about this issue is about scripture. It has to be, because it sure as heck isn't rooted in the science.

Rubbish! Where have I mentioned scripture, other than in response to your false claims? And just because someone isn't a scientist doesn't mean that his arguments are "scriptural". That is a totally idiotic conclusion, and obviously an attempt to aviod addressing the points I brought up.
For example, if I ask you why biological changes in the genome are evidence of evolution, rather than just variations within a taxonomic classification, then that IS an argument ROOTED IN SCIENCE. Like it or not!

Again, given that we're debating science, the view that is actually based in an understanding of the science is superior to one that is based in religion...when it comes to that subject. What you seem to be arguing is that your religiously-based view (creationism) is at least on equal footing with the scientific view (evolution) when it comes to the history of life on earth. But by the exact same reasoning, we must also grant that the religiously-based view of geocentrism is on equal footing with the scientific view of heliocentrism.
And at this point, I honestly wouldn't put it past you to try and make that argument.

Well, since it is a gigantic strawman, I am not making that argument. Let me remind you ONCE AGAIN, it is YOU that brought up the subject of religion and scripture, NOT me. Stop being so disingeniously evasive.

And do you allow that same context to be applied to anyone outside your faith, or are you going to invoke the fallacy of special pleading?

No more than you do River.

Don't confuse the fact that evolutionary theory hasn't been falsified with the idea that it can't be falsified.

I'm NOT, but since everything is interpreted as evidence of evolution - it is practically impossible to falsify, which is a problem that you seem to want to ignore.

Oh no you don't. Not even close.

Boy, you are really into throwing out one-liners today. I explained what I meant by that, so why don't you put a little effort in responding appropriately, rather than these kinds of silly hand-waving comments?

Actually, I usually don't. If something really piques my interest, I do everything I can to go see for myself.

Nonsense, that would be impossible! The things that you read in each of these papers would require an incredible amount of time to validate personally as well as would verifying ALL the other papers that they, in turn, reference. And then you would also have to verify ALL the scientific papers in other fields of science that you don't even study in order to see whether what you read is viable in relation to those fields. Dependency on others is unavoidable.

To you guys, not at all. The emotional and psychological stakes are too high.

Another tongue poking remark? Grow up!

What alternative do you think should be taught in college science courses?

Reread what I wrote in my comment. Or have you simply decided to start playing games again when you cannot address the things I have been discussing. You do this every time we have a discussion. You start off well, but then you come to a point when you just don't have anything more to come with, and so you start with silly stuff, like just throwing out questions that have already been addressed. This should be a discussion, rather than an interrogation, which seems to be a tactic that you often fall back on.

Oh yes, I got it now. "Genetic information" is primarily determined by taxonomic classification.

No. I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouth.

 

[River Jordan]

Well, where you are planting your flag is no less absurd and ridiculous than where anyone else chooses to. Your contention, remember, is that distortion of information within the genome is the kind of "new genetic information" required to change organisms throughout every level of taxonomic classification. So rather than desparately look for a way to wiggle out of this, why not just admit that not only are YOUR claims dependent on the classification system, the burden is on YOU, to prove that such transitions have occurred, just as Wormwood pointed out.

As I said to Wormwood...

Where I sit, the issue seems pretty straightforward. A creationist parrots the argument that "evolution can't add new genetic information". To me, a functional genetic sequence that wasn't there previously constitutes "new genetic information". It's new because it wasn't there before and it's "genetic information" because it's a functional sequence. Thus, the observation of the evolution of functional genetic sequences that weren't there before falsifies the creationist argument. It really is that simple.

However, with you guys "new genetic information" seems to be "whatever I think hasn't been observed and can't happen", which gives us things like cows turning into whales and "genetic information" being determined by taxonomy. And from that, somehow in creationist world a challenge to demonstrate the evolution of new genetic information is thought of as the same thing as a challenge to demonstrate universal common ancestry!

This is why creationists are not at all taken seriously in the scientific community. Your arguments are just plain ridiculous.

Huh?? Where did the extra letters "on Monday" come from?

They were copied and then rearranged to make "on Monday".

Rubbish! Where have I mentioned scripture, other than in response to your false claims? And just because someone isn't a scientist doesn't mean that his arguments are "scriptural". That is a totally idiotic conclusion, and obviously an attempt to aviod addressing the points I brought up.

You are obviously what can be referred to as a creationist/evolution denialist, where you have formed some pretty strong opinions about the subject of evolutionary biology. Yet in reading your posts on the subject, it's extremely evident that you don't have a very good understanding and grasp of the science behind evolutionary biology. Thus your opinions and position cannot be rooted in the actual science of evolutionary biology; if it were, you would be able to discuss much more thoroughly. That leads to an obvious question...if your opinions and position on evolutionary biology aren't rooted in the actual science, what are they rooted in? IMO, the answer is as obvious as can be. They are rooted in your religious beliefs, and more specifically, the way in which you interpret scripture.

For example, if I ask you why biological changes in the genome are evidence of evolution, rather than just variations within a taxonomic classification, then that IS an argument ROOTED IN SCIENCE. Like it or not!

No it's not. To be blunt, it's an embarrassingly stupid and ignorant argument for several reasons. First, evolution is a means of generating variation, and second you've been given examples of the evolution of new species multiple times. But that leads to the same question...why would someone like you...someone who has little to no knowledge of the science...ask such a ridiculous question? Now, if we had just met I would take the time to walk you through the basics and help you understand your misconceptions.

But given everything we've been through before, I know you're not asking that because you are interested in learning; you're asking because you think it will stump me. IOW, you're not asking your question in good faith. Why? Because of your religiously-based objections to evolutionary biology.

I'm NOT, but since everything is interpreted as evidence of evolution - it is practically impossible to falsify, which is a problem that you seem to want to ignore.

How would you propose we falsify erosion?

Nonsense, that would be impossible! The things that you read in each of these papers would require an incredible amount of time to validate personally as well as would verifying ALL the other papers that they, in turn, reference. And then you would also have to verify ALL the scientific papers in other fields of science that you don't even study in order to see whether what you read is viable in relation to those fields. Dependency on others is unavoidable.

You're not paying attention to what I wrote. I said if something piques my interest, I make every effort to check it out for myself. Obviously I don't read every paper ever written, nor does everything I read pique my interest to that level.

Reread what I wrote in my comment. Or have you simply decided to start playing games again when you cannot address the things I have been discussing. You do this every time we have a discussion. You start off well, but then you come to a point when you just don't have anything more to come with, and so you start with silly stuff, like just throwing out questions that have already been addressed. This should be a discussion, rather than an interrogation, which seems to be a tactic that you often fall back on.

Again you're dodging a question like a guilty defendant in court. You stated, "I think at least there should be some kind of alternative explanation available" when it comes to college science courses. All I'm asking is if you have a specific "alternative" in mind, and if so, what it is.

No. I didn't say that, so please don't put words in my mouth.

You said exactly that.

"it isn't evolution of new genetic information unless you can show that population B is can no longer be classified in any of the biological classifications to which that organism belongs"

If you're honestly going to say that's not a clear statement that the primary factor in determining if something is "new genetic information" is taxonomy, then we are most definitely done because I have zero interest in trying to converse with someone like that.

 

[Wormwood]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvRy6AjeyLc

I thought this was interesting for those engaged or reading in on this discussion.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Because of your religiously-based objections to evolutionary biology.

Wow, you are being sophomoric. Wormwood is going into great scientific detail on this issue and here you still are with the idiotic any-opposition-to-evolution-isn't-science. The arrogance you materialists display on this subject is just astounding. You think science is like a police investigation that will invariably lead to only one conclusion already reached before the investigation. It's why I've said before, you guys are the ones who are religiously dogmatic about evolution, cloaking yourselves in "science" when it's nothing but blind faith that drives you, the blindest kind of faith. In my experience, there's nobody more close minded, more intellectually uncurious, more intolerant of scrutiny than you materialist evolutionists.

The arrogance is just breathtaking!

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood,

An argument for creationism for which there is no rebuttal? Wow. What is this argument?

Well, he starts off with "information always comes from a mind", which he tries to apply to DNA to conclude that since DNA has information, and information always comes from a mind, DNA came from a mind, i.e., God. Of course the problem with that is so fundamental it's rather silly. Information doesn't always come from a mind. Information comes in all sorts of forms, including things like pulsars. The regular rotation and appearance of its radiation is information...information about where it is, how big it is, its rotational speed, etc. A rock slide contains information about the size and shapes of the rocks within it. Does Dr. Lisle believe God is controlling pulsars and arranging rocks in rock slides?

And of course when applied to DNA we've already seen that under a reasonable definition of "new genetic information" (a functional genetic sequence that wasn't previously present), we see new genetic information being generated around us all the time. The funny thing is how Dr. Lisle tries to back up his argument about "no new genetic information"......by quoting other creationists' assertions! Well done.

After that he goes on to regurgitate a bunch of young-earth creationist arguments that have been refuted countless times.

You're being duped Wormwood. You just have to have the courage to realize it.

Wormwood is going into great scientific detail on this issue and here you still are with the idiotic any-opposition-to-evolution-isn't-science.

Please show the actual science that Wormwood has posted, and where I have said that "any opposition to evolution isn't science".

But I'll predict right now that not only won't you do those things, you won't apologize for making such unsubstantiated accusations either.

The arrogance you materialists display on this subject is just astounding. You think science is like a police investigation that will invariably lead to only one conclusion already reached before the investigation. It's why I've said before, you guys are the ones who are religiously dogmatic about evolution, cloaking yourselves in "science" when it's nothing but blind faith that drives you, the blindest kind of faith. In my experience, there's nobody more close minded, more intellectually uncurious, more intolerant of scrutiny than you materialist evolutionists.

I have no idea why you think of me as a materialist. If you're that wrong on such a fundamental question, I can only imagine what other "realities" you're carrying around.

 

[This Vale Of Tears]

Please show the actual science that Wormwood has posted, and where I have said that "any opposition to evolution isn't science".

Please show the actual science that Wormwood has posted, and where I have said that "any opposition to evolution isn't science".

But I'll predict right now that not only won't you do those things, you won't apologize for making such unsubstantiated accusations either.


I have no idea why you think of me as a materialist. If you're that wrong on such a fundamental question, I can only imagine what other "realities" you're carrying around.

Wormwood has made lengthy posts fortified with astute science based observations. If you somehow missed that, you have no room criticizing what you think I'm missing. (Yes you are a materialist, I stand by that)

It's small wonder people are getting frustrated with you. You don't listen to anybody but the self aggrandizing voices in your head.

 

[River Jordan]

Wormwood has made lengthy posts fortified with astute science based observations.

Such as......?