Have I "debunked" God's existence?

@Krumple,

Krumple;168935 wrote:

There are only 3 base pairs so trying to use the alphabet as an example is the worst possible example that can be used.

This statement demonstrates an entirely lacking understanding of what code is.

The poster should note, that Binary (a two letter language) can represent every language known to mankind, regardless of how many letters that language has. The English of my comments here is mapped to binary, compressed, and then expanded again to English without error.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

The combination for each pair is far fewer possibilities but not only that certain combination's don't even do anything, they are considered inactive parings.

Ughh... now I know the poster doesn't understand the process. It's a quaternary language, not a binary language. The base pairs are not doing the coding. The double helix unzips... remember... So that only one side of the helix is used for encoding to RNA. That single side of the helix has four letters available for coding.

And this is a quaternary digital code, not a 26 letter analogue code. You must understand that digital codes are based upon logic capacities. A ternary is exponentially greater in logic capacity than a binary. And a quaternary is exponentially greater in logic capacity that ternary.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

You can't use the alphabet as an example of this method.

Yes we can and we must for it has been discovered to be as such.

Nucleotide = Character
Codon = Letter
Gene = Word
Operon = Sentence
Regulon = Paragraph
Chromosome = Chapter

Although the bases are always in fixed pairs, the pairs can come in any order. This way, DNA can write 'codes' out of the 'letters' that are the bases. These codes contain the message that tells the cell what to do.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

...they used a sentence which only certain word combination's work.

Huh? Not having been privy to the original conversation, I'm not sure I understand the validity of this statement. Because unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly the way codified digital information must be written. "Only certain word combinations work". It's not poetry. It has no room for metaphor.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

These are not words, they only react to how these amino acids combine to form proteins.

A poor choice of word "react" demonstrating a shallow and ignorant perspective. They don't "react", THEY INSTRUCT.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

You really don't care to actually learn anything. You have already decided where you stand on the issue by this amusing attempt.

Please provide some peer reviewed scientific support for your assessment that DNA is in fact not a genuine code and the meaning it represents is somehow reducible to mere chemical reactions. Nothing I've ever "learned" has ever suggested such a thing is remotely possible.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

"Men take the words they find in use amongst their neighbours; and that they may not seem ignorant what they stand for, use them confidently, without much troubling their heads about a certain fixed meaning..."

Are you suggesting that DNA is called a code just for fun? That somehow Yockey and Gamov didn't "trouble their heads" about certain fixed meanings? Where are you trying to go with this?

Yockey abides by the same definition of code that all other information sciences abide by... Including Genetics. Purlitz Burks and Waterman has set forth an extremely fixed meaning. Claude Shannon protocols virtually run our entire modern day lives. They are established with extremely fixed meanings. Yockey discovered that DNA was a code by adhering to these very same fixed meanings, and he acknowledges that in spades.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 02:43 AM ----------

Krumple;168935 wrote:

The real physical entities guanine, adenine, thymine and cytosine are not codes.

Correct. They are not codes. They are a physical medium that is arranged into being a code. Neither are the letters of the alphabet a code, until they are arranged in a specific order to represent the meaning from a mind.

Anything can be used as a medium. Smoke rings, electricity, wind, sound, color, light... But arranging them in a specific order to PRE-define a physical manifestation is indeed a code.

yphap... is not a code because there is no agreed upon convention of meaning. But those same symbols arranged differently is happy. Now we have a code.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

If anyone wants to call them codes...

I do. And so does Yockey and the entire field of Biology and Genetics.

Krumple;168935 wrote:

...let them point to the symbols which might be replaced by these 'codes'.

Sure.

Ribosomes read codons, 'words' made of three base pairs that tell the ribosome which amino acid to add.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;168935 wrote:

I laughed at your attachment quote. Not only did you create another fallacy by thinking this attachment was a refute to what I had posted but the attachment itself is flawed.

There are only 4 base pairs so trying to use the alphabet as an example is the worst possible example that can be used. The combination for each pair is far fewer possibilities but not only that certain combination's don't even do anything, they are considered inactive parings.

You can't use the alphabet as an example of this method. But that wasn't the actual problem, instead they used a sentence which only certain word combination's work. These are not words, they only react to how these amino acids combine to form proteins.

Nice try but now I see what your motivation is. You really don't care to actually learn anything. You have already decided where you stand on the issue by this amusing attempt.

I did not think the attachment was a "refute to what you had posted." If I had thought so, I would have said so. And your last three sentences seem obviously scathing, poking fun at my beliefs just as a "religious fundamentalist" might poke fun at you for being ignorant. You can't insult me, but you can make it very clear that you are as "fundamentalist" as I may be when you resort to insults to try to discredit me.

I am not a scientist. I have neither the time nor the exhaustive education to be able to conduct complex experiments regarding whether the partial makeup of the bacteria flagellum is a TTSS. But as far as I know, you are also not a scientist (correct me if I'm wrong). The refutations you provided for IC were not based on your own work; instead, you were fortunate enough to be able to find other people's research that supports what you propose to be true. I'm sure with some digging I can also muster up other people's research in order to support IC, but while you may blame me for the fact that such research is not currently on "my" side, you can't (without conducting in-depth research yourself) claim that you've done anything except get lucky in your finding of hard science that backs your claims.

At the same time, I must accuse any Darwinist of falling back on their own version of the God-of-the-Gaps fallacy. If Darwinists so far have only been able to muster up a number of lab-grown amino acids that clump together to begin to form RNA, it seems to me that THEY don't have sufficient evidence to back up the theory of evolution. Darwinism, for this reason, remains merely a complicated theory whose first few assertions have only begun to be proven by hard science.

Meanwhile, ID still enjoys the benefit of the evidence. It has been shown (even through mainstream biology) how incredibly complex life is; it has been calculated (whether or not my attachment post is correct) how astronomical the odds are for functional life arising from non-life. These things constitute much of the evidence pointing toward ID. Darwinists, however, continue to hold on to their theory, more or less throwing up their hands and saying "NaturalSelectionDidIt", even though science has so far failed to produce sufficient evidence to support this. Maybe future science WILL support it, but at this point in time it has not. It is still more reasonable to believe life was intelligently designed.

(I typed this at 6:30 in the morning; please forgive me for any typos or inconsistencies.)

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Quote:

I know you didn't address me directly with your response but since you mentioned that one case can not disprove irreducible complexity, would you like another example how the theory is flawed? Please take a moment to watch this video.

Thank you for the response and the rewording. Earlier we were talking about debunking or disproving irreducable complexity. Here you speak of showing its flaws. This you can do with your examples, but remember a flawed theory is still a theory to be considered. Perhaps someday Darwin will be debunked and perhaps someday ID or irreducable complexity will be debunked. So far neither has happened. All I ask for is using the right language in the discussion.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

I don't think Darwin will ever be debunked, but it is quite possible that his theory is not the final word, either.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

By the way Krumple,
neither of your videos are effective at one they claim. As for the flagellum I would ask, what if you took ten other proteins of just 5 or two? Does every single mixture and amount equal something useful? If not then the complexity is increased.

As for the Bombardier Beetle. How did producing these two chemicals help the beetle survive prior to the production of the catalyst? Also how did it benefit the beetle to produce the mechanism to squirt the chemicals back when they were not catalyzed o were barely concentrated?

Refutation is a hard thing.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

There is a middle ground between ID and Darwinism.

I call it Intelligent Evolution, and it has much empirical precedent in the disciplines of Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and even Evolution.

It's no secret that programs can be designed to re-author themselves. But in every case, it was designed to do this from the very beginning by a sentient author. It is accomplished by sensing and acting upon external stimuli. Careful choice of words here...

Acting upon is not the same as Reacting to.

Thought/Affect is not the same as Cause/Effect.

Thought/Affect and Acting upon requires a mind. Reacting to and Cause/Effect does not require a mind.

Unfortunately, Dialectic Marxist Materialists (read Atheists) most often conflate these notions as being the same. This makes intelligent discussion on the issue nearly impossible.

As to irreducible complexity, well, it does indeed exist. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with Codified Information.

Tornado = Hot Air + Cold Air + Wind + Pressure + Time

No code required. But take away one ingredient and the Tornado will not manifest. It is irreducible complexity.

But DNA, like all other instance of Codified Information is reducible to a factor of 1 bit. My six billion letter code, plus the code that I continue to author throughout my entire life (with every spoken/written word from my mind) is reducible to the simple symbol of "I".

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Personally I have no problem with Creationism, Darwinism, Intelligent Design, or Intelligent Evolution. I have my predisposition, but theories are meant to be discussed, dissected, reassembled and held up to the closest of scrutiny. It is those who will not even look at the opposing view with anything other than a jaundiced eye that worry me. Science is just as limited as any other field. It can answer what happened and when, but will never answer the great "Why?" That is to be found in theology and philosophy. Perhaps Darwin will win and the great Why will be philosophically answered with the resounding silence of purposelessness. The we will have an answer. Perhaps creationism will win and the great Why will be answered with a resounding "Thus sayeth the Lord." But we will never know and will never have true knowledge unless we follow the evidence where it goes and consider all possible interpretations about the evidence.

Intersting post QuinticNon.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

Lets not forget that Darwin himself never mentioned the term Random Mutation in Origin of Species. He did mention Natural Selection, but did not suggest any mechanism that it could operate upon, noting only the requirement for an as of yet undiscovered mysterious agent that was still missing.

In the race to discover that missing mechanism, biologists coined the term "Random Mutation", thereby setting science off on a wild goose chase. It's like saying "Singularity". It means, We don't have a freaking clue, but if we name it something we'll get big grant money.

We now know that mutations are not random at all. They are very controlled indeed for they sense and act upon their environment, rather that reacting to their environment. Such is the method of Codified Information, being the very mechanism that Natural Selection operates upon. Random Mutation is becoming extinct.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;168941 wrote:

Please provide some peer reviewed scientific support for your assessment that DNA is in fact not a genuine code and the meaning it represents is somehow reducible to mere chemical reactions. Nothing I've ever "learned" has ever suggested such a thing is remotely possible.

There's been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things. The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.
As usual, this argument comes down to using words improperly. A code, by the strictest definition, is in fact something designed by intelligent beings. It is a system of symbols that either arbitrarily or by some system represent various things. The alphabet I'm using to write this blog is a code. There's nothing about the individual letters that have any inherent meaning. They don't do anything in and of themselves. By agreement between multiple humans, we have a legend, or a key, which most of us learned in grammar school. By using this legend, we can look at anything in the code "English" and through substitution, come to the knowledge of the concepts sybolized by the various letters.
This is the traditional idea of a code, and it is what theists think they mean when they argue that DNA is a code. The thing is, DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides. There are four types of these nucleotides, and we humans have decided to call them adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine. These names are not entirely arbitrary, but in the end, there's nothing magical about them. We could call them Blob, Clob, Dob, and Emu, and they'd still be the same. Our language - the code we humans use to communicate - is just a way for us to give each other information and keep things separate in our own minds.
The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the "blueprints" or "code" which define a sequence of messenger RNA which in turn defines at least one protein. In a sense, these proteins are the building blocks of life, and DNA is the "code" which determines the qualities of the life that will be built.
The problem with the theist argument, however, is that the DNA code is not arbitrary, and it does not rely at all on the agreement of sentient beings. In fact, it is exactly the same in nature as any other dynamic chemical process. When you see an explosion on TV, you're watching a chemical reaction that was controlled by the same kind of "code." Crystals grow based on such a code. Stars give off light and energy from the same kind of code.
All DNA is, to the chagrin of creationists, is a very, very complicated organic molecule that can react in a staggeringly large number of ways with other organic molecules. Unlike an explosion or a crystal, which can be described mathematically with a few simple formulas, the process of building a living thing is several orders of magnitude more complicated. It takes perhaps 10 billion bits to convey all the necessary information needed to build a human, and the process is never really finished until the human dies, so we're talking about a very, very long process by comparison with an explosion, and billions more unique steps than the formation of a crystal.
Yet, it's the same process. This molecule, when in the presence of that molecule, will bond and make this new molecule. It's just chemistry.
The thing is, we humans recognize the complexity of the chemical process we call life, and we notice that it is not completely dissimilar from the process by which we build a skyscraper or a watch. We have a set of instructions, and we refer back to them throughout the whole process of putting materials together in very specific ways, until we have a finished product. We like to argue that messenger RNA is "referring to the instructions" to figure out which protein to build in the same way, but it's not. Neither DNA nor RNA is sentient. They are both just doing what chemicals do. DNA is more akin to a catalyst than a set of instructions. That is, the DNA stays essentially the same throughout the building process, but it is facilitating chemical reactions the whole time it is part of a living thing.
So, here is the ultimate problem with this particular theist argument. DNA is not an arbitrary set of symbols that "stand for" something else that will be interpreted through some kind of a legend. It is a set of chemicals which are nonthinking, and have no choice but to do what they do, in the same way that a crystal has no choice but to grow when in the presence of the appropriate aqueous solution. DNA is just a very, very, very complicated molecule that happens to be capable of facilitating incredibly complex sets of chemical reactions.
Sure, it seems magical that something as simple as four little nucleotides could be responsible for all the diverse life on the planet, but our sense of wonder at the versatility of carbon shouldn't woo us into the false belief that incredible versatility is equivalent to design. DNA is not a "code" in the normal sense of the word. We call it a code because doing so gives us an easy way to think of the process by which a strand of DNA is responsible for the building of a living thing.
That's it. When we look at a particular sequence of nucleotides, we can recognize that the chemical reaction they facilitate will produce a certain protein. This is no different from looking at a few grams of sodium or potassium and recognizing that in the presence of water, they will react in very specific ways to produce a violent exothermic reaction. If DNA is a code, then so is every other molecule in the universe. It's just the consistency of the laws of nature. This, in the presence of that, will do the other.
So no, DNA is not a code. It is analogous to a code in enough ways that it makes sense for us to refer to things like the "genetic code," but in the end, we're just not talking about the kind of code that would make the theist argument valid. Sorry, theists, but you fail on this one, too.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 07:45 PM ----------

QuinticNon;169066 wrote:

Tornado = Hot Air + Cold Air + Wind + Pressure + Time

No code required. But take away one ingredient and the Tornado will not manifest. It is irreducible complexity.

What? That is not the definition of IC. The theory states that since the parts do not have functions the parts themselves must be taken as a whole for the function.

IC would state that "hot air" does not have a function outside of a tornado.

IC would state that "cold air" does not have a function outside of a tornado.

IC would state that "wind" does not have a function outside of a tornado.

IC would state that "pressure" does not have a function outside of a tornado.

IC would state that "time" does not have a function outside of a tornado.

Since IC states that none of these parts can have a function outside of a tornado it claims that a tornado would have Irreducible Complexity.

But Irreducible Complexity is a fallacy.

The reason I focused on the parts is because IC's theory states that evolution of the parts can not happen because it would alter the over all function of the system. This is also a flawed statement however; the parts themselves can change and do change and it does effect the over all system. The reason the IC supporters fail is because they look at the function as something static and should never change, but that is a flawed perspective. A change in a part of a system "could" effect the over all function of that system, but that is the "cost" of a change to the function of a part of that system.

---------- Post added 05-26-2010 at 08:01 PM ----------

Klope3;168991 wrote:

even though science has so far failed to produce sufficient evidence to support this. Maybe future science WILL support it, but at this point in time it has not. It is still more reasonable to believe life was intelligently designed.

See now I know you didn't even read the second article link I posted for you. In it it states that they successfully had RNA molecules which would "evolve" and either improve their chances of acquiring more materials or lose out because their adaptations were less than ideal.

You can stick to your "science has so far failed to produce sufficient evidence" but that is only because you refuse to read a simple article. Which is why I made the statement that you really don't want to know these things or learn about it. You would rather ignore them and stick to your motto.

So here is another example for you, that IC is a fallacy.

YouTube - disproving intelligent design with a mouse trap

3 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;169371 wrote:

So no, DNA is not a code. It is analogous to a code...

Your argument is with Yockey.

"Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies."
Hubert Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life

"The genome is sometimes called a "blueprint" by people who have never seen a blueprint. Blueprints, no longer used, were two-dimensional, a poor metaphor indeed, for the linear and digital sequence of nucleotides in the genome. The linear structure of DNA and mRNA is often referred to as a template. A template is two-dimensional, it is not subject to mutations, nor can it reproduce itself. This is a poor metaphor as anyone who has used a jigsaw will be aware. One must be careful not to make a play on words."

Krumple, shall I take your word for it? Or shall I take Yockey's word for it? It seems to me that biology and genetics are leaning more towards Yockey.

Please stop saying the DNA is not a code. It makes you look foolish. It's like saying that the world is flat. This is old news. Please let go of your dogma and accept the facts for what they are rather than how you would have them be. Stop spreading lies.

DNA pre-defines a physical manifestation before it ever becomes a physical reality. Only code can do that.

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

This general argument is called the Argument from Biological Information.

Quote:

The argument from biological information...attempts to evaluate four potential explanations for the origin of biological information: (1) chance; (2) a pre-biotic form of natural selection; (3) chemical necessity; and (4) intelligent design. The argument concludes that intelligent design is the most probable explanation for the information present in large biomacromolecules like DNA, RNA, and proteins.

The argument proceeds as follows. Pre-biotic natural selection and chemical necessity cannot, as a logical matter, explain the origin of biological information. Theories of pre-biotic natural selection are problematic because they illicitly assume the very feature they are trying to explain. These explanations proceed by asserting that the most complex nonliving molecules will reproduce more efficiently than less complex nonliving molecules. But, in doing so, they assume that nonliving chemicals instantiate precisely the kind of replication mechanism that biological information is needed to explain in the case of living organisms. In the absence of some sort of explanation as to how non-organic reproduction could occur, theories of pre-biotic natural selection fail.

Theories of chemical necessity are problematic because chemical necessity can explain, at most, the development of highly repetitive ordered sequences incapable of representing information. Because processes involving chemical necessity are highly regular and predictable in character, they are capable of producing only highly repetitive sequences of "letters." For example, while chemical necessity could presumably explain a sequence like "ababababababab," it cannot explain specified but highly irregular sequences like "the house is on fire." The problem is that highly repetitive sequences like the former are not sufficiently complex and varied to express information. Thus, while chemical necessity can explain periodic order among nucleotide letters, it lacks the resources logically needed to explain the aperiodic, highly specified, complexity of a sequence capable of expressing information.

Ultimately, this leaves only chance and design as logically viable explanations of biological information. Although it is logically possible to obtain functioning sequences of amino acids through purely random processes, some researchers have estimated the probability of doing so under the most favorable of assumptions at approximately 1 in 10^65. Factoring in more realistic assumptions about pre-biotic conditions, Meyer argues the probability of generating short functional protein is 1 in 10^125-a number that is vanishingly small. Meyer concludes: "given the complexity of proteins, it is extremely unlikely that a random search through all the possible amino acid sequences could generate even a single relatively short functional protein in the time available since the beginning of the universe (let alone the time available on the early earth)"

Source

Now, again, I understand why Christians advance this argument to support their religious views. I am not particularly attached to the Christian viewpoint, in particular, and am not arguing that it 'proves' the Bible, or anything like that. But I am sure it certainly defeats the materialist idea that life can be accounted for in terms of spontaneous molecular interactions. Something is driving the process of evolution, other than simple adaptive necessity, in my view. I suppose that is a kind of agnostically-religious attitude. I am quite happy to simply accept that there are higher-order laws than those of physics and chemistry that are at work in all this.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;169371 wrote:

There's been a rather tired argument making its way around the theist blogosphere of late, arguing that DNA is a code, and codes are designed things.

I'm probably the guy who promoted the argument. I've been speaking on this for five or more years now. Most people still have confusion about it. May I answer any questions for you? I understand this concept extremely well, better than anyone I know.

Krumple;169371 wrote:

The very fact of it being a code proves that there must have been someone who designed the code.

Yup

Krumple;169371 wrote:

DNA is not that kind of a code. DNA is a a polymer, which is composed of individual chemical units called nucleotides.

It doesn't matter what the medium is. It could be piss ants and dung gnats. It doesn't matter. Any physical object can be used as a medium to express a message. DNA communicates a message to RNA. And all messages come from a mind.

Don't you see the irony in this? There is NOTHING supernatural about this. Codes requiring authors is PERFECTLY NATURAL. Codes that arise by chance would be Super Natural. And even worse, since there is a message being transmitted and received, that means that DNA is speaking and listening!

So if you think that Nature can create a code like DNA, then you think that Nature can speak. Believing such a thing is supportive of ancient myth and folklore of whispering streams, talking trees, and burning bushes that give instructions to birth a violent nation.

Krumple;169371 wrote:

The nucleotides in DNA are often said to be the "blueprints"...

Again, Yockey...
"The genome is sometimes called a "blueprint" by people who have never seen a blueprint. Blueprints, no longer used, were two-dimensional, a poor metaphor indeed, for the linear and digital sequence of nucleotides in the genome. The linear structure of DNA and mRNA is often referred to as a template. A template is two-dimensional, it is not subject to mutations, nor can it reproduce itself. This is a poor metaphor as anyone who has used a jigsaw will be aware. One must be careful not to make a play on words."

You'd like to compare DNA with an explosion. Ok, tell me what code pre-defined the explosion in advance? Please demonstrate a code that conforms to Purlwitz, Burks, and Watermans definition of code, and one that runs through Claude Shannon's communications protocols. In fact, please find me anything from nature aside from DNA that fits these very specific requirements.

And yes, the tornado is an example of IC. Certainly the wind has a function beyond the tornado. But we're not speaking of the IC of wind. We're speaking of IC for the tornado.

Same thing with the flagelum. The skeptic wants to move the goal posts. Certainly the parts have other functions. But he moves the goalposts away from the main discussion. We were concerned about the flagelum. And none of those "parts" ever predetermined a flagelum. And without any one of those "parts", the flagelum would not manifest in the same manner. A wheel barrel without wheels is not a wheel barrel.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 12:06 AM ----------

jeeprs;169415 wrote:

...there are higher-order laws than those of physics and chemistry that are at work in all this.

That is correct. The laws of Information are not the same as the laws of physics and chemistry. But the hard Marxist Dialectic Materialist wishes to completely reject the laws of Information, or worse, conflate and reduce them to the laws of physics and chemistry.

Information is at play here. The sooner we accept this, the sooner the materialist dogma will be shed, and science may again pursue the truth.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 12:17 AM ----------

Eegahhdds! I just watched the mousetrap video. What a crock of crap!

Why can't people see through these lies? We're not talking about the IC of a tie clip. We're talking about the IC of a mousetrap. He even admits that Behe is correct to say, that without the latch, it wouldn't be a mousetrap. That's true! That's where the argument should end right there.

But then this line of bull about tie clips being fully functional? It's pseudo reverse engineering. The discussion has nothing to do with tie clips. The discussion is simple and doesn't need a charlatans diversion to muddy the waters.

The fact is... Without the latch, it wouldn't be a mousetrap. END OF ARGUMENT!

The mousetrap is a perfect example of IC.

Now, if you want to talk about tie clips, fine. Without the spring, it wouldn't be a tie clip. END OF ARGUMENT. The tie clip is a perfect example of IC. And it has NOTHING to do with mousetraps whatsoever.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;169371 wrote:

See now I know you didn't even read the second article link I posted for you. In it it states that they successfully had RNA molecules which would "evolve" and either improve their chances of acquiring more materials or lose out because their adaptations were less than ideal.

You can stick to your "science has so far failed to produce sufficient evidence" but that is only because you refuse to read a simple article. Which is why I made the statement that you really don't want to know these things or learn about it. You would rather ignore them and stick to your motto.

No, I did read the article. All it says, though, is that RNA (at least, the chemical make-up of it) has been successfully replicated in a laboratory setting, and that it seems to be self-replicating. THIS is the strongest evidence for Darwinism? I haven't yet seen proof that RNA grown in a laboratory setting can produce any viable, functioning, lasting life--just more RNA. In fact, unless scientists can find some way to produce beings that can evolve INCREDIBLY rapidly, Darwinism on the large(er) scale may never be thoroughly proven. While that lack of evidence is absent, the hard evidence itself is still on the side of ID advocates.

And I've heard of the mousetrap analogy before. I find it a questionable analogy at best. The mousetrap isn't nearly as complicated as even the simplest form of life. Also, it doesn't have to worry about getting food and reproducing, let alone surviving in order to do so. This is one of the basics of IC; removing one of the essential parts of an irreducibly complex life form hinders its chances of survival, whether by worsening (or eliminating) its ability to feed itself or protect from disease.

0 Replies

@QuinticNon,

QuinticNon;169420 wrote:

A wheel barrel without wheels is not a wheel barrel.

See this is where you get it wrong. A wheel barrel without a wheel is not a wheel barrel, it's something else. You make that change by removing the wheel it becomes something new. You fall into the same fallacy as all creationists who counter argue evolution. You can not be static in your definitions.

I am not arguing that a wheel barrel can exist without a wheel but to call it a wheel barrel is your mistake. Sure it can no longer roll but it could have another function. This is how evolution works. Just because it can no longer roll because it is missing a wheel does not make it completely useless. It would either adapt or perish if it could not survive with this new trait.

We see organisms all the time where some traits are lost or change due to some mutations in the genes. Sometimes this happens it is not detrimental to the survival of that species but other times it is or it becomes a lead up to some other trait later on.

One amazing fact of evolution. Every single species is a master of it's niche. There are not two species that share the same niche. When two species do share the same niche one will ultimately over come the other because of competition.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

Krumple;169528 wrote:

See this is where you get it wrong. A wheel barrel without a wheel is not a wheel barrel, it's something else. You make that change by removing the wheel it becomes something new. You fall into the same fallacy as all creationists who counter argue evolution. You can not be static in your definitions.

I am not arguing that a wheel barrel can exist without a wheel but to call it a wheel barrel is your mistake. Sure it can no longer roll but it could have another function. This is how evolution works. Just because it can no longer roll because it is missing a wheel does not make it completely useless. It would either adapt or perish if it could not survive with this new trait.

We see organisms all the time where some traits are lost or change due to some mutations in the genes. Sometimes this happens it is not detrimental to the survival of that species but other times it is or it becomes a lead up to some other trait later on.

If you're going to use the wheel barrel example, please explain what function the wheel-less wheel barrel could have, besides sitting and doing nothing.

A big problem with macroevolution is the "Nonviability of Transitional Forms" (From the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist"). There is a Darwinian assertion that birds evolved from reptiles over long periods of time. How could this be possible? It seems unlikely that a reptile with limbs covered in unwieldy feathers would be able to flee very well from predators.

This is a prime example of IC. A reptile would need to have fully developed wings, lightweight bones, and probably no other limbs (as well as an actual instinct of knowing how to fly), all at once, to be able to fly and thereby escape from danger.

The system is irreducibly complex. If the reptile had overweight bones, extra limbs left over from previous reptiles, or underdeveloped wings/feathers at any point in time, it would be unlikely to survive. And yet, here we are, and the bird population is strong in many parts of the world. I mean, we can drive toward them in cars at high speeds and they'll get out of the way just fine. How could they have gotten to this point by originating from creatures confined to the ground?

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Krumple;169528 wrote:

A wheel barrel without a wheel is not a wheel barrel, it's something else.

I'm glad we agree. Proof that a wheel barrel is Irreducibly Complex. Take away the wheel and it's not a wheel barrel.

What we have left over has nothing to do with wheel barrels. Now we'll call it a Handle Barrel. And guess what! A Handle Barrel is Irreducibly Complex. Take away the handle and it's something else.

Don't you get it. It's complexity cannot be reduced and still qualify as the same thing. A flagelum without a syringe is not a flagelum. It is something else. The complexity of a flagelum is irreducible.

An eyeball without a pupil is not an eyeball. The complexity of an eyeball is irreducible.

Krumple;169528 wrote:

You make that change by removing the wheel it becomes something new.

Sure it becomes something new... and different. It is now a handle barrel. Reducing the wheel barrel resulted in not having the wheel barrel survive. Its complexity is irreducible.

Krumple;169528 wrote:

Sure it can no longer roll but it could have another function.

Agreed. And that other function is not the same as the wheel barrel. It can't be, because the wheel barrel has been reduced to something else other than a wheel barrel. The wheel barrel is now extinct. It couldn't survive the reduction of complexity.

Krumple;169528 wrote:

This is how evolution works.

Not exactly. Evolution makes its changes based upon mutation. And mutations are always the result of a change in the genetic code. Adaptation = change in the code.

But the wheel barrel didn't adapt. It either fell apart, or it was adapted by a mindful intent of its owner to perform a different function. If that be the case, then it is intentionally not a wheel barrel any longer by choice from a mind. That mind has chosen to make a change to the original plans of the wheel barrel. The plans for the wheel barrel are the cad drawings that allowed it to be manufactured. The cad drawings are the DNA of the wheel barrel. They clearly show the presence of a wheel. The original design was intended to have a wheel.

But after the owner buys it, the wheel barrel is his to do with as he pleases.

Lightning strikes, and destroys the wheel. If the owner finds a new purpose for the damaged tool, then Natural Selection has determined that it will survive for another purpose. If the owner decides that the tool is destroyed, he will trash it, and thus Natural Selection has determined it to die.

By loosing the wheel, regardless of the cause, a change to the original plan has manifest. It is no longer capable of being as intended. The original code has been altered.

0 Replies

@Klope3,

Klope3;169672 wrote:

If you're going to use the wheel barrel example, please explain what function the wheel-less wheel barrel could have, besides sitting and doing nothing.

A big problem with macroevolution is the "Nonviability of Transitional Forms" (From the book "I Don't Have Enough Faith To Be An Atheist"). There is a Darwinian assertion that birds evolved from reptiles over long periods of time. How could this be possible? It seems unlikely that a reptile with limbs covered in unwieldy feathers would be able to flee very well from predators.

This is a prime example of IC. A reptile would need to have fully developed wings, lightweight bones, and probably no other limbs (as well as an actual instinct of knowing how to fly), all at once, to be able to fly and thereby escape from danger.

The system is irreducibly complex. If the reptile had overweight bones, extra limbs left over from previous reptiles, or underdeveloped wings/feathers at any point in time, it would be unlikely to survive. And yet, here we are, and the bird population is strong in many parts of the world. I mean, we can drive toward them in cars at high speeds and they'll get out of the way just fine. How could they have gotten to this point by originating from creatures confined to the ground?

The way you are looking at it is completely skewed. I'm not even sure if it is worth explaining the course of bird evolution to you because it is documented. They don't just all of a sudden develop all the traits at one time. Not to mention there were flying dinosaurs without feathers.

---------- Post added 05-27-2010 at 03:31 PM ----------

QuinticNon;169729 wrote:

By loosing the wheel, regardless of the cause, a change to the original plan has manifest. It is no longer capable of being as intended. The original code has been altered.

Once again, you are approaching the problem from a static mind frame. You only see the function of the wheel barrel and call it functional only if it has a wheel. Minus the wheel, it no longer is a wheel barrel, it is instead, a barrel. I guess you just can't come up with a use for a barrel.

Are you not aware that our genes have parts that are actually turned off? That within the human DNA we have genes for tails? Not only that but within the human DNA there are many genes that are switched off.

Oh about the eye, I guess you never learned about the part where the first eye was actually it's own pupil. Where the entire "eye" itself was the entry point for light. I guess you never got very far, or didn't pay any attention in biology.

Most people who do these sort of refutes trying to use the eye, almost always use some complex form of an eye to make the claim. You can't use a human eye as an example because the human eye is far down the line of the evolutionary chain. But that's not really the problem here.

Really all we are debating is not science, not technical stuff, not even evidence. What we are really discussing is if your theology will survive. But in some way you feel that science threatens your theology so you will do anything it takes to maintain it, even it it requires spreading false information. That is really what we are discussing isn't it?

1 Reply

@Diogenes phil,

There was in interesting article in the March 11th New Scientist about the work of a researcher called Mark Pagel on the 'accidental origins' of species. It says that although the standard model explains gradual change within species very well, the process of speciation is still very unclear and there are few or no examples of one species actually becoming another (as per post above).

Pagel has analysed the DNA trees of 100 species looking for evidence of the sudden changes in which might indicate speciation. His statistical analysis leads him to theorise that new species usually originate due to some random or accidental environmental or geographic change. He believes 'natural selection shapes existing species in a gradual somewhat predictable way, but the accidental nature of speciation means that the grand sweep of evolutionary change is unpredictable.'

What interests me is that such a fundamental aspect of the theory is still debatable.

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 08:44 AM ----------

Krumple;169732 wrote:

Really all we are debating is not science, not technical stuff, not even evidence. What we are really discussing is if your theology will survive. But in some way you feel that science threatens your theology so you will do anything it takes to maintain it, even it it requires spreading false information. That is really what we are discussing isn't it?

I think we are debating the interpretation of evidence. I don't accept biblical creationism, and I don't accept scientific materialism. Creationism will argue that the evidence proves the existence of God. Materialism will argue that it disproves it. Materialists are just as dogmatic as creationists. In fact that are many huge gaps in our understanding of the nature of life, and as a result, many possibilities. But I think 'bottom-up causation' - the idea that life can be understood as 'the accidental collocation of atoms' (Bertrand Russell) is as dogmatic and as unlikely as young-earth creationism.

---------- Post added 05-28-2010 at 08:48 AM ----------

Krumple, you really should go and look at the Amazon entry for Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life by Hubert P. Yockey. (I've made it easy for you.) Now Yockey is NOT a Design Theorist. He devotes a chapter to that topic. I think his philosophical or religious outlook could be described as agnostic. But this book cannot just be thrown out. It is a very, very hard argument, and it is supported by a lot of empirical evidence. So don't do what you accuse all the creationists of doing, and ignore the argument because it conflicts with your conclusions.

1 Reply

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;168233 wrote:

One line of reasoning is that what exists and what is real are not completely synonymous. Many existing things are quite ephemeral and have no real being. On the other hand, certain classes of object (some would argue mathematical objects) are real in that they are not created by the individual mind, but are also immaterial, that is they don't exist materially. in platonism, the intelligible form of the world is not an existing thing, but it is that which allows particular things to exist by giving them form.

Very well expressed. I enjoyed it!

0 Replies

@Diogenes phil,

thanks. I am out here in no-man's-land, between the trenches, shells flying overhead. Dangerous but exhilarating.

1 Reply

Have I "debunked" God's existence?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know