@farmerman,
Quote:Several of us have taught in college and , I think we are quite amazed at how your'e unwilling or unable to read available evidence and not even have questions about what it means when viewed with the growing pile of overlapping evidence .
I do not disagree that evolution and survival of the fittest happened and is happening. Most of the evidence and arguments you provide support that point and so why would I comment much on something we agree on?
Here are questions I asked that you did not answer.
How does removing parts of the genome prove the genome was created by randomly introduced pieces of new info? If the DNA was created by introducing info by intelligent introduction of new info would the results be different?
In the fish example, did the fish adapt because of randomly generated mutations or were the characteristics necessary for exploitation of an environmental change already in the dna before the environmental change happened?
Here is your answer
Quote:we can test what genes actually do an by tracing back with fetures that have no apparent "place in line" for anything that appears to be anagenic. Evolution is loaded with evidence that shows us that derivative species have developed in a non linear fashion, and knowing that this is so, allows biologists to confer with the paleontologists to see what the environment may have been doing to affect the evolution in species.
If this really is what you believe that an ID agent was incompetent to show evidence of a helter skelter pattern of evolution yet was in charge of the environment , youd better start some work and provide actual evidence, not just try to coat tail on what science is doing.
I asked where did the new information in the genome originate since the fishes adapted to rapidly for random mutations to provide the changes and you answer with an explanation about how well we understand the information in the genome. And then you comment on the techniques my supposed IDer used as being to helter skelter which also does not answer my question. (and is irrelevant since intelligence is free to do what it wants to)
Quote:Quote:farmer
the cichlid population just exploded in evolution of new forms that ranged from carnivorous to vegetarian species, deep water and neritic palludal waters (like carp). They became opportunistic exploiters of their new environments and evolved new genera and species accordingly . Opportunistic, no real evidence of ID when we can see species react to local environmental changes, just like all the iguanas of the Galapagos,. . .
op·por·tun·is·tic
ˌäpərt(y)o͞oˈnistik/Submit
adjective
exploiting chances offered by immediate circumstances without reference to a general plan or moral principle
brianjakub
Exploiting without a plan means without adapting. If the organisms adapts quickly to exploit a change in the environment that, would be evidence that somehow information was inserted into the DNA at an earlier time to allow for quick adaptation to an expected environmental change.
Is this assumption valid and reasonable?
Quote:farmer
iguanas of the Galapagos, or the many hundreds of unique species of cave fish and insects that appear nowhwere else except for that one little cave somewhere in Tennessee , New Mexico, or Yugoslav qnd China. ALL these species are genetically related to parent species near the cave sites (and nowhere else on the planet). Common ancestors were local and short lived .In only one case, is the common ancestor found in fossils in the cave floor. Kinda difficult, on the bulk of the cases, to even propose Intelligent design when a much simpler example presents itself in all the evidence.
brian
I think it is difficult to expect "random" mutations to cause the proper evolutionary changes over the short period time that was provided just once, let alone all the examples you gave.
How do you explain all these examples of implied intelligence behind insertion of complex info into the DNA?
This reminds me of an analogy.
A man purchased a program that plays the video game breakout over and over using random moves of the paddle but, keeping track of when it scores and then repeating that pattern over again with a minor "random" change each time remembering the pattern that scores the highest. After a couple days the program had figured out the fastest way to win at breakout.
The man said, "see I figured out the fastest way to win at breakout without using any intelligence just randomly introduced new information."
I said, "But you paid someone with intelligence to write the program."
He said, No I didn't. I paid someone who "found" the program, he used a random word generator to right the program that was very similar to the program that generated random paddle moves to beat the game. The purpose of my experiment is to show computer games can be won without intelligence and I did that."
I said," but somebody wrote the program that wrote the program with the random word generator plus, intelligence was required to build the computer it was running on."
He said, "That doesn't matter, it is to hard for me to identify that person so, I am going to assume he doesn't exist, never did exist. And since it is much simpler I am going to claim that I succeeded in proving the fastest way to win at breakout can be done without any intelligence. The other good thing is I don't have to share any credit for my discovery with him or anyone else."
How is this analogy not similar to what you are doing especially when I bring quantum mechanics (and its inability to explain the origins of any of the forces or constants), abiogenisis, and creation of matter which are all very complex systems. But, if you know how the particles of matter and the higgs field are arranged, it's easy to understand where the physical forces and constants originate and they are as intuitive as understanding the lift of an airplane wing.
