The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

J C

Scofflaw
Sigh. Exactly, JC. To slightly better model evolution, pH could, rather than specifically choosing which letter to retain at what position, give each letter a "fitness value" at each position, so that it would not definitely retain the specific letter. Better yet, we could assign a fitness (or calculate a fitness) for each full string, that would determine how well it survived.

Great big sigh !!!:D

Yes indeed such a model would be ‘SOMEWHAT CLOSER’ to Materialistic Evolution – but it would come at the price of NEVER producing the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”!!!!

Look, it is quite clear how the programme was designed by pH – and it is quite obvious that the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” was indeed pre-programmed into the computer by pH – or are you actually denying the obvious that is there for all to see – from even a cursory examination of the results of pH’s programme?

If you INSTRUCT the computer to lock in each ‘correct’ letter in each ‘correct’ position (as pH has patently done) – what does that prove – except that a ‘rational agent’ with ‘overview’ and ‘intelligence’ is able to design systems to constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind.
In this case the ‘rational agent’ was pH and the ‘distant outcome’ that he had in mind and actually programmed into the computer was the formation of the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”.

As Dr Stephen C Meyer, Director of The Discovery Institute Centre for Science & Culture (and a Theistic Evolutionist BTW) has so eloquently put it :-
“The causal powers that natural selection lacks – almost by definition – are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality – with purposeful intelligence……….
For this reason, recent scientific interest in the design hypothesis is unlikely to abate as biologists continue to wrestle with the problem of the origination of biological form and the higher taxa.”

Look, this isn’t an argument between Creationists and ‘all the rest’ – it is actually an argument between Atheistic Materialists on one side – and Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists on the other side.
Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists may well have intense differences about the THEOLOGY of Creation – but they are all TOTALLY UNITED on the fact that an omnipotent and omniscient God used his infinite intelligence to design life.
Whether He designed life during Creation Week or over 15 billion years is essentially a question for Bible Study and the forensic scientific investigation of the evidence provided by living and fossil organisms – but the FACT that God designed life is beyond all doubt.


Scofflaw
The fact that you don't understand what is happening here is just that - the fact that you don't understand it.

I understand EXACTLY what pH did with his computer programme.

He programmed it to eventually print the statement “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”- and he very cleverly worked the computer programme to randomly generate each letter and then 'locked it in' when it was randomly generated – to provide the illusion of someting 'evolving' - but that is all it was - an illusion!!!:D


Scofflaw
JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't……………..

Actually I seem to have FORGOTTEN more about Evolution than you guys seem to have ever LEARNED about it!!!

However, be that as it may, here is pH’s attempt at explaining the evolution of the biochemical cascade of sight……


pH
Well I could hazard a wild guess!

In a series of tiny incremental step, each a little more 'beneficial' to the host organism over a period of 3.5 billion years.

It was certainly both ‘wild’ and a ‘guess’!!!!
……and that is about all one can charitably say about it !!!:eek:


So, the complete Evolutionist explanation for the macro-Evolution of the biochemistry of sight goes something like this :-
“In a series of tiny incremental ERRORS over a period of 3.5 billion years, Slime Balls evolved into Eye Balls”!!!


Could I point out that the sight cascade is a fully INTEGRATED exactly specified SEQUENCE of split-second biochemical steps – and even ONE step missing or in the wrong place in the sequence means that the entire process is functionally USELESS…..and that is to say NOTHING about the chances of randomly producing the SPECIFIC sequence for ANY of the bio-chemicals within the cascade, in the first place!!!!

Ordered intelligence and creative ability of great magnitude IS OBVIOUSLY required to produce such a system – and a ‘blind’ destructive and random process of error generation like mutation simply doesn’t have the CAPACITY to produce EVEN ONE of the biochemicals in this cascade, to say nothing about designing the physical structures within which their UNIQUE PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES are precisely co-ordinated and harnessed.

Because Scofflaw has assured me that pH “understands evolution”, I can only conclude that pH didn’t give us the FULL benefit of his knowledge of Evolution!!!!

So, I will ask pH again, how DID the following tightly specified biochemical cascade ‘evolve’ – or indeed how DID any of the thousands of other equally specific and equally complex cascades that are present in living organisms ALSO evolve??

“When light first strikes the retina a photon interacts with a molecule called 11-cis-retinal, which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal. (BTW a picosecond is about the time it takes light to travel the breadth of a single Human hair.)
The change in the shape of the retinal molecule forces a change in the shape of the protein, rhodopsin, to which the retinal is tightly bound. The protein’s metamorphosis alters it’s behaviour. Now called metarhodopsin II, the protein sticks to another protein called transducin. Before bumping into metarhodopsin II, transducin had tightly bound a small molecule called GDP. But when transducin interacts with metarhodopsin II, the GDP falls off, and a molecule called GTP binds to transducin. (GTP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP).
GTP-transducin-metarhodopsin II now binds to a protein called phosphodiesterase, located in the inner membrane of the cell. When attached to metarhodopsin II and its entourage, the phosphodiesterase acquires the chemical ability to “cut” a molecule called cGMP (cGMP is closely related to, but critically different from GDP and GTP). Initially there are a lot of cGMP molecules in the cell, but the phosphodiesterase lowers it’s concentation by acting as an ‘absorber’.
Another membrane protein that binds cGMP is called an ion channel. It acts as a gateway that regulates the number of Sodium ions in the cell. Normally the ion channel allows Sodium ions to flow into the cell, while a separate protein ‘pumps’ them out again. The dual action of the ion channel and the ‘pump’ keeps the level of Sodium ions in the cell within a narrow range. When the amount of cGMP is reduced because of the cleavage by the phosphodiesterase, the ion channel closes, causing the cellular concentrations of positively charged Sodium ions to be reduced. This causes an imbalance of charge across the cell membrane that causes a current to be transmitted down the optic nerve to the brain. The result, when interpreted by the brain, is vision.

If the reactions mentioned above were the only ones that operated in the cell, the supply of 11-cis-retinal, cGMP and Sodium ions would be depleted quickly. Several mechanisms turn off the proteins that were turned on, in order to restore the cell to it’s original state. Firstly, the ion channel also lets Calcium ion in as well as Sodium ions. The Calcium is ‘pumped’ back by a different protein so that a constant Calcium concentration is maintained. When cGMP levels fall, shutting down the ion channel, Calcium concentrations also decrease too. The phosphodiesterase enzyme, which destroys cGMP slows down at lower Calcium ion concentrations. Second, a protein called guanlate cyclase begins to resynthesize cGMP when Calcium levels start to fall. Third, while all of this is going on, metarhodopsin II is chemically modified by an enzyme called rhodopsin kinase. The modified rhodopsin then binds to a protein known as arrestin, which prevents the rhodopsin from activating more transducin. And this is how the cell limits the amplified signal started by a single photon.
Trans-retinal eventually falls off of the rhodopsin and is reconverted to 11-cis-retinal which is again bound by rhodopsin to get back to the starting point for another visual cycle. To accomplish this, transretinal is first chemically modified by an enzyme to trans-retinol – a form containing two more Hydrogen atoms. A second enzyme then converts the molecule to 11-cis-retionol. Finally, a third enzyme removes the previously added Hydrogen atoms to form 11-cis-retinal and one cycle is completed (in about one nanosecond).”

As a suggestion, pH could start by explaining how blind chance mutation ‘discovered’ 11-cis-retinal, (which rearranges within picoseconds to trans-retinal) – in the infinite ‘combinatorial space’ within which this particular molecule resides while bearing in mind that this molecule has NO CONCEIVABLE FUNCTION other than rearranging itself to trans-retinal (and back again) within picoseconds.:D

He could then perhaps explain how Retinal first became tightly bound to Rhodopsin – and again how ‘blind’ mutation and replication errors could EVER produce these proteins TOGETHER at the same point in time and space, bearing in mind that the ‘useless combinatorial space’ between each of these proteins is greater than the number of cubic millimetres in the entire volume of the Big Bang Universe!!!!:D

......or he could place his faith in the Omnipotent God who OBVIOUSLY created everything through a fiat act of His Divine Will – and as an added bonus he could be saved for eternity!!!

Scofflaw

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
Sigh. Exactly, JC. To slightly better model evolution, pH could, rather than specifically choosing which letter to retain at what position, give each letter a "fitness value" at each position, so that it would not definitely retain the specific letter. Better yet, we could assign a fitness (or calculate a fitness) for each full string, that would determine how well it survived.

Great big sigh – or at this stage, YAWN, actually!!!:D

Yes indeed such a model would be ‘SOMEWHAT CLOSER’ to Materialistic Evolution – but it would come at the price of NEVER producing the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”!!!!

Yes, that's exactly right. Evolution doesn't set out to produce something specific. It produces what it produces, and has to make do with that, which is why a lot of what it produces could have been done better by, say, an intelligent designer.

You really can't understand this, can you? Either that or you're in advanced denial.

What evolution has produced is what evolution has produced - it was not specified at any point. What we see now, however unlikely, is what was produced. All your arguments against it, on the basis of how difficult it would be to produce, only apply to trying to produce exactly the same again. In the real world, your arguments don't amount to a row of beans. As (I think) Son Goku said, the odds against something are irrelevant after the fact, unless you plan on waiting around for a repeat performance.

J C wrote:

Look, it is quite clear how the programme was designed by pH – and it is quite obvious that the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” was indeed pre-programmed into the computer by pH – or are you actually denying the obvious that is there for all to see – from even a cursory examination of the results of pH’s programme?

Yes, in this case that was what was done. The difference in real evolution is that the result is not pre-specified. pH wanted only to show how long it took to generate a specific phrase, but, again, it is an example of modelling after the fact.

J C wrote:

If you INSTRUCT the computer to lock in each ‘correct’ letter in each ‘correct’ position (as pH has patently done) – what does that prove – except that a ‘rational agent’ with ‘overview’ and ‘intelligence’ is able to design systems to constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind.
In this case the ‘rational agent’ was pH and the ‘distant outcome’ that he had in mind and actually programmed into the computer was the formation of the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD”.

Again, that's correct. And again, let me point out the bit you're missing - evolution has no specified result. However, the program demonstrates how many generations it might take to generate a specified result.

Let me point out another thing you keep missing, or can't understand. It takes an intelligent designer to model what has already happened as a result of chance & selection. That has no implications whatsoever for the original process - if it did, we should also rationally conclude that evolution is a computer program, and expect it to generate sentences in the DNA!

J C wrote:

Look, this isn’t an argument between Creationists and ‘all the rest’ – it is actually an argument between Atheistic Materialists on one side – and Theistic Evolutionists, Intelligent Designers AND Creation Scientists on the other side.

Ho ho ho. You wish. You're on your own, I'm afraid, however schizophrenically (how tiresome: do we really need to repeat the expert, scientific, and legal judgements that ID=Creationism?). Yours is the weird scheme.

J C wrote:

Scofflaw
JC. pH just understands evolution, and you don't……………..

Actually I seem to have FORGOTTEN more about Evolution than you guys seem to have ever LEARNED about it!!!

Actually, I think you may have forgotten more about evolution than you ever learned. You know, and regularly demonstrate that you know, less than nothing about evolution.

You have commited, in your posts, every single schoolboy mistake in the book - teleology, design, agency, odds, the works. Any one of these by itself would make it difficult for the student to understand evolutionary theory, and you suffer from every single one of them.

J C wrote:

Could I point out that the sight cascade is a fully INTEGRATED exactly specified SEQUENCE of split-second biochemical steps – and even ONE step missing or in the wrong place in the sequence means that the entire process is functionally USELESS…..and that is to say NOTHING about the chances of randomly producing the SPECIFIC sequence for ANY of the bio-chemicals within the cascade, in the first place!!!!

Point out whatever the heck you like, JC. You have no idea what you're saying. The exact arrangement of sand grains on any specific beach, giving a smoothly sloping surface to the sea, is impossible to replicate, but even you surely would not claim that each beach is individually designed (and redesigned constantly).

J C wrote:

Because Scofflaw has assured me that pH “understands evolution”, I can only conclude that either evolution is just a figment of everyone’s imagination – or else pH didn’t give us the FULL benefit of his 'bottomless knowledge' of Evolution!!!!

Or, if we were lucky, you might come to the correct conclusion, which is that you know nothing, and understand less.

I deride your schoolboy errors,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

evolution has no specified result. However, the program demonstrates how many generations it might take to generate a specified result.

But scofflaw in order for life to work the way it does it has to have a specified outcome.

If putting together my TV, and one part is out of place it is useless and doesn't work. The same with a living part, out of place or a wrong bit and it doesn't survive.

Zombrex

J C wrote:

Look, it is quite clear how the programme was designed by pH – and it is quite obvious that the sentence “EVOLUTION HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE MATHEMATICALLY INVALID ON THIS THREAD” was indeed pre-programmed into the computer by pH – or are you actually denying the obvious that is there for all to see – from even a cursory examination of the results of pH’s programme?

If I preprogram into a weather simulation that it will start raining when air percipitation reaches a certain level, does that mean that there must also be some intelligence telling the clouds to start raining at a certain level.

pH programmed the fitness of the sentence because that is a model of the feed back natural selection would get if a mutation manages to bestow an advantage on the organism. pH was modelling a advantagious situtation, that would happen naturally in nature.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding the difference between a "model" and "real life" (a bit like Doogle couldn't understand the difference between small model cows and those that are far away). Instead of a sentence in nature the advantage woudl be something like a protein that helps cells digest a certain type of food better. The process is that same.

The only argument you seem to have left is that natural evolution doesn't generate sentences. You are correct, but the process used is exactly the same.

J C wrote:

If you INSTRUCT the computer to lock in each ‘correct’ letter in each ‘correct’ position (as pH has patently done) – what does that prove

It "models" (there is that word again, that you seem to be having trouble with) the way nature will lock into place with the population an advantagious or benefitial mutation by the fact that it will spread quicker by providing survival benefit over the standard organism, to not just the original mutated organism but all future children as well.

This is the "selection" part in "Natural Selection" .... what exactly did you think the "selection" part referred to?

Please read up on evolution theory. You being totally ignorant of, or not understanding, the theory is not a fault of the theory :rolleyes:

J C wrote:

but the FACT that God designed life is beyond all doubt.

If you want to believe that God designed life that is fine, but He did it in a way that life looks exactly the same as if it was designed by natural evolution. Hell some people believe that is the way God designed life, He designed life in the instant of the big bang because he knew in advance that we would eventually end up this way.

But the point is evolution is the way life developed on Earth. One can believe evolution is a product of Gods over all master plan. I don't but many Christians do, and it is impossible to tell either way. Or one can believe evolution is simply a natural process. The results are the exactly the same.

J C wrote:

I understand EXACTLY what pH did with his computer programme.

Apparently you don't. If you did you would understand that it pretty much models evolution exactly how people think evolution works. But then it seems you don't understand that either, so I can see why you would be having trouble.

J C wrote:

to provide the illusion of someting 'evolving'

That is exactly how something would evolve, the "locking in" of benefital mutations by natural selection.

You have two parts to evolution, the random mutations and the "selecting" (locking in as you call it) of those mutations that provide benefit to the organism by Natural Selection.

As I asked before, what did you think the "selection" part of NS referred to???

J C wrote:

It was certainly both ‘wild’ and a ‘guess’!!!!
……that is about all one can charitably say about it !!!:eek:

Despite what Creationist think the eye ball is actually one of the easier systems to imagine developing, because there currently exists creatures that use "eyes" or systems like eyes at pretty much every major step one can imagine the human eye developing, from worms that have very basic light sensitive cells, to eagle eyes.

PBS wrote:

Through natural selection, different types of eyes have emerged in evolutionary history -- and the human eye isn't even the best one, from some standpoints. Because blood vessels run across the surface of the retina instead of beneath it, it's easy for the vessels to proliferate or leak and impair vision. So, the evolution theorists say, the anti-evolution argument that life was created by an "intelligent designer" doesn't hold water: If God or some other omnipotent force was responsible for the human eye, it was something of a botched design.

Biologists use the range of less complex light sensitive structures that exist in living species today to hypothesize the various evolutionary stages eyes may have gone through.

Here's how some scientists think some eyes may have evolved: The simple light-sensitive spot on the skin of some ancestral creature gave it some tiny survival advantage, perhaps allowing it to evade a predator. Random changes then created a depression in the light-sensitive patch, a deepening pit that made "vision" a little sharper. At the same time, the pit's opening gradually narrowed, so light entered through a small aperture, like a pinhole camera.

Every change had to confer a survival advantage, no matter how slight. Eventually, the light-sensitive spot evolved into a retina, the layer of cells and pigment at the back of the human eye. Over time a lens formed at the front of the eye. It could have arisen as a double-layered transparent tissue containing increasing amounts of liquid that gave it the convex curvature of the human eye.

In fact, eyes corresponding to every stage in this sequence have been found in existing living species. The existence of this range of less complex light-sensitive structures supports scientists' hypotheses about how complex eyes like ours could evolve. The first animals with anything resembling an eye lived about 550 million years ago. And, according to one scientist's calculations, only 364,000 years would have been needed for a camera-like eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch.

pH

Really J C, if I'd have known it would upset you so much I'd have done it much sooner

I took on board your criticism however, and tried something new. How hard is is to generate a random string of letters which make up English words? Very hard it seems, you can let a computer run and run and you get pretty much nothing.

But what happens if you 'evolve' them? No goal, just a fitness function based on an English dictionary. Surely it couldn't produce anything that resembled English, merely by randomly changing and adding letters?

a (after 1)
la (after 20)
pa (after 36)
 pa (after 38)
 spa (after 50)
 sap (after 58)
 asp (after 62)
pas  (after 68)
sap  (after 75)
 sap  (after 80)
 sac  (after 94)
 sack (after 172)
 sick (after 177)
a sick (after 181)
a lick (after 217)
a  lick (after 233)
a slick (after 236)
a slice (after 240)
ma slice (after 257)
man slice (after 328)
ran slice (after 334)
bran slice (after 338)
bran slime (after 369)
brad slime (after 382)
brag slime (after 431)
brags lime (after 437)
brags lame (after 442)
brags came (after 444)
brags name (after 445)
 brags name (after 448)
 grabs name (after 529)
 crabs name (after 548)
 crass name (after 553)
 crass dame (after 560)
 crass damn (after 611)
 brass damn (after 622)
 brats damn (after 652)
 brats darn (after 742)
i brats darn (after 785)
i brats  darn (after 787)
if brats  darn (after 790)
if brats   darn (after 897)
if brats   tarn (after 922)
if brays   tarn (after 929)
if brats   yarn (after 979)
in brats   yarn (after 996)
din brats   yarn (after 1000)
din brats   earn (after 1002)
din brats i  earn (after 1008)
die brats i  earn (after 1012)
did brats i  earn (after 1024)
did brats i learn (after 1029)
did braes i learn (after 1069)
did braes in learn (after 1169)
did brakes in learn (after 1198)
hid brakes in learn (after 1247)
hid braces in learn (after 1255)
hid braces en learn (after 1322)
hid braves en learn (after 1323)
rid braves en learn (after 1353)
rid braves end learn (after 1366)
rid braves end yearn (after 1411)
lid braves end yearn (after 1414)
lid braves end  yearn (after 1417)
lid braves end a yearn (after 1449)
lied braves end a yearn (after 1457)
lied braved end a yearn (after 1476)
lied braved lend a yearn (after 1481)
lied braved lends a yearn (after 1515)
lied braced lends a yearn (after 1573)
lied brazed lends a yearn (after 1587)
lied brazed bends a yearn (after 1630)
lied brazed bends pa yearn (after 1633)
lied brazed bends pa  yearn (after 1643)
lied brazed bends ha  yearn (after 1650)
lied brazed bends hap  yearn (after 1662)
lied brazed bends harp  yearn (after 1669)
lied brazed mends harp  yearn (after 1711)
lied brazed mends hare  yearn (after 1825)
lied brazed mends whare  yearn (after 1857)
lied brazed meads whare  yearn (after 1874)
lied brazed meads wharf  yearn (after 1938)
lied brazed meads wharf a yearn (after 1994)
plied brazed meads wharf a yearn (after 2045)
plied blazed meads wharf a yearn (after 2075)
plied blazed meads wharf ma yearn (after 2078)
plied blazes meads wharf ma yearn (after 2148)
plied blazes meads wharf mad yearn (after 2158)
 plied blazes meads wharf mad yearn (after 2165)
 plied blazes meats wharf mad yearn (after 2203)
 plied blazes meats wharf had yearn (after 2206)
 plied blames meats wharf had yearn (after 2219)
 plied blames meats wharf had years (after 2258)
 plied blames meats wharf haw years (after 2312)
 plied blames meats wharf haw hears (after 2330)
 plied blames meats wharf hawk hears (after 2357)
 plied blames  meats wharf hawk hears (after 2405)
 plied blames  meats wharf hawk gears (after 2724)
 plied blames  meats wharf hark gears (after 2875)
 plied blames  meats wharf dark gears (after 2918)
 plied blames  meats wharf darks gears (after 3037)
 plied blames   meats wharf darks gears (after 3163)
 plied blamed   meats wharf darks gears (after 3177)
 plied beamed   meats wharf darks gears (after 3274)
 plied beamed   meals wharf darks gears (after 3343)
 plied beaked   meals wharf darks gears (after 3495)
 piled beaked   meals wharf darks gears (after 3675)
 piled beaked i meals wharf darks gears (after 3870)
 piled beaked i meals wharf darks sears (after 3888)
 paled beaked i meals wharf darks sears (after 3892)
 paled beaked if meals wharf darks sears (after 3905)
 paled beaked if deals wharf darks sears (after 3938)
 paled beaked if deals wharf darks shears (after 3990)
 paved beaked if deals wharf darks shears (after 3995)
 pawed beaked if deals wharf darks shears (after 4077)
 pawed beaked if peals wharf darks shears (after 4103)
 pawed beaked if teals wharf darks shears (after 4157)
 pawed peaked if teals wharf darks shears (after 4203)
 pawed peaked if heals wharf darks shears (after 4317)
 pawed peaked if heals wharf darks swears (after 4325)
 pawed peaked if deals wharf darks swears (after 4338)
 pawed peaked if deals whare darks swears (after 4409)
 cawed peaked if deals whare darks swears (after 4448)
 cawed peaked if deals whore darks swears (after 4666)
 cawed peaked if leads whore darks swears (after 4787)
 cawed peaked if leads whore darks shears (after 4892)
 cared peaked if leads whore darks shears (after 5170)
 cared peaked if leads whore marks shears (after 5176)
 cared peaked if reads whore marks shears (after 5230)
 cared peaked in reads whore marks shears (after 5233)
 cared peaked in rears whore marks shears (after 5287)
 caret peaked in rears whore marks shears (after 5321)
 caret peaked yin rears whore marks shears (after 5349)
 caret peaked min rears whore marks shears (after 5360)
 caret peaked min rears whore marks spears (after 5388)
 caret peaked min sears whore marks spears (after 5401)
 caret peaked min sears whore marks shears (after 5449)
 caret peaked min sears whore mares shears (after 5471)
 caret peaked min sears shore mares shears (after 5482)
 caret peaked min sears shores mares shears (after 5497)
 caret peaked min sears shoves mares shears (after 5500)
 caret peaked min wears shoves mares shears (after 5516)
 caret peaked min wears shoves mazes shears (after 5579)
 caret peaked min fears shoves mazes shears (after 5623)
 caret peaked min fears shoves amazes shears (after 5624)
 caret leaked min fears shoves amazes shears (after 5638)
 caret leaked sin fears shoves amazes shears (after 5661)
 caret leaded sin fears shoves amazes shears (after 5737)
 caret leaded win fears shoves amazes shears (after 5785)
 caret leaded win fears  shoves amazes shears (after 5828)
 caret leaded wins fears  shoves amazes shears (after 5838)
 caret leaded wins fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5851)
 caret beaded wins fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5873)
 cater beaded wins fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5894)
 caster beaded wins fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5929)
 caster beaded wins  fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5942)
 caster beaded wink  fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 5966)
 caster bladed wink  fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 6025)
 castes bladed wink  fears  shoves amazes  shears (after 6047)
 castes bladed wink  fears  shovel amazes  shears (after 6062)
 castes bladed wink  fears  shovels amazes  shears (after 6082)
 castles bladed wink  fears  shovels amazes  shears (after 6118)
 castles blamed wink  fears  shovels amazes  shears (after 6129)
 castles blamed gink  fears  shovels amazes  shears (after 6289)
 castles blamed gink  fears  shovels amazes  spears (after 6385)
i castles blamed gink  fears  shovels amazes  spears (after 6386)
i castles blamed gink   fears  shovels amazes  spears (after 6432)
i castles blamed gink   fears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6456)
i castles blamed gink   sears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6618)
i castles blamed gink a  sears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6699)
i castles blamed gink a  bears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6714)
i  castles blamed gink a  bears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6772)
i  castles blamed dink a  bears  shovels amazes  swears (after 6904)
i  castles blamed dink a  braes  shovels amazes  swears (after 6959)
i  castles blamed dirk a  braes  shovels amazes  swears (after 7000)
i  castles blamed dirk a  braves  shovels amazes  swears (after 7075)
i  castles blamed dirk  a  braves  shovels amazes  swears (after 7175)
i  castles blamed dirk  a  braves  shovels amazes a swears (after 7294)
i  castles blamed dirk   a  braves  shovels amazes a swears (after 7304)
i  castles blamed dirk   ab braves  shovels amazes a swears (after 7324)
i a castles blamed dirk   ab braves  shovels amazes a swears (after 7375)
i a castles blamed dirk   ab braves   shovels amazes a swears (after 7380)
i a castles blamed dirk   ab bravest  shovels amazes a swear (after 7665)
i a castles blamed dirk   ab bravest  shovels amazes  a swear (after 7723)

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

If putting together my TV, and one part is out of place it is useless and doesn't work. The same with a living part, out of place or a wrong bit and it doesn't survive.

You are thinking about it the wrong way around BC

If you start with simple self replicating molecules these work

Now if some change happens that causes these molecules to not work any more the molcules don't replicate and the change disappears in the sands of time.

If on the other hand the change does still allow the molecule to "work" (ie absorb other molecules and use that material to replicate) then the molecule continues to "work".

By definition only the changes that allow the system to still work survive. If the change causes the system to stop working it stops replicating and disappears.

So, using your example of a TV, you have a black and white TV and that "evolves" into a colour TV. Now you have a colour TV. If you then remove any of the parts from a colour TV it will just not work. But that doesn't mean that if you de-evolve the design of the TV back to when it was only black and white TV it won't work. A black and white TV is not the same as a colour TV with a whole load of bits removed.

You should not think about evolution as simply adding on bolds and bobs here and there, and therefore the opposite is just removing bits.

Evolution alters the very make up of the design of the system itself. So naturally if you just start removing parts things will stop working. But that doesn't mean that if you de-evolved the design it won't work any more. The design for a black and white TV from the 40s still works, despite the fact that if you remove all the colour TV bits from a modern television it won't work anymore because the design of a modern TV expects these bits to be there.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

But scofflaw in order for life to work the way it does it has to have a specified outcome.

If putting together my TV, and one part is out of place it is useless and doesn't work. The same with a living part, out of place or a wrong bit and it doesn't survive.

You can take apart your TV (or you used to be able to), and build a radio, or a variety of other things. Similarly, other life doesn't operate exactly the same way as humans - octopi have different eyes, no bones, different "circulation", etc etc. I have different genes from you, viruses have RNA not DNA, etc etc.

In other words, the diversity of life represents the diversity of possibilities, each with a different "specification" according to your view. So, there are many possible specifications.

In addition, it is possible to survive with a wide range of genes, even within humanity. It is possible to survive with a wide variety of abnormalities - missing kidneys, partially formed organs, vestigial tails, extra fingers, sickle-cell anaemia, chromosomal defects - even as a Siamese twin, sharing organs with another - and still breed. I have personally known two people who had their kidneys at the front of their bodies, and various other rearrangements internally, who also did geology, went out and did fieldwork, and let perfectly normal lives.

Does that sound like your "one part in the wrong place and it doesn't work"? It doesn't to me. I wish we could build things as capable of functioning with defects as life is!

So, what can your "specified outcome" really mean, other than the trivial "what we see"? Clearly, there are many possible outcomes, from virus to whale, each, actually, quite fuzzily "blueprinted", so that sometimes we are not even certain where one species begins and another ends. We are not perfect - nothing is - but we don't need to be to survive. Life is tough, as they say!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

pH wrote:

But what happens if you 'evolve' them? No goal, just a fitness function based on an English dictionary. Surely it couldn't produce anything that resembled English, merely by randomly changing and adding letters?

Another fine example sir

Pre-empting JC inventiable "But I don't understand this" question :-

Think of the dictionary as a model of what in nature would be considered a benefital result for what ever species is evolving. Instead of thinking of it as a dictionary think of it as a list of possible benefital results.

Just like if pHs program manages to randomly stumble upon a dictionary work, in nature is a oraganism managed to randomly stumble upon a benefitial result this result would provide an advantage over others, insuring that the offspring of the mutationed organism spread this new result quickly through the population base, effectively "locking in" this change into the species itself. This is the "selection" part of Natural Selection. NS selects a result if it is benefital and locks it into place by it spreading through the population group.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Another fine example sir

Pre-empting JC inventiable "But I don't understand this" question :-

Think of the dictionary as a model of what in nature would be considered a benefital result for what ever species is evolving. Instead of thinking of it as a dictionary think of it as a list of possible benefital results.

Just like if pHs program manages to randomly stumble upon a dictionary work, in nature is a oraganism managed to randomly stumble upon a benefitial result this result would provide an advantage over others, insuring that the offspring of the mutationed organism spread this new result quickly through the population base, effectively "locking in" this change into the species itself. This is the "selection" part of Natural Selection. NS selects a result if it is benefital and locks it into place by it spreading through the population group.

Or, think of fitness in such a case as being the rules of grammar and spelling.

As to the question of complex multistage chemical pathways, the evolution of them can go like this:

1. Initially:

a produces d (30% efficiency)
d produces e (30% efficiency)

Total efficiency of e production = 9%.

2. A mutation modifies a to produce b instead of d, which it does slightly more efficiently. b is sufficiently similar to be operated on by the same enzymes that cause d to be converted into e, although here the result of the process is actually d, which is then converted to e at its old efficiency.

a produces b (60% efficiency)
b produces d (60% efficiency)
d produces e (30% efficiency)

Total efficiency of e production = 10.8%.

By further incremental steps we can make the process of producing e more and more efficient - there is a balance between the increased efficiency of each step and the increased length of the process.

The main point, however, is that if we were to remove the b->d step in our first mutant version, the process would no longer produce e, would it? That is then taken for irreducible complexity, which is incorrect. You can step back through the process, by collapsing steps, although you cannot do it by simply taking steps out. The "irreducible complexity" is something that the process has acquired as it has become complex!

cordially,
Scofflaw

GuanYin

Wicknight wrote:

You are thinking about it the wrong way around BC
If on the other hand the change does still allow the molecule to "work" (ie absorb other molecules and use that material to replicate) then the molecule continues to "work".

By definition only the changes that allow the system to still work survive. If the change causes the system to stop working it stops replicating and disappears.

So, using your example of a TV, you have a black and white TV and that "evolves" into a colour TV. Now you have a colour TV. If you then remove any of the parts from a colour TV it will just not work. But that doesn't mean that if you de-evolve the design of the TV back to when it was only black and white TV it won't work. A black and white TV is not the same as a colour TV with a whole load of bits removed.

Actually a better way to look at it is if you have a black and white tv model and try hundreds of discreet changes to the types of diodes used in light projection. Most won't work and will be sent off as broken, when one eventually does work, or at least works in a way that offers advantages over the old black and white, it will go into some foprm of production and the old model will be phased out.

I think as always on boards, evolution is grossly mis-represented to suit peoples needs and arguments. The greatest flaw with intelligent design is that it doesn't explain some of the more recent evolutionary changes. Sickle cell for instance.

We have a beautiful example of evolution here, an allele that is recessive, meaning that carriers of the inherited gene from one side of the family will have an advantagous phenotype. Inherit from both sides and you have problems. Why would such a mutation survive? It only does so in areas with a high prevelence of malaria, oddly enough and only in a population phenotype that has emerged in those areas. The reason being is that the condition offers protection against the malaria parasite. It is a crude way to combat a disease, but it is evolutions greatest trick and sickle cell carriers do better than non carriers in these regions.

Intelligent design surely wouldn't put such a crude answer forward. I mean, there isn't a whole lot intelligent about designing an organism that has a 1/4 chance of having an offspring that will not survive to pro-create (assuming the organism breeds with another carrier)?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Intelligent design surely wouldn't put such a crude answer forward. I mean, there isn't a whole lot intelligent about designing an organism that has a 1/4 chance of having an offspring that will not survive to pro-create (assuming the organism breeds with another carrier)?

Very true.

There was a discussion about this a few pages back, about the idea that the designer in ID wouldn't have been God because put simply He would have done a better job if He had designed life.

It kinda ran into a brick wall because the Creationist response was that any design of life is actually perfect because it perfectly does what it sets out to do. The silliness of this line of thought was pointed out a number of times (for example a short sighted eye ball "perfectly" displays something out of focus :rolleyes:) but largely ignored by the Creationists, and then it decended into "how dare you try and second quess God, He knows exactly what He is doing, you will be sorry at the day of judgement" type replies.

Oh well, we tried

robindch

> By further incremental steps we can make the process of producing e more
> and more efficient [...]

...which reminds me of an interesting differences between the DNA of prokaryotes (small; no nucleus; usually unicellular) and eukaryotes (large; with a nucleus; usually multicellular). From the fossil record, prokaryotes up to 3.5 billion years old have been found, while eukaryotes only go back around 1.5 billion years or so. So you'd expect that prokaryotic DNA is more efficient than eukaryotic DNA. And that's what happens.

Interestingly, there are two major differences between the two domains: (a) prokaryotes have none of the junk (disabled) DNA that eukaryotes carry around in abundance and (b) prokaryotes have circular rather than the linear DNA found in eukaryotes. Using circular DNA makes it easier to perform one really neat trick: prokaryotes are able to synthesize protein from circular DNA in both directions -- ie, the DNA chain can be read backwards as well as forwards and produces different proteins in each case.

Even though that's the kind of efficiency you'd expect in a system which has been wandering through combinatorial spaces in search of efficiency for billions of years, there's still only one word to describe it: cool!

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

. I have different genes from you, viruses have RNA not DNA, etc etc.



cordially,
Scofflaw

What is the difference between RNA and DNA? and which living organisms have which and why?

Thanks
Brian

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is the difference between RNA and DNA? and which living organisms have which and why?

Thanks
Brian

RNA and DNA differ mainly in structure, DNA being double helical, RNA being single. DNA has deoxyribose and RNA ribose and then of the four base pairings used, RNA uses uracil instead of thymine.

Viruses may have either RNA or DNA (not just one or the other), by and large DNA and RNA are both found in most organisms, the excetions being some RNA exclusive viruses. From an evolutionary point of view RNA may well have been a precursor to DNA and recent suggestions (Zimmer 2006, Science) oint towards viruses playing a role in the evolution of DNA.

May I ask what your point is?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

What is the difference between RNA and DNA? and which living organisms have which and why?

Thanks
Brian

From a functional point of view (and this is very simplified description) RNA is created based on the DNA template in our genes, and this RNA carries this information to the part of the cell that products protiens. So it acts as a kind of middle copying stage between DNA and the final produced protien, keeping the phsycial DNA seperate from actual process that creates proteins.

It is believed that the earliest forms of life stored both genetic information in RNA (like we do in our DNA) and also used used RNA to encode protiens. The DNA/messanger RNA process evolved later, probably overcoming the short falls in the original system.

This is just what I remember from leaving cert biology, and this is only one (though major) function of RNA (its called messanger RNA when it is doing this).

I'm sure Psi and Scofflaw would be able to explain it better than that.

BrianCalgary

psi wrote:

RNA and DNA differ mainly in structure, DNA being double helical, RNA being single. DNA has deoxyribose and RNA ribose and then of the four base pairings used, RNA uses uracil instead of thymine.

Viruses may have either RNA or DNA (not just one or the other), by and large DNA and RNA are both found in most organisms, the exceptions being some RNA exclusive viruses. From an evolutionary point of view RNA may well have been a precursor to DNA and recent suggestions (Zimmer 2006, Science) point towards viruses playing a role in the evolution of DNA.

May I ask what your point is?

Just wanted to know. An opportunity to learn something. Th eonly way to learn is by asking.

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

Just wanted to know. An opportunity to learn something. Th eonly way to learn is by asking.

Thats fair enough.

In the interest of equality, may I ask how you would fit such obviously flawed but functional systems of evolution as I described above in with intelligent design?

Did our creator design (later on) a small sub population of humans to be better protected from a parasite at the cost producing terminally ill, suffering offspring?

I can see a theological gold mine for this, making up my own answer, perhaps he conferred such protection to this sub-population but exchanged the suffering they gave up (for his cause) from malaria for the suffering of watching their loved ones die and suffer (who themselves get a VIP pass into heaven). Thus ensuring the survival of the population, but keeping the level of earthly suffering roughly equal (trials and tribulations are good).

But in that case, our creator vastly underestimated the parasite wheich he also created. Why make humans initially susceptable and rectify the mistake later? Why not just have the current intelligent design solution from the beginning? Why would the creator make a faulty solution and then have to rectify it?

robindch

> In the interest of equality, may I ask how you would fit such obviously flawed
> but functional systems of evolution as I described above in with intelligent design?

I don't think that's a very helpful response to an honest question.

We don't get many questions asked here by creationists and as Brian says, it's the only way to learn.

robindch

> What is the difference between RNA and DNA? and which living
> organisms have which and why?

In addition to the short answers above, I would clarify as follows:

DNA is a long double-stranded chain molecule made up mainly of sequences of four different types of simple nucleic acids (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine) known as 'bases'. With the exception of some viruses, all living organisms use DNA (a) to build copies of their own DNA to transmit their genetic information to the next generation and (b) to build RNA.

RNA is (usually) a long single-stranded chain molecule made up of sequences of adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil (rather than thymine, as in DNA). Each chunk of three RNA bases specifies which amino acid a protein-building-machine should use when it's building a protein molecule. See here for how each set of three RNA-bases codes for a specific amino acid.

In summary, information flows as follows:

DNA + enzymes = RNA (by a process called 'transcription')
RNA + enzymes = protein (by a process called 'translation')

and proteins are the things which do all the hard work in living cells.

The AIDS virus is interestingly different. Its RNA produces a protein which attacks the host cell's DNA and the virus is able to insert its own DNA in place of the host's. This means that the host reproduce the AIDS virus instead of the host itself. That's why AIDS is referred to as a "retrovirus", because it works in the opposite direction (Protein->DNA) to the way that most living things do (DNA->RNA->Protein) . Hence the 'anti-retroviral treatments' that one hears about in the news.

.

GuanYin

robindch wrote:

> In the interest of equality, may I ask how you would fit such obviously flawed
> but functional systems of evolution as I described above in with intelligent design?

I don't think that's a very helpful response to an honest question.

We don't get many questions asked here by creationists and as Brian says, it's the only way to learn.

Apologies if you think I'm having a go, I'm honestly not.

I did ask a question that wasn't answered and I do want to know the answer.

My own personaly attitude (as has been expressed here before) is that people are entitled to hold whatever beliefs they have, my only concern is when they are pushed on others, which is not the case here.

I do however, wish to know how ID fits in with what I have described. No malice intended.

wolfsbane

psi said:

I do however, wish to know how ID fits in with what I have described.

I'm happy to give the theological answer to your query - Intelligent design surely wouldn't put such a crude answer forward. I mean, there isn't a whole lot intelligent about designing an organism that has a 1/4 chance of having an offspring that will not survive to pro-create (assuming the organism breeds with another carrier)?

It is indeed a problem for the Theistic Evolutionist IDers. I can't speak for them. But Creationists have no problem here. The perfect design that was manifested at the beginning of Creation was made subject ot death and suffering at the Fall. Before that there was no death or suffering, everything functioned at 100%.

The Creationist position is based on the Bible account and stated long before the ID movement arose. It ties together both a Perfect Designer and the imperfect creation we see around us.

Son Goku

The Creationist position is based on the Bible account and stated long before the ID movement arose. It ties together both a Perfect Designer and the imperfect creation we see around us.

Where's its empirical support?
A single non-christian source would be enough.

GuanYin

wolfsbane wrote:

It is indeed a problem for the Theistic Evolutionist IDers. I can't speak for them. But Creationists have no problem here. The perfect design that was manifested at the beginning of Creation was made subject ot death and suffering at the Fall. Before that there was no death or suffering, everything functioned at 100%.

The Creationist position is based on the Bible account and stated long before the ID movement arose. It ties together both a Perfect Designer and the imperfect creation we see around us.

Ahh but hold on. How does this account for the emergence of the sickle cell phenotype? We know this is a relatively new mutation and it certaily wouldn't have been something inherited from the first humans.

Actually, I'm not clear on what you're saying - malaria parasites didn't infect humans pre the Fall of man or that they did and just had no pathology?

Zombrex

psi wrote:

Actually, I'm not clear on what you're saying - malaria parasites didn't infect humans pre the Fall of man or that they did and just had no pathology?

The Creationist argument is that pretty much any flaw, anything bad, anything that isn't working quite as it should, is that way because of the Fall of Man (to give it its full title).

God created everything perfectly, and things wound up in the state that they are because man sinned and cursed himself and the universe around him by doing so.

From a scientific point of view considering that as a viable position is rather illogical.

Science can only deal with how things are at the moment. Things being originally perfect but now they are imperfect looks exactly the same, from a scientific point of view, as if things weren't perfect in the first place. This is similar to the fact that from a scientific point of view God is irrelivent, because he either doesn't interact with the universe or doesn't exist (both of which from our perspective look the same)

The whole Fall of Man theory is a bit of a cop-out in my view. You first suppose God designed life in a perfect way, but they say he then allowed things to become imperfect. So you end up with the same result as if God hadn't designed anything.

Its kinda like saying that there was a pink dragon in my room, but when asked "well where is he" you say he just left. From the point of view of the person who just walked in to the room a pink dragon being in my room and then leaving looks exactly the same as no pink dragon in the first place.

Its another reason why ID is a completely baseless theory, from a scientific point of view.

BrianCalgary

But why refute whether or not the pink dragon could have been there?

You just missed seeing it? so does that mean it wasn't there, because you didn't see it?

GuanYin

BrianCalgary wrote:

But why refute whether or not the pink dragon could have been there?

You just missed seeing it? so does that mean it wasn't there, because you didn't see it?

No offence Brian, but are you ignoring my question? I really would be interested in you addressing my question above. I really am curious.

BrianCalgary

psi wrote:

No offence Brian, but are you ignoring my question? I really would be interested in you addressing my question above. I really am curious.

No actually I'm not ignoring it. I have been quite busy today.

I don't have an answer. I don't know enough about the subject to have one.

But, thank you for all the responses. I learned quite a bit.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

But why refute whether or not the pink dragon could have been there?

You just missed seeing it? so does that mean it wasn't there, because you didn't see it?

It means that the Fall is not useful scientifically. It is a theoretical possibility, if you like, but not one from which we can draw any scientific conclusions or make any predictions.

If there was no death, and no disease, before the Fall, there would be no remains from that period, so it is exactly as if it never happened. It is non-falsifiable - one could not under any circumstances prove it untrue. By scientific standards, this also makes it unprovable - in the sense that includes both "cannot be proved true" and "cannot be tested".

One of the problems with creationism, from a scientific point of view, is just how many of creationism's assertions are unfalsifiable. The original creation itself is unfalsifiable, the Fall is unfalsifiable, and the various complex (rather than naive) Flood theories are unfalsifiable - and these are three major tenets of creationism. Indeed, the hypothesis that God created the world yesterday is unfalsifiable (Creationists will point out that this last does not have Biblical support, but then it's a bit of stretch claiming that the Biblical description of the Flood supports any tectonic movements).

Separately - something I find interesting with respect to the Fall is the idea that, for example, human lifespans decreased after the Fall - incrementally. Oddly, this means that the burden of the Fall gets heavier the further removed one is from the original transgression, which is an unusual concept of justice. This has to be deliberate on God's part, since it is impossible that he was incapable of inflicting the whole Fall at once.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

But why refute whether or not the pink dragon could have been there?

You just missed seeing it? so does that mean it wasn't there, because you didn't see it?

Science doesn't refute the existence of God. A lot of scientists think the idea is implausable and highly unlikely, but there is no aspect of any major scientific theory that says God does or does not exist. Science largely ignores the issue of God because it isn't relivent.

Science says that since the end result is the same whether God exists or not, the issue is irrelivent from a scientific point of view. You can choose to believe in God, or you can choose not to believe in God. The scientific models of the universe will remain the same either way. The universe only works one way, whether that way was created by God or if God doesn't exist at all. We can't tell if God made the universe or not because we have nothing to reference that with. We don't have a universe that God didn't make to compare with ours to say "oh yes, look at that difference, this must mean God made this one"

You can choose to believe the pink dragon was there, or you can refuse to believe the pink dragon was there. The room will be in the same state, either way. From looking at the room as it is after the pink dragon has gone you can't tell if it was there or if it wasn't there, and it comes down to personal belief.

Evolution is the way life developed on Earth. But, as I said to JC, if someone wishes to believe that this is in fact the way God meant for it to happen that is fine. Science can't really show that either way, nor does it particularly care, since there is no way to know that God did it or not.

The point is that we are in the box looking at it from the inside, the universe looks exactly the same whether you believe God made it or not. Therefore from a scientific point of view God is irrelivent to modelling the universe.

robindch

> But, thank you for all the responses. I learned quite a bit.

Out of interest, who wrote the post that you found most informative?