Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)
Comments
-
-
...all evidence of common design ... and NOT ancestry!!!!
...IF they had common ancestry ... and their genetics underwent the dramatic (and supposed undirected) changes required to turn a slimeball into a Human, studying the genes of frogs would have little or NO application in Human Medicine...as their genotypes would be as dramatically different from each other as their phenotypes!!!!
On the other hand, IF an Infirite Intelligence designed all life we could expect to find commonalities between different Created Kinds ... just like we find commonalities across the different creations of Human Intelligence!!!!:pac::):D
Nonsense. Intelligent design so-called-theory doesn't tell you what to expect at all. A designer is free to act at whim - repeating designs, varying them, mixing them in jarring combinations, or using completely different designs every time. You have no idea what your hypothetical designer would do.
In claiming that the genetic similarities we see between species are inevitable consequences of design, you're just scrabbling around after the fact, trying to come up with yet another cartoon creationist explanation for what evolution - correctly - predicted.0 -
ok - but would you agree the Bible is allegorical?
I think Genesis has some wonderful myths that still resonate today. The Eden myth explores how the human intellect - evolved, as modern science says - has allowed us come to define what is good and evil, and how our conflicted nature - again evolved - drives us on occasion to do what we know is wrong.
Myths have always offered a way of thinking about the human condition. The Greeks would reinterpret them, changing great chunks of the stories to challenge what their audiences thought. Write them down in a sacred book, though, and that malleability is lost. Comically, you get some who treat their written creation myths as offering a factual account of the creation of the universe, the earth, and us, and trying to fit science around it. That, I think, is nonsense.0 -
...and it is a style of thinking that science has been unable to prevent amongst Spontaneous Evolutionists ... who rely heavily on the 'authority' of their fellow Atheistic 'heavyweights' .... to deny the clear evidence for Intelligent Design before their very eyes ... indeed even the Intelligent Design of their very eyes!!!!! :pac::):D
Garbage. There's no motive to swallow information on authority in science. It's a system built to reward adversarial behaviour and scepticism. Please cut the relentless "I know you are what am I" rubbish and answer all those questions of ours you keep dodging....all evidence of common design ... and NOT common ancestry!!!!
The standard party line on that one is that similarity is as likely to be evidence of common designer as it is of common descent. Not that similarity falsifies common ancestry. The party line is wrong, of course. The nature of the similarities rules out a single, intelligent designer. Though it's perhaps possible that a Divine Moron did it....IF they had common ancestry ... and their genetics underwent the dramatic (and supposedly undirected) changes required to turn a slimeball into a Human, studying the genes of frogs would have little or NO application in Human Medicine...as their genotypes would be as dramatically different from each other as is their phenotypes!!!!
Why would that be so? If humans and frogs share a common ancestor we'd expect similarities. That's a specific prediction of evolution. But it's not a prediction of creationism because your creator can do whatever he likes and is certainly not obliged to re-use any part of the frog design in humans.On the other hand, IF an Infirite Intelligence designed all life we could expect to find commonalities between different Created Kinds ... just like we find commonalities across the different creations of Human Intelligence!!!!:pac::):D
That's a stupid argument. Firstly, you wouldn't automatically expect similarities between the designs due to a common designer. That's an assumption and one that you can't verify without knowing more about the designer, his specific capabilities, his aesthetic sense and his goals. Unless these have been quantified how would you know what to expect? Secondly, assuming the designer was the intelligent sort, with a creative streak and an interest in optimising his designs, you'd expect him to re-hash ideas whenever they were best suited. In that case we would not expect the commonalities between life forms to be nested, because that's not what we see in intelligently designed objects.
In designed objects we see a complex web of commonalities between common features, in eukaryotic life forms we see a nested tree. And so far neither you nor Wolfsbane has been able to explain why that's there without resort to some limp-wristed crap about the designer being allowed to do whatever he likes. Which paradoxically is an admission that you have no idea what the testable implications of the designer hypothesis are, no idea what to expect.
So now you need to explain why the tree of life exists for eukaryotes (and kindly leave out the HGT argument this time, it does not help you at all), address my in-depth responses to 21 of your questions, tackle those 14 or so questions of mine that you still haven't answered and while you're at it maybe you could come back to that issue of "increased genetic information" and exactly what would fit that description.
Or hey, you can keep dodging the actual issues and try to score points with your laughable attempts at quips instead.0 -
... I live a full and busy life .... that does not revolve about repeatedly answering already answered questions on the Boards.ie!!!!:pac::):DThe Mad Hatter wrote: »J C: Glad you're here. You have a long list of unanswered questions. Could you get to addressing them again, please? Or are you going to disappear for another two weeks?
....at this stage I am only keeping an occasional watching brief ... and answering the more outlandish (and illogical) postings by the 'Evolutionist brigade'!!!:pac::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
...yes there are allegories in the Bible ... but they DON'T change with the era ... the parable of the Good Shepherd ... CONTINUES to mean EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus said it!!!The apostles took a lot of teaching as having allegorical meanings so how we interpret the message changes with the era.
....the ONLY obvious allegory in Gen 1 and 2 is the reference to the 'tree of knowledge of good and evil' ... everything else is written in a literal format!!!:pac::):D
...and ALL of Gen 1 and 2 CONTINUES to mean EXACTLY what it meant when Moses wrote it!!!:D0 -
...you are correct that a designer can do pretty much as He pleases ... within the laws that He has determined...and this is what we observe with living organisms!!!darjeeling wrote: »Nonsense. Intelligent design so-called-theory doesn't tell you what to expect at all. A designer is free to act at whim - repeating designs, varying them, mixing them in jarring combinations, or using completely different designs every time. You have no idea what your hypothetical designer would do.
In claiming that the genetic similarities we see between species are inevitable consequences of design, you're just scrabbling around after the fact, trying to come up with yet another cartoon creationist explanation for what evolution - correctly - predicted.
...you are also correct that this observation cannot prove a Designer Hypothesis one way or the other!!
...the PROOF that a Designer was at work is the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms...because it can be PROVEN mathematically that CSI cannot arise spontaneously without an intelligent input .... because of the overwhelming amount of 'useless' combinatorial space 'out there' ... and the observed fact that even minor changes to critical genetic sequences will cause disaster!!!!:D0 -
.....you are correct about the comedy that has resulted from Darwin putting pen to paper and writing the Origins of Species ... which has become THE 'Sacred Book' of 20th Century Evolutionism!!!!!darjeeling wrote: »I think Genesis has some wonderful myths that still resonate today. The Eden myth explores how the human intCONTINUES to mean EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus said it!!!ellect - evolved, as modern science says - has allowed us come to define what is good and evil, and how our conflicted nature - again evolved - drives us on occasion to do what we know is wrong.
Myths have always offered a way of thinking about the human condition. The Greeks would reinterpret them, changing great chunks of the stories to challenge what their audiences thought. Write them down in a sacred book, though, and that malleability is lost. Comically, you get some who treat their written creation myths as offering a factual account of the creation of the universe, the earth, and us, and trying to fit science around it. That, I think, is nonsense.
....the Evolutionists continue to shore up their 'Evolution Myths' without any success ... and their long-winded, pompous pronouncements, which basically claim that 'Slimeballs became Men' only adds to the 'comedy value' of it all!!!!
:pac::):D:eek:
... the nonesense certainly applies to Evolution 'in spades'!!!!!:pac::):D:eek:darjeeling wrote: »That, I think, is nonsense.0 -
... I live a full and busy life .... that does not revolve about repeatedly answering already answered questions on the Boards.ie!!!!:pac::):D
....at this stage I am only keeping an occasional watching brief ... and only answering the most outlandish (and illogical) postings by the 'Pondscum to Man' religious brigade!!!:pac::):D
And while you're at it, look up the word 'unanswered'. Or 'repeatedly'. I'm not sure which one you don't understand.0 -
... what you want me to do is to get involved in your contorted word games ... with the end result that people will get totally confused by it all.The Mad Hatter wrote: »And while you're at it, look up the word 'unanswered'. Or 'repeatedly'. I'm not sure which one you don't understand.
...I won't waste my time (and yours) going around in circles with you ... I will confine myself to highlighting the OBVIOUS errors of the Evolutionist arguments ... and I will leave the 'navel gazing' and the long-winded philosophising to the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:pac::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
....a 'nested tree' eh????!!!:DAtomicHorror wrote: ».... in eukaryotic life forms we see a nested tree.
....must be the 'bird brain' of Evolutionists sub-consciously expressing itself !!!:pac::):D
....oh what interesting dreams Evolutionists have!!!:pac::):D0 -
...it beats long-winded 'navel gazing' any day!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote: »..... you can keep dodging the actual issues and try to score points with your laughable attempts at quips instead.0 -
... what you want me to do is to get involved in your contorted word games ... with the end result that people will get totally confused by it all.
...I won't waste my time (and yours) going around in circles with you ... I will confine myself to highlighting the OBVIOUS errors of the Evolutionist arguments ... and I will leave the 'navel gazing' and the long-winded philosophising to the Evolutionists on this thread!!!!:pac::):D
Er...knowing what words mean isn't word games.
Now why don't you get to answering the unanswered questions (unanswered means 'not answered') that Atomic Horror and others have been asking you. Or is it (as, frankly, you, I and everyone else knows) that you can't answer them.0 -
...yes there are allegories in the Bible ... but they DON'T change with the era ... the parable of the Good Shepherd ... CONTINUES to mean EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus said it!!!
...and ALL of Gen 1 and 2 CONTINUES to mean EXACTLY what it meant when Moses wrote it!!!:D
Well the Council of Jerusalem put paid to one Mosaic tradition - circumcision and I dont see you arguing for that.0 -
...the PROOF that a Designer was at work is the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms...because it can be PROVEN mathematically that CSI cannot arise spontaneously without an intelligent input .... because of the overwhelming amount of 'useless' combinatorial space 'out there' ... and the observed fact that even minor changes to critical genetic sequences will cause disaster!!!!:D
No such 'proof' exists. You keep repeating the same sciency-sounding phrases, but you never define what 'Complex Specified Information' might mean in a biological context, you don't say what your 'critical genetic sequences' are so we can see if they actually exist, and you don't explain what your 'useless combinatorial space' is. Your whole argument - if that is not too elevated a word - is entirely meaningless. It is nothing but a smokescreen.0 -
-
...you are correct that a designer can do pretty much as He pleases ... within the laws that He has determined...and this is what we observe with living organisms!!!
...you are also correct that this observation cannot prove a Designer Hypothesis one way or the other!!
But on the other hand we have evolution, a theory which predicts that when HGT is minimal we would expect to see the relatedness of the traits of life to resemble a bifurcating tree. That's a specific prediction. And when we look at the relationships between the traits of eukaryotes, we see a tree. So that supports evolution....the PROOF that a Designer was at work is the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms...because it can be PROVEN mathematically that CSI cannot arise spontaneously without an intelligent input ....
Do two things for me before you leave us in a flurry of constipated facial expressions. First, define complex specified information and explain how we'd test for it. Second, provide the full mathematical proof, from first principles, that the genetics we see existing life cannot arise without spontaneous input.because of the overwhelming amount of 'useless' combinatorial space 'out there' ...
Wow, it'd be great if there were some system to select out the useless sequences... some sort of "natural selection". And some way to back up the useful sequences... like some sort of "reproduction".and the observed fact that even minor changes to critical genetic sequences will cause disaster!!!!:D
Where has this been observed?....a 'nested tree' eh????!!!:D
....must be the 'bird brain' of Evolutionists sub-consciously expressing itself !!!:pac::):D
I take it you have no idea what I'm talking about. The tree of life is a fairly compelling piece of the evidence for evolution. It's also quite a basic concept. Who criticises an idea without even understanding the basics? Such arrogant assumption.
...it beats long-winded 'navel gazing' any day!!!:pac::):DAtomicHorror wrote:you can keep dodging the actual issues and try to score points with your laughable attempts at quips instead.
That's funny. You who claims that there is a scientific debate happening here. Suddenly reluctant to be "long-winded"? See, I think we've got you beat J C. When we wouldn't let you away with dismissing the science, you started spamming us with pasted quotes. When the mods asked you to stop doing that, you vanished entirely. I think all you've got left is smart comments and emotes. And you sure can't do that every day.0 -
J C, you have several times repeated the assertion that there are no examples of "increasing genetic information" apparently demanded by evolution. A few months back I asked for you to clarify the meaning of "genetic information" and to define what would constitute a measurable increase in that.
So, you said:J C wrote:1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.
To which I responded:AtomicHorror wrote:1. A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and unambiguous meaning.
2. Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting otherwise are creationists.
A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.
There are countless examples of this.
CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in function.
Can you please address the above, or will I take it that you withdraw the assertion that we have not observed "increased genetic information"?
Finally, I'm very sad to see that after all my hard work you're still not willing to address my rebuttals of your replies to me or take the time to refute my answers to your own questions.
You say that this is all just an effort to confuse people, but I will be most happy to clarify any point of science which confuses you or anyone else. You need only ask. So please, do not use ignorance of my meaning as an excuse not to engage.
So, just to be clear, are you conceding these points, J C?0 -
...the REASON for this has nothing to do with the original meaning of the Jewish Law on circumcision and doesn't change it's validity ... for Jews.Well the Council of Jerusalem put paid to one Mosaic tradition - circumcision and I dont see you arguing for that.
The reason for the abandonment of circumcision by Christians is because Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law ... and they are instead only subject to God's grace. Similarly, Jewish dietary Laws, on not eating pork, for example, do not apply to Christians ... but these Laws continue to mean what they say ... and continue to be applicable to Jews ... who are still subject to the Mosaic Laws.0 -
AtomicHorror wrote: »J C, you have several times repeated the assertion that there are no examples of "increasing genetic information" apparently demanded by evolution. A few months back I asked for you to clarify the meaning of "genetic information" and to define what would constitute a measurable increase in that.
So, you said:
Originally Posted by J C
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
....even a computer model of how either 1 or 2 above could occur will do.
To which I responded:
Originally Posted by AtomicHorror
1. A full definition would require that you define what you mean by "information". That word has several related but distinct meanings. I'm also not sure what you mean by "functional specific biological components", is that "functional-specific" or "functional, specific"? I know you'll see this as pedantic, but science requires exact and unambiguous meaning.
2. Again with the spontaneous, single-step majick. This doesn't happen in evolution and the only people suggesting otherwise are creationists.
A new gene doesn't just pop into existence. New bases and chunks of DNA are frequently added to the genome, but these are typically non-coding. A new gene can emerge either by one of these stretches of non-coding DNA becoming coding or by the duplication of an existing gene to a new locus followed by its modification.
There are countless examples of this.
CCR5d32, a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy. This confers AIDS resistance in homozygotes and delayed onset in heterozygotes. As the function of CCRs are multiply redundant, the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes. This means there is a net gain in function.
Can you please address the above, or will I take it that you withdraw the assertion that we have not observed "increased genetic information"?
Finally, I'm very sad to see that after all my hard work you're still not willing to address my rebuttals of your replies to me or take the time to refute my answers to your own questions.
You say that this is all just an effort to confuse people, but I will be most happy to clarify any point of science which confuses you or anyone else. You need only ask. So please, do not use ignorance of my meaning as an excuse not to engage.
So, just to be clear, are you conceding these points, J C?
I have ALREADY adequately addressed the above questions as follows in posting #15679
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D
2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system. ... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D0 -
Advertisement
-
...the REASON for this has nothing to do with the original meaning of the Jewish Law on circumcision and doesn't change it's validity ... for Jews.
The reason for the abandonment of circumcision by Christians is because Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law ... and they are instead only subject to God's grace. Similarly, Jewish dietary Laws, on not eating pork, for example, do not apply to Christians ... but these Laws continue to mean what they say ... and continue to be applicable to Jews ... who are still subject to the Mosaic Laws.
You argue like a Jesuit
0 -
I have ALREADY adequately addressed the above questions as follows in posting #15679
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D
2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system. ... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D
Yes, it also proves that the designer talked through a flaming bush, told a man to build a giant boat for his animals, doesn't like people working on a sunday and dislikes menstruating women.0 -
Yes, it also proves that the designer talked through a flaming bush, told a man to build a giant boat for his animals, doesn't like people working on a sunday and dislikes menstruating women.
It really is a guy book full of action stuff.
Well you havent been to the desert then.Can i ask you do you like working on a Sunday and you must admit that bit of social thinking was enlightened at the time. Boats to transport live animals on the hoof - very enlightened in case of flood and done to this day. Mensruating women - well I will leave that one.;)0 -
I have ALREADY adequately addressed the above questions as follows in posting #15679
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....
In case I have not already asked for it- can you give a specific example?the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities.
There's no such thing as a "statistical impossibility" J C. Impossibility is limited to logical contradictions. In statistics/probability the best you can do is have something that is improbable. This suggests very strongly that as well as not really understanding evolution (as shown in a moment), you also don't understand probability. By all means prove me wrong on this point.
Show me in full the mathematics which demonstrates that such a mutation improbable enough to be considered impossible in practical terms. Make sure you don't forget to account for reproduction, because you did the last time. The probabilistic implications of one copy of a gene mutating functionally is a whole different kettle of fish to 6 billion copies across hundreds of generations giving the same outcome once.It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D
Have said it before and you never replied. Terrible analogy. Cars can't reproduce and the parts have no reactivity with one another, so of course there's only one way to make them. Also the car is a goal here, but there are no goals in evolution. We merely see that which survives, surviving. Also you suggest a one-step rapid process, nothing like abiogenesis or evolution at all. Awful, useless analogy. Are you Ken Ham? This is the kind of junk he comes out with.
Do you understand evolution at all? I think you get some of genetics but I don't think you understand evolution. You need to study up, because analogies like this make it painfully obvious that you're a bit lost.2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system.
No, it actually demonstrates that there are many potential functions for protein sequences which are very much dependant on circumstances. The decoy function is certainly not built in as it requires a "random mutation" for it to be acquired and it's just happy chance that such a mutation occurred within a useful time frame of the HIV pandemic. And indeed it is only a functional mutation in the context of the existence of HIV, a virus which only transferred to humans in the last 100 years or so. Otherwise it's a mutation that is probably detrimental on balance.... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D
Nope, because that redundancy is imperfect. In the absence of potential HIV infection, the cost:benefit ratio for CCR5d32 swings into the negative and it is selected against. An intelligent designer would surely just duplicate the CCR5 gene, do the d32 deletion on the duplicate and give the organism the best of both worlds.
Anyway I already rejected this answer for good reasons which are fully outlined a few posts after you originally wrote this nonsense. I took particular care in showing how logically meaningless your warehouse analogy is. Should I go reposting the comment where I dismantled this rubbish? Or shall we progress the debate? I'm now looking for you to refute my rejection or come up with something new.
Also, the above ignores the many issues in post 14769 and post 14748 which you now been carefully dodging for months.0 -
I have ALREADY adequately addressed the above questions as follows in posting #15679
1. Genetic information is the information required to produce functional specific biological components and their organisation into organisms.
Such components are "functional specific" i.e they have a specific function were even minor changes to their chemical structure will make them non-functional - and therefore spontaneous systems are incapable of producing such components with any degree of practical efficiency....the combinations of non-functional chemical combinations vastly outnumber the functional ones and when you add the requirement of specificity they become statistical impossibilities. It's analagous to a great big warehouse where workers go searching at random for various components from amongst billions of DIFFERENT components in the hope that they will eventually construct a functional car ... there is only ONE WAY that such a vehicle can be constructed ... by the applicance of Intelligent Design ... ditto 'with bells on it' in the case of living organisms!!!:pac::):D
2. A test showing an increase in genetic information would be the spontaneous production of a functional biological component, such as a simple protein, or the spontaneous transmution of one functional protein into another functional protein.
Your example of CCR5d32, where a mutation of gene CCR5, removes the gene's function as a chemokine receptor and replaces it with a function as a HIV-binding decoy indicates that multiple functionality is already built into this system. ... as you have confirmed yourself the function of CCRs are multiply redundant...and the receptor function is not lost even in homozygotes.
Multiple redundancy is also a definitive indicator of Intelligent Design!!!:pac::):D
There is really so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.
1) You can't give up your mistaken teleological assumptions. Your car makers have the final goal of trying to make one specific car. Evolution doesn't work like that; it has no final goals.
2) You assume biomolecules - say genes / proteins - can only function if they have one precise sequence, and that evolution cannot build up to this sequence. Again, this owes much to mistaken teleology. Moreover, real biology shows that a gene can vary considerably in sequence between different species, yet still do essentially the same job in each. You can also knock out a gene in a mouse and then recover functionality by putting in the corresponding human gene, despite it having a different sequence. Your assumption, then, has no biological basis.
3) Genetic information - and the 'complex specified information' you mentioned yesterday - has never been defined in a way that means it can be practically measured. This doesn't stop you claiming, on the basis of this 'information', that evolution cannot be true. That's not science - it's wishful thinking.
4) You claim that multiple redundancy proves the existence of your imaginary designer. As you conceded yesterday, you can't predict what this designer might do, so neither the presence nor absence of multiple redundancy would invalidate him / her / it. That's why intelligent design is a non-scientific idea.
.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 30552
-
....you forgot to add that He loved everyone so much that He became a man and shared in our Human condition, including death, to make perfect atonement for all our sins ... and all He asks is that we believe on Him to save us!!!:pac::):DYes, it also proves that the designer talked through a flaming bush, told a man to build a giant boat for his animals, doesn't like people working on a sunday and dislikes menstruating women.
....and God doesn't dislike menstruating women ... He made enlightened laws that forbade randy men from exposing women to increased infection risk during their periods ... and most men and women today prefer not to have sex at this time for obvious reasons of hygiene!!!!:D0 -
...IF a manufacturer had no final goal, the analogy works even better .... and such a manufacturer would be even more unlikely to produce a functional machine of ANY description!!!darjeeling wrote: »There is really so much wrong with this it's hard to know where to start.
1) You can't give up your mistaken teleological assumptions. Your car makers have the final goal of trying to make one specific car. Evolution doesn't work like that; it has no final goals.
...this is analagous to taking a pair of intelligently designed tights and using them to replace an intelligently designed fan belt ... it is further evidence of ID. Genes can function with different sequences ... but intermediate sequences lose functionality ... and so there is no observed mechanism for evolution to 'evolve' between functional sequences. The only logical conclusion is that each functional sequence is a result of a lucky (actually mathematically impossible) 'fluke' ... or they are the product of ID!!!darjeeling wrote: »2) You assume biomolecules - say genes / proteins - can only function if they have one precise sequence, and that evolution cannot build up to this sequence. Again, this owes much to mistaken teleology. Moreover, real biology shows that a gene can vary considerably in sequence between different species, yet still do essentially the same job in each. You can also knock out a gene in a mouse and then recover functionality by putting in the corresponding human gene, despite it having a different sequence. Your assumption, then, has no biological basis.
... and please note that BOTH the Human AND Mouse genes are tightly specified and any alterations to their critical sequences will render BOTH genes non-functional ...
....please also note that most functional genes are not interchangable.:pac::):D
....of course the information can be measured - that was one of the objectives of the Human Genome Project ... and they found that it was enormous and VERY sophisticated !!!darjeeling wrote: »3) Genetic information - and the 'complex specified information' you mentioned yesterday - has never been defined in a way that means it can be practically measured. This doesn't stop you claiming, on the basis of this 'information', that evolution cannot be true. That's not science - it's wishful thinking.
...like I said the other day, redundancy or its absence doesn't prove Intelligent Design one way or the other .... it is the presence of Complex Specified Information (CSI) in living organisms that PROVES that they were Intelligently Designed!!!! :pac::):D:eek:darjeeling wrote: »4) You claim that multiple redundancy proves the existence of your imaginary designer. As you conceded yesterday, you can't predict what this designer might do, so neither the presence nor absence of multiple redundancy would invalidate him / her / it. That's why intelligent design is a non-scientific idea.0 -
...IF a manufacturer had no final goal, the analogy works even better .... and such a manufacturer would be even more unlikely to produce a functional machine of ANY description!!!
Again wrong, because specified function itself implies a goal. The only "goal" of evolution is persistence of being. Function, which only exists within context rather than as an absolute, is merely a consequence if this pseudo-goal.
Your logic is busted.....of course the information can be measured - that was one of the objectives of the Human Genome Project ... and they found that it was enormous and VERY sophisticated !!!
You imply that we were surprised by the complexity. This is untrue. Actually, we expected the human genome to be more complex than it is. We expected on the order of 100,000 genes but ended up with about 1/4 that number.
So, explain to me how we measure the genetic information in the genome. What units do we use. How do we measure positive or negative changes in information?0 -
Advertisement
-
....BUT 'persistence of being' in living organisms is OBSERVED to involve massive amounts of Complex Specified Genetic Information ... and such information CANNOT arise via non-intelligently directed processes!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »Again wrong, because specified function itself implies a goal. The only "goal" of evolution is persistence of being. Function, which only exists within context rather than as an absolute, is merely a consequence if this pseudo-goal.
.... yet another 'prediction' of Evolution 'bites the dust'!!!AtomicHorror wrote: »You imply that we were surprised by the complexity. This is untrue. Actually, we expected the human genome to be more complex than it is. We expected on the order of 100,000 genes but ended up with about 1/4 that number.
Creation Scientists expected the Genetic Information to have a high quality .... to match its quantity ... and that is how it turned out to be!!!
....information is measured by it's functional results ... and the highest quality information is the information that uses the smallest amount of data carrier to produce the greatest functional result.AtomicHorror wrote: »So, explain to me how we measure the genetic information in the genome. What units do we use. How do we measure positive or negative changes in information?
Examples of high quality information transmission would include the Human Genome that uses a fraction of the predicted data carrier sequences to produce the Human Brain .... and Creation Scientists who use so few words to such devastating effect ...on the long-winded, illogical pronuoncements of Evolutionists !!!:pac::):D0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement