The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

the sequestration of algal genes by the Slug DNA isn't mutagenesis

Yes it is. The slug's DNA sequence has been changed in a stable manner - this is mutagenesis.

J C wrote: »

it is the aquisition of algal CSI by the Slug CSI

It is the acquisition of algal DNA by slug DNA (although I don't like the term acquisition as it adds direction to the process). It is not the acquisition of "CSI" by "CSI" as "CSI" doesn't exist as a physical entity. "CSI" is an abstract function of physical DNA.

Again, the slug genome has acquired a new gene, one it didn't have before. Has the complexity of the slug increased? Has the functionality of the slug increased? Has the specified information within the DNA code increased? Therefore, CSI, as YOU define it, has increased.

After all, JC, you have to try to be consistent here, don't you? And that means that if you call the loss of wing growth due to loss of genetic info a "loss of CSI", then you have to allow the gain of a function due to gain of genetic information as "gain of CSI".

Are you taking the position of inconsistency or do you accept my above statement? These are the only options.

Sam Vimes

J C wrote: »

...it isn't destroying CSI ... the sequestration of algal genes by the Slug DNA isn't mutagenesis ... it is the aquisition of algal CSI by the Slug CSI ...just like the aquisition of an 'App' by your phone isn't a random non-intelligently directed phenonenon like mutagenesis either !!!:eek::)

Do you think the slugs held the algae at gunpoint and stole their genes or something

wolfsbane

AtomicHorror wrote: »

That's the crux of it. It's subsets within subsets. Families and whatnot are not particularly meaningful to the way we think about life these days- they don't for example define a consistent measure of discreteness or difference or similarity or however we might like to go about delineating life forms. We've got boundaries such as productive breeding capacity, which we've directly observed to emerge evolution by natural selection. We've got clades, which can be of any size and cross any range of similarity at all- so it's not much good observing evolution across clade boundaries (we have). And we've got various measures of similarity.

I guess that's what you're really interested in? Have we seen evolution generate difference between ancestor and descendant comparable to what we'd expect to see between the families or orders or genera? The problem is that- as I said above- there's no consistent definition of these things and no consistent genetic difference. But would this be a fair summary of the evidence you're looking for?

Yes, I think that covers it.

So my point remains - if evolutionists cannot point to such change because one has problems defining it, why was the assertion made that it had been observed?

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I think that covers it.

So my point remains - if evolutionists cannot point to such change because one has problems defining it, why was the assertion made that it had been observed?

You're conflating two issues.

Evolutionary biologists have observed change from one species to another, and have defined "species".

Creationists have claimed evolution cannot give rise to change from one kind to another, but have not defined "kind".

J C

monosharp wrote: »

I know its pointless but why not.

JC, what if I started breeding flies in an enclosed space. I cover the ground with food and I hang electric fly killers from the roof.

The flies have no need to fly, in fact flying is hazardous to their health. Over many generations the flies who inherit 'bad-flight' genes have the advantage for survival here. (Warning: Not actually a good experiment)

Eventually flies with 'no-wings' genes become the norm because its advantageous to their survival.

Well ?

...your proposed experiment certainly has parallells in the real world...
...there are some known examples of 'change by loss' due to Natural Selection. On islands, for example, there are flightless varieties of insects because their winged comrades were swept out to sea and died due to prevailing off-shore winds.
However, all of these examples show a loss of function and CSI ... which is going in the opposite direction from what would be required to 'evolve' from Pondkind to Mankind' ... which requires organisms to gain new functions and CSI.:)

... and no, Emma, 'sequestering' the CSI from other creatures doesn't qualify either!!!:eek:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, I think that covers it.

So my point remains - if evolutionists cannot point to such change because one has problems defining it, why was the assertion made that it had been observed?

Because biologists don't treat definitions the way Creationists do. It is Creationists who make definitions and then complain when evolution doesn't fit them.

The classic example is transitional fossils.

All fossils are transitional fossils because all individual life forms are in transitional states from the parent to the child. But try explaining that to a Creationist, who take 2 biological species classifications and then demand to see a transitional species between them, not realizing that species classification doesn't mean anything to nature, they are just human classifications we give to different fossils.

Which is why saying I want to see a fly evolve into a non-fly is pointless without you defining what you mean by fly.

"Fly" doesn't mean anything to nature. As far as nature is concerned you have individual organisms that share characteristics. How we group these characteristics is irrelevant. If one of these organisms gives birth to a mutated child then that is the basis for evolution.

It doesn't matter how you define these terms. If you decide that based on some particular criteria they are the same type of life form, you could then decide on a different set of criteria that they are different set of life form

It is not like evolution is only happening when an organism gives birth to a child that is a different species. "Species" is a human classification, nature has no concept of it. Nature is not sitting around going "ok .... ok .... ok .... now that is evolution"

That has nothing to do with how evolution happens in nature. Evolution doesn't not happen because you changed your criteria so that they are now the same type of life form according to you.

If we decide tomorrow that homo sapians and home habilis are the same species that doesn't mean we aren't evolving or they didn't evolve. Nature doesn't care how we classify them.

Seriously if you are genuinely interested in this subject (which I doubt) stop listening to people like JC and open a biology book. The truth is far more wonderful than the fiction you have been feed by these people you are supposed to trust.

wolfsbane

Morbert wrote: »

You're conflating two issues.

Evolutionary biologists have observed change from one species to another, and have defined "species".

Creationists have claimed evolution cannot give rise to change from one kind to another, but have not defined "kind".

I gather there is as much difficulty in defining species as in defining kind. Good attempts have been made that cover both in general, but there is open-endedness. A helpful article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp

Creationists understand that the classification category of species is not the same as the Genesis kind. Species is a man-made classification that is generally defined as an interbreeding unit that is reproductively isolated from other units. It is well known, however, that individuals from different species or even different genera can potentially interbreed, but do not normally do so. There are factors that can cause “reproductive isolation” within a large group of animals. Animal behavior, size, environmental separation, or complex reproductive strategies can deter reproduction. Animals that can reproduce, but normally do not, would be included within one Genesis kind. In the classification system, however, the splitters have dominated (see appendix 1), so animals have been split up into different species within a genus. The original Genesis kind was undoubtedly a much broader classification than a species.
Then what are the boundaries of the Genesis kind and do all the types of elephants, living and fossil, fit into one kind? There is a fair amount of research into the definition of the various Genesis kinds, called baramins.1 This subfield of study within creationism is called baraminology. It is obvious that the human species is one Genesis kind or baramin, but when it comes to animals and plants, it is often difficult to classify them into baramins. Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I gather there is as much difficulty in defining species as in defining kind. Good attempts have been made that cover both in general, but there is open-endedness. A helpful article:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/FIT/appendix3.asp

Creationists understand that the classification category of species is not the same as the Genesis kind. Species is a man-made classification that is generally defined as an interbreeding unit that is reproductively isolated from other units. It is well known, however, that individuals from different species or even different genera can potentially interbreed, but do not normally do so. There are factors that can cause “reproductive isolation” within a large group of animals. Animal behavior, size, environmental separation, or complex reproductive strategies can deter reproduction. Animals that can reproduce, but normally do not, would be included within one Genesis kind. In the classification system, however, the splitters have dominated (see appendix 1), so animals have been split up into different species within a genus. The original Genesis kind was undoubtedly a much broader classification than a species.
Then what are the boundaries of the Genesis kind and do all the types of elephants, living and fossil, fit into one kind? There is a fair amount of research into the definition of the various Genesis kinds, called baramins.1 This subfield of study within creationism is called baraminology. It is obvious that the human species is one Genesis kind or baramin, but when it comes to animals and plants, it is often difficult to classify them into baramins. Sometimes, the kind may be at the species level, as in modern humans, or at the genus level or sometimes at the family level. It should be rare that the kind is at the level of the order or class.

Yes but the difference is that biologists don't think that species is something that exists in nature waiting to be discovered, where as Creationists claim this is the case with "Kinds", and they are just trying to discover it.

No where in that piece does it actually define a "kind" because in reality they are treating this not as a human classification of biological characteristics (as species is) but some sort of division that exists in nature placed there by God waiting to be discovered by humans.

And shockingly we haven't discovered it yet (whisper cause it doesn't exist whisper)

So it is ridiculous to say that the problems between defining species and defining kinds are similar.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Because biologists don't treat definitions the way Creationists do. It is Creationists who make definitions and then complain when evolution doesn't fit them.

The classic example is transitional fossils.

All fossils are transitional fossils because all individual life forms are in transitional states from the parent to the child. But try explaining that to a Creationist, who take 2 biological species classifications and then demand to see a transitional species between them, not realizing that species classification doesn't mean anything to nature, they are just human classifications we give to different fossils.

Which is why saying I want to see a fly evolve into a non-fly is pointless without you defining what you mean by fly.

"Fly" doesn't mean anything to nature. As far as nature is concerned you have individual organisms that share characteristics. How we group these characteristics is irrelevant. If one of these organisms gives birth to a mutated child then that is the basis for evolution.

It doesn't matter how you define these terms. If you decide that based on some particular criteria they are the same type of life form, you could then decide on a different set of criteria that they are different set of life form

It is not like evolution is only happening when an organism gives birth to a child that is a different species. "Species" is a human classification, nature has no concept of it. Nature is not sitting around going "ok .... ok .... ok .... now that is evolution"

That has nothing to do with how evolution happens in nature. Evolution doesn't not happen because you changed your criteria so that they are now the same type of life form according to you.

If we decide tomorrow that homo sapians and home habilis are the same species that doesn't mean we aren't evolving or they didn't evolve. Nature doesn't care how we classify them.

Seriously if you are genuinely interested in this subject (which I doubt) stop listening to people like JC and open a biology book. The truth is far more wonderful than the fiction you have been feed by these people you are supposed to trust.

Look, it is quite simple what I'm asking. Even you would recognise a modern man is not like this:
Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception.
Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees.
The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright.
Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing.

So where has such a transition been observed?

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the difference is that biologists don't think that species is something that exists in nature waiting to be discovered, where as Creationists claim this is the case with "Kinds", and they are just trying to discover it.

No where in that piece does it actually define a "kind" because in reality they are treating this not as a human classification of biological characteristics (as species is) but some sort of division that exists in nature placed there by God waiting to be discovered by humans.

And shockingly we haven't discovered it yet (whisper cause it doesn't exist whisper)

So it is ridiculous to say that the problems between defining species and defining kinds are similar.

I agree it is not quite the same- the human classification is just a convenience and the kind is an actuality.

I don't see why not being able to discover its parameters should be a problem in the scientific world. There are many things scientists acknowledge to be true but that they can't pin down - gravity, for example.

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

Look, it is quite simple what I'm asking. Even you would recognise a modern man is not like this:
Paleoanthropologist Gen Suwa of the University of Tokyo reported that Ardi's face had a projecting muzzle, giving her an ape-like appearance. But it didn't thrust forward quite as much as the lower faces of modern African apes do. Some features of her skull, such as the ridge above the eye socket, are quite different from those of chimpanzees. The details of the bottom of the skull, where nerves and blood vessels enter the brain, indicate that Ardi's brain was positioned in a way similar to modern humans, possibly suggesting that the hominid brain may have been already poised to expand areas involving aspects of visual and spatial perception.
Ardi's hand and wrist were a mix of primitive traits and a few new ones, but they don't include the hallmark traits of the modern tree-hanging, knuckle-walking chimps and gorillas. She had relatively short palms and fingers which were flexible, allowing her to support her body weight on her palms while moving along tree branches, but she had to be a careful climber because she lacked the anatomical features that allow modern-day African apes to swing, hang and easily move through the trees.
The pelvis and hip show the gluteal muscles were positioned so she could walk upright.
Her feet were rigid enough for walking but still had a grasping big toe for use in climbing.

So where has such a transition been observed?

What transition? There is no single transition from Ardi to modern humans. Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago. You want to observe 4.4 million years of accumulative changes?

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

I agree it is not quite the same- the human classification is just a convenience and the kind is an actuality.

An actuality that Creationists have not found yet but know exists because of the Bible ...

It is like people taking guesses at what Atlantis is really like. You can see why scientists pay no head to these assumptions. Or maybe not.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I don't see why not being able to discover its parameters should be a problem in the scientific world.

That could be because you know very little about the scientific world.

Assuming something exists because your religious book says so even though you can't determine anything about it is rather unscientific.

wolfsbane wrote: »

There are many things scientists acknowledge to be true but that they can't pin down - gravity, for example.

Scientists know some properties of gravity. Creationists don't know any of the properties of kinds. They only assume they exist because the Bible says so.

wolfsbane

Wicknight wrote: »

What transition? There is no single transition from Ardi to modern humans. Ardi lived 4.4 million years ago. You want to observe 4.4 million years of accumulative changes?

No, I want you to point to a similar change in any fast-generating creature. You claimed it has been observed - just as that ape would not be mistaken for a man, so you will have a fruit-fly or similar insect that has evolved over many generations into something quite unlike its ancestor.

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

Devolution is the transfer of power from a centralized government to smaller localized governments

If you are going to make up words try and pick ones that don't already have definitions :rolleyes:

There is no such thing as de-evolution, something un-evolving. Such a statement displays such a misunderstanding of Darwinian evolution (independently of whether it is correct or not) as to show utter ignorance.

Tell us again what your science degree was in JC? :P

...there are two meanings to the word 'devolution' ... and, as a scientist, I was using it in its scientific meaning!!!

Main Entry: de·vo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: \ˌde-və-ˈlü-shən also ˌdē-və-\
Function: noun
Etymology: Medieval Latin devolution-, devolutio, from Latin devolvere
Date: 1545
1 : transference (as of rights, powers, property, or responsibility) to another; especially : the surrender of powers to local authorities by a central government
2 : retrograde evolution : degeneration
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/devolution

...you mustn't even have an arts degree ... because you neither understand plain English nor scientific terminology!!!!

... and devolution is a valid scientific term ... even though Evolutionists are in denial of its existence ... despite the evidence of wingless and legless insects PROVING the validity of devolution, staring them in the face!!!

...one wonders how long an Evolutionist can remain in denial !!!

...apparently their need to deny God overcomes all evidence to the contrary ... talk about closed minds!!!!:eek:

Zombrex

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I want you to point to a similar change in any fast-generating creature.

I have literally hundreds of times.

You reject them all because they are not "big enough" changes, and then refuse to define, in the context of the organism we are discussing, what would be a big enough change and more importantly justify why that amount of accumulative changes is valid for evolution but a little less wouldn't be.

I swear if I did actually show you an organism like Ardi evolve into an organism like a human in an observable time frame you would say something stupid like "Well they are still apes aren't they! One ape changes into a different type of apes, they are still apes. How is that evolution?!?!"

It is quite obvious you have no serious interest in this. Trying to prove to you evolution happens is like someone saying to a Christian Unless I see Jesus on the cross it didn't happen

J C

wolfsbane wrote: »

No, I want you to point to a similar change in any fast-generating creature. You claimed it has been observed - just as that ape would not be mistaken for a man, so you will have a fruit-fly or similar insect that has evolved over many generations into something quite unlike its ancestor.

... they don't have any evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution', Wolfsbane ... but their overwhelming need to deny God completely overcomes their logical faculties!!!!

... and I'm simply at a loss to explain why any Christians continue to believe this stuff ... unless they are merely 'cultural Christians' and de facto 'Agnostics' !!:eek:

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... they don't have any evidence for 'Pondkind to Mankind Evolution', Wolfsbane ... but their overwhelming need to deny God completely overcomes their logical faculties!!!!

He is not asking for evidence, we can give him evidence. He is asking to physically observe it happening.

Did you physically observe Jesus on the cross?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

You really are talkign nonsense now. What does "the original CSI has the ability to sequester...." mean (if anything)?. "CSI" isn't a physical entity, it's a function of a physical entity (the existing, tangible, measurable DNA sequence). So, do you mean that the "original DNA" (presumably of the slug's founding "kind") has the ability to sequester DNA i.e. the slug's DNA can change. Brilliant JC, but you're probably two hundred years behind standard science knowledge on this feature of DNA (if you take inferences about Mendel's work into account).

So, apart from stating the bleeding obvious - DNA is plastic - what is your CSI point? Is CSI a direct function of the actual DNA or is it the potential for DNA to change?

I think that's checkmate.There's no way you can legitimately argue either option that you've backed your way into.

...what are you muttering about ... the CSI in the progenitors of the genetically diverse Kinds we observe today contained all of the genetic potential that has been realised by their descendants ... and indeed they contained much more genetic potential than has been realised yet as well as all of the CSI diversity that was lost 'in transit' since Creation!!!:D

wrote:

Originally Posted by J C
Once I have established its alphabet and that it is a functional language, I can measure it's CSI, irrespective of whether I understand the language or not.

doctoremma
But you can't do the first (measure complexity) without the second (understanding how it works) and all of this relies on the ability of YOU to understand, for YOU to make the call that it has to be designed. And no offence, but you're not exactly qualified to make those calls. How do you establish the alphabet of something that appears non-functional? How do you establish functionality when you don't understand something? How do you go about sorting out the alphabet in Russian if you've never even heard of the Russian language?

Honestly, how can you legitimately make this argument and not die a little bit inside?

...establishing functionality and 'cause and effect' is what science is all about ... although I can see why Evolutionists would shy away from such a definition of science given the fact that they haven't a clue how Evolution works ... and their 'leaders' want them to continue in their ignorance ... because they know that if ordinary Evolutionists ever did try to find out, the whole evolutionist 'house of cards' will completely collapse ... crushing their giant egos underneath!!!:eek::):D

J C

Wicknight wrote: »

He is not asking for evidence, we can give him evidence. He is asking to physically observe it happening.

... would you please stop talking about providing this evidence ... and start actually providing some!!!:eek:

Wicknight wrote: »

Did you physically observe Jesus on the cross?

... no ... but then my faith isn't primarily based on the fact that some man called Jesus died on a cross in Palestine ... it is grounded on His Resurrection ... because He was God ... and this I believe through faith, in the witness of over 500 people.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

Misrepresentation, quotation out-of-context and unproductive one-liners, all on the same page. Classic J C. Inadvertently advancing the evolutionist argument one dodged question at a time. Take a bow.

... Touché ... with bells on it!!!!:D

J C

... It looks like we may have the longest real thread in the World ...

... its significantly longer than this thread that was deliberately set up in 2006 to become the 'Worlds Longest Thread' ... and now has only 1,332 pages and 19,966 posts ... in comparison with our thread ... with 1,446 pages and 21,681 posts!!!!
http://forums.gamernode.com/showthread.php?t=2062&page=1332

... and when it comes to hits our 553,995 hits puts the 'Worlds Longest Thread' (that isn't) in the shade because it only has 398,390 hits!!!!
http://forums.gamernode.com/forumdisplay.php?f=78
... take a bow everybody for this amazing achievement!!!!!:D:)

... who says that the Christian Faith ... and the 'origins issue' is boring???!!!!

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

the CSI in the progenitors of the genetically diverse Kinds we observe today contained all of the genetic potential

How does something contain potential? How does an abstract function (CSI) of a physical entity (DNA) contain potential?

JC, is the property of "CSI" defined by the actual physical information contained in the DNA sequence -or- the potential for change i.e. for a DNA sequence to acquire new pieces of DNA?

J C wrote: »

that has been realised by their descendants

The descendent slug contains a new piece of DNA, yes? So you are saying that this slug has realised it's potential, yes? But the new piece of DNA wasn't present in the slug's ancestors. So in what sense has the descendent slug realised the potential of the founder of its kind?

J C wrote: »

... and indeed they contained much more genetic potential than has been realised yet as well as all of the CSI diversity that was lost 'in transit' since Creation!!!:D

And yet here we are, talking about a new little slug that has suddenly acquired a shiny new gene, never seen in its ancestors, that allows it to do a funky new thing. How can you reconcile what you surely have assimilated as solid scientific evidence with the above quote?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...your proposed experiment certainly has parallells in the real world...
...there are some known examples of 'change by loss' due to Natural Selection. On islands, for example, there are flightless varieties of insects because their winged comrades were swept out to sea and died due to prevailing off-shore winds.
However, all of these examples show a loss of function and CSI ... which is going in the opposite direction from what would be required to 'evolve' from Pondkind to Mankind' ... which requires organinsms to gain new functions and CSI.:)

... and no, Emma, 'sequestering' the CSI from other creatures doesn't qualify either!!!:eek:

Sequestering CSI doesn't qualify as what?

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Sequestering CSI doesn't qualify as what?

...it doesn't qualify as new CSI ... it merely 'sequesters' existing CSI from one organism to another!!!!:)

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

...it doesn't qualify as new CSI ... it merely 'sequesters' existing CSI from one organism to another!!!!:)

Did the CSI that could be calculated (sic) as a function of the slug's genome increase upon the addition of the algae gene?

PDN

J C wrote: »

... and when it comes to hits our 553,995 hits puts the 'Worlds Longest Thread' (that isn't) in the shade because it only has 398,390 hits!!!!
... who says that the Christian Faith ... and the 'origins issue' is boring???!!!!

Sorry, but this thread puts you in the shade. It has 106,000 posts and over 2 million hits.

Obviously the 'origins issue' is less interesting than an imaginary bar.

liamw

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, but this thread puts you in the shade. It has 106,000 posts and over 2 million hits.

Obviously the 'origins issue' is less interesting than an imaginary bar.

WTF. That is all.

Genghiz Cohen

PDN wrote: »

Sorry, but this thread puts you in the shade. It has 106,000 posts and over 2 million hits.

Obviously the 'origins issue' is less interesting than an imaginary bar.

I'll see that, and raise you the Bad beat/Moaning thread in the poker forum, at 109KiloPosts and 3.8MegaViews, they win the jackpot.

Genghiz Cohen

J C wrote: »

...it doesn't qualify as new CSI ... it merely 'sequesters' existing CSI from one organism to another!!!!:)

If I have 20p (back to national school kiddies! ) and John has 30p.
I sequester 10p from John, does that show an increase in my Coins for Spending Inanely(CSI)?

Zombrex

J C wrote: »

... would you please stop talking about providing this evidence ... and start actually providing some!!!:eek:


... no ... but then my faith isn't primarily based on the fact that some man called Jesus died on a cross in Palestine ... it is grounded on His Resurrection ... because He was God ... and this I believe through faith, in the witness of over 500 people.

So you haven't observed the resurrection ... in fact no one actually did