Is it logical to deduce that there is an information repository that accounts for the complexity of the DNA?

gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Is it logical to deduce that there is an information repository that accounts for the complexity of the DNA?

Hello folks.  I was surfing the web and saw this site.  It seems that you all are pretty serious about debunking Intelligent Design (ID) or any conclusion opposed to evolution.  I think that ID has a good point in that there must be an information repository (aliens, God) that is responsible for the irreducilbe, specified complexity of DNA.  Even the simplest life forms have unbelievably complex DNA.  While it is one thing to say that time, chance and accident as employed by natural selction can act on and alter existing DNA, I am interested in the origin of DNA in the first place.  The notion that time, chance and accident created the first irreducibly and specifically complex DNA streches credibility beyond the breaking point.  Anyoine interested in dialouge, please respond.  Thanks! Smiling

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
You're assuming that DNA

You're assuming that DNA started out in it's present form. It didn't.

 

It had what, 3 billion years to evolve? So it's unsurprising that it can start simply and then change to what it is today.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
response on ID

I am not sure what you think I am assuming regarding DNA starting out in its present form.  I understand that the evolutionary model is that simple molecules combined though natural forces into more complex amino acids which in turn combined to created some very basic RNA or DNA.  Yet, the real question here is not one of what structures comprise more complicated structures.  The issue is how a system with zero information concerning organic life can somehow get to the irreducible, specified complexity inherent in even the simplest of life forms?  Time, chance and accident interacting with natural selection is like saying a tornado going through a junk yard can give rise to a 747!  How could undirected chance ever give rise to the complex information needed for even the simplest life forms?

 

You mentioned that 3 billion years is a long time.  I agree!  Let's go back to my tornado in the junkyard analagy.  If we give the tornado more time, we dont get more of a chance of creating a 747, we get a bigger mess!  The issue is not time, it's constructive direction.  Having nobody at the wheel results in accidents.  It doesnt explain how an accident can result in a complex destination!

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:I am not sure

gman740 wrote:

I am not sure what you think I am assuming regarding DNA starting out in its present form.  I understand that the evolutionary model is that simple molecules combined though natural forces into more complex amino acids which in turn combined to created some very basic RNA or DNA.  Yet, the real question here is not one of what structures comprise more complicated structures.  The issue is how a system with zero information concerning organic life can somehow get to the irreducible, specified complexity inherent in even the simplest of life forms?  Time, chance and accident interacting with natural selection is like saying a tornado going through a junk yard can give rise to a 747!  How could undirected chance ever give rise to the complex information needed for even the simplest life forms?

 

 

Who says it has zero information concerning life? It all has part of the information, and then it steadily increased in information.

 

 

DNA for example is made up of just for base pairs ATGC, in two combonations, [AG] and [CT] and that alone generates the information in the DNA molecule!

 

 

 

 

 

 


Sinphanius
Sinphanius's picture
Posts: 284
Joined: 2008-06-12
User is offlineOffline
Here we go again

 Bad-Bing, we win.

Now, Lets see if you will actually look at the evidence and read our arguments unlike the last Creationist we had.

On a More Directly Confrontational Note; Your 747 'point' is utter bollocks because a 747 in a Tornado has little in common with organic life. The Main difference is that a Tornado picking up 747 parts is governed essentially by chance (physics Really, but as the 747 parts have no natural inclination to bond with each other in particular ways, it is essentially chance for this scenario). However Cells and Biology and the ideas posited in the video above are not ruled by Chance, but by Chemistry. And any thinking person who actually payed attention in Chem 101 will know that long chains of increadibly complex organic molecules can and do form naturally, thus no matter how hard it is for you to imagine that this happens, it doesn't change the fact that it does happen, and we have seen it.

Guess what happens when you create a system where the parts of a 747, or in this case, the parts of a Watch, do have a natural inclination towards bonding together.  This program even simulates parts bonding incorrectly.

Me and the Captain have joined forces apparently. Scary.
.
.
.
I need to find my old Avatar.

When you say it like that you make it sound so Sinister...


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:I am not sure

gman740 wrote:

I am not sure what you think I am assuming regarding DNA starting out in its present form.  I understand that the evolutionary model is that simple molecules combined though natural forces into more complex amino acids which in turn combined to created some very basic RNA or DNA.  Yet, the real question here is not one of what structures comprise more complicated structures.  The issue is how a system with zero information concerning organic life can somehow get to the irreducible, specified complexity inherent in even the simplest of life forms?  Time, chance and accident interacting with natural selection is like saying a tornado going through a junk yard can give rise to a 747!  How could undirected chance ever give rise to the complex information needed for even the simplest life forms?

You mentioned that 3 billion years is a long time.  I agree!  Let's go back to my tornado in the junkyard analagy.  If we give the tornado more time, we dont get more of a chance of creating a 747, we get a bigger mess!  The issue is not time, it's constructive direction.  Having nobody at the wheel results in accidents.  It doesnt explain how an accident can result in a complex destination!

"irreducible, specified complexity" is not a valid scientific concept. The 'irreducible' bit is not valid, because it is based on the incorrect assumption that complex systems can only grow in linearly incremental steps where each step involves the addition of a component. 'Specified' is a meaningless term in this context. Specified by what? Sounds like you are just repeating the nonsense of ID'ers like Behe, whose testimony at the Dover trial was shown to be clearly mistaken - he denied the existence of scientific explanations for various things, and then was all but buried under a pile of publications which did address the issues he claimed weren't, and he was shown several examples of alternative functions for the elements of the structure he claimed could have no function if not complete.

We know by direct study that DNA changes by both additions, duplications, deletions, and re-arrangements of whole genes and bits of genes. There is no practical way to investigate all possible paths by which a given genetic sequence could arise from another, in order to demonstrate that there is no path which would involve some non-viable intermediate stage.

We know that there are limitations on what can evolve from one given form to another, because of the need for all the small intermediate steps to be still viable, which explains why there are so many less-than-ideal mechanisms and structures in various life-forms, including ourselves, which should not be expected if it was all subject to external intelligent design. Our own eyes are less than ideal, with the blood vessels supplying the retina passing in front of the light-sensitive cells. We know this is not necessary, since octopus eyes do not share this aspect of design, which demonstrates that our eyes evolved by a different path, and hence largely independently, compared to octopus eyes.

In an open system with a flow of energy available, there is nothing to stop a structure growing in complexity. The filtering of the variations which do naturally arise in DNA into viable new life-forms is covered by the principle of natural selection - the additional 'information" content is supplied by the constraints of the environment in which the life-form is living.

The tornado in a junkyard idea does not correspond in any way to what evolution is describing, where the path from simpler forms to more complex forms is a step-by-step process, where the change from one generation to the next is no bigger than the normal variation from parent to child, or between different individuals within one generation. Evolution does not work on major changes from one generation to the next, which the tornado analogy assumes.

It is only when there is significant evolutionary advantage in a particular direction of change that those generational changes which help the organisms will be favoured, so the changes will have some consistent direction, which eventually will become recognizable as an evolutionary change, given a sufficient number of generations. This process has been demonstrated by experiments with bacteria evolving new characteristics. The spontaneous formation of an important precursor molecule for RNA, from simple chemicals likely to have been present, has been shown under conditions likely to have existed on the early Earth.

So the basic sorts of processes required to allow abiogenesis and evolution to happen have been shown to be possible. No scientific or logical principles are being violated.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
And if that was too complex

And if that was too complex to get (no offense intended!), the simple answer is that dna itself evolved from less complex molecules.
Also, if you roll a die and need a six to come up a billion times in a row, the chances of pulling it off are indeed miniscule. But if you're rolling 100 billion dice at the same time, the chances change from microscopic to possible and even likely. Roll 100 trillion trillion dice, and it becomes inevitable that one will do it.
Nature rolled more dice than we can count every year for 4.5 billion years.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, first, the 747

OK, first, the 747 argument has been passed off in recent years as if it was a restatement of William Paley's “watch maker argument” and somehow related to the ID/irreducible complexity crowd. Actually, it is nothing of the sort. From the actual source:

 

Sir Fred Hoyle wrote:
The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein… I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious.

 

From his paper; "Hoyle on Evolution", Nature, Vol. 294, 12 November 1981, p. 105

 

As it happens, Hoyle was not arguing for the “god did it” idea. He was arguing for the theory of panspermia. Basically the idea that the complex chemistry of life developed in gas clouds in deep space. However, Hoyle did not find the hand of god at work there either. He was still arguing that life developed chemically, just a different process from what the most widely accepted current thinking is.

 

In any case, the analogy is still deeply flawed. The most obvious nit to my thinking is that the part for any made thing would have to exist in order for that thing to be assembled. Just for shits and giggles, let's replace the tornado with a team of highly skilled aircraft builders. In all probability, they could make some machine that is capable of getting off the ground from a reasonably stocked junk yard. However, nobody would expect them to build a 747 unless the junk yard just happened to have all the parts needed to build one. In that case, it is a needed prerequisite that 747's already exist.

 

Past that, nobody should seriously attempt to argue a case for a 747 to “just happen” any more than expecting a cow to “just happen”. That would be an argument that (could it actually come to pass) would argue for the existence of god, not an argument that god must exist because complex things can't “just happen”. Your logic is absolutely backwards on that point.

 

One other point of note is that while modern and complex aircraft are the current state of affairs, there is a whole history of earlier and simpler aircraft going back to the early days of flight. First, there were experiments with gliders, then very simple engines were developed. Then slightly more complex aircraft and so on. Each year, someone added small refinements to the basic idea of flight and over the past century or so, we have come to the point of such vehicles as the Airbus A380, Spaceship One and the Orion launch system. For each of those, the people who make them are already thinking about what will succeed them.

 

So the existence of the most complicated machine that you (or Sir Fred Hoyle) are capable of thinking of does not argue for “go did it”. It actually shows a process that could be termed “technological evolution” from earlier and simpler form to later and more complex ones.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Is it logical to deduce that there is an information repository

Who says it has zero information concerning life? It all has part of the information, and then it steadily increased in information.

DNA for example is made up of just for base pairs ATGC, in two combonations, [AG] and [CT] and that alone generates the information in the DNA molecule!

 

Zero information would be the sarting point in abiogenesis.  Thus, before DNA or RNA or whatever the first life information repository was rooted in, there was zero information.  Thus, the question is how things got to their present state today, a state of very high information where 20,000 complex genes encode for all the cellular functions and allow life to exist. 

 

You seem to assume that the information is just there.  What is your explanation for where it came from in the first place and how it was able to rearrange itself without the outside intervention of an intelligence?  In other words, how can one life form that is based on its specific set of instructions beome another life form based on a different set of instructions?  It's like asking how you can get from a phone book in Indiana to one in Ohio.  Sure, they all have the same letters and a lot of similar names and addresses, but that's where the similarity stops.  You need intelligence to manipulate the information system from one phone book to another.  Why would this not be the case for life?  What, if not intelligence, is the source of information change and the source for the information in the first place?

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Normal 0

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4


/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

Granted, a 747 and DNA are fundamentally different.  However, the similarity is in that they both share information.  They are both complex, specifically arranged and generally irreducible.  Molecules in chemistry do combine in certain ways according to chemical laws.  For instance, oxygen wants to bind with oxygen because the diatomic state is more stable.  However, that fails to explain how billions of bits of the quaternary base pairs of DNA can achieve their specified complexity.  Chemistry can explain specificity.  For instance, NaCl (Salt) naturally combines in its crystal lattice structure to form a specific, repeating pattern of NaCl throughout a granule of salt.  But this pattern lacks specificity.  It would be like reading a book where the same two words are repeated over and over again ad infinitem.  Concerning more complex molecules occurring naturally, we are still at the same impasse: how do we go from a long chain of polypeptides to billions of them carefully arranged for life’s functions to occur?  I am afraid that the “natural inclination towards bonding together” fails to explain the irreducible, specified complexity of how they are bonded together in DNA.

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
This is in response to some

This is in response to some of the issues that BobSpence1 brought up:

  

Behe’s testimony at the Dover trial is not the issue. As it stands, Judge Jones merely repeated statements given to him by the ACLU plaintiff. This is a verifiable fact that Jones plagiarized 90% of his closing statements. There are a host of other reasons that this trial was a sham, but this is not really the issue so I will refain from further comments.
 

Irreducible is valid. For example when you reduce the bacterial flagellum to achieve the Type III secretory apparatus, you have essentially changed the machine. Therefore, a given machine is irreducible if it cannot be demonstrated that it can have the same or similar function in a simpler format. I have already explained what specified means in a previous response. It is when you see both specificity, complexity and irreducibility at the same time in a given structure or in the DNA that you are hard pressed to explain how these can come together in any meaningful way without an intelligence or information repository to direct the outcome.
 

Yes, DNA does change. I do not deny that. The problem is that unless there is an intelligence directing the process, it changes for the worse. Concerning the notion that certain structures, like the eye, are less than ideal, that is a matter of opinion. The human eye is just fine for what it does and taking pot-shots at what you or I or anyone thinks would be better is sheer speculation.
 

You mentioned, “, there is nothing to stop a structure growing in complexity. The filtering of the variations which do naturally arise in DNA into viable new life-forms is covered by the principle of natural selection - the additional 'information" content is supplied by the constraints of the environment in which the life-form is living.” There are some pretty big presumptions here. Variations do arise but can they give rise to fundamentally different species? There is no evidence for this other than presumption and speculation. The constraints of the environment provides additional information? You have confused what life needs to adapt to with what it is that is responsible for adapting life to those conditions in the first place!

I am not sure what bacteria experiments you are referring to. Of note is the fact that the bacteria never change into anything that is a non-bacteria! You never observe a new species! Thus, micro-evolution and adaptability to the environment is one thing while macro-evolution into anther species is another thing. There is no evidence for the latter. All evolutionists have is inference based on selective fossils or micro-evolution/adaptation experiments. Another thing: in these experiments, the net change often is zero. For instance, bacteria that develop antibiotic resistence and confer that resistance to other bacteria often replicate more slowly and die off after the antibiotics are removed from the experiment. Thus, the original, non-resistant bacteria re-emerge and the net change is zero. The same thing happended to Darwin’s finches. As the season changed to winter, they went from short to long beaks and then back to shorter beaks the following summer. Is this really even micro-evolution? Or is it merely built-in adaptability? At any rate, none of these examples are anything close to macro-evolution. For that to happen, the DNA of the organism would have to undergo vast, fundamental changes in information. Thus, there are no demonstrations showing the “basic sorts of processes required to allow abiogenesis and evolution to happen”.
 

 

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
You're going to have to

You're going to have to start reading some of Deluded_God's posts, because you don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. IC and ID both are ridiculous and proven false ad absurdum.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Let’s just honestly

Let’s just honestly consider this little bit of statistical science. Let’s take 20,000 genes that encode for life in even the simplest multi-cellular life forms (i.e. a worm). Say your chances of getting 1 gene just right is 1 out of 100 and that’s probably way, way too conservative since a single gene might in turn be made up of 100s-1000s of base pair codes. But for sake of argument, let’s give a very generous 1 out of 100 chance for getting a particular gene just right. (1 out of 100 is 1/100 or 0.01 or 1x10EXP-2).

Now when you multiply 1/100 x 1/100 x 1/100 (and do this 20,000 times since we are dealing with 20,000 genes) you get 1x10EXP40,000! Now that’s a pretty big number! That's a 1 with 40,000 zeros behind it!  So you have a dice with 1x10EXP40,000 sides and you have to hope to get the only lucky side when you roll.

So let’s roll! Let’s say we can roll that dice once per second. There are 60 secs/minute and 60 min/hour and 24 hour/day and 365 days/year. How many rolls is that a year?
60x60x24x365=31,536,000 seconds per year or 31,536,000 dice roll per year!


Now lets multiply that by 4 billion years.  We'll give evolution 4 billion years at a rate of 1 roll per second to get things just right!
4,000,000,000 years x 31,536,000 rolls per year= 126,144,000,000,000,000 dice rolls!


Now what are our odds of getting that one sweet side? 126,144,000,000,000,000/1x10EXP40,000 = 1.26x10-39983!
That’s a 0.000000000000......................................126 where there are 39,982 zeros in-between the decimal point and the 126! Does anybody believe that evolution can honestly win such a lottery? This really stretches credibility beyond the breaking point.

Any number of theoretical probability constructs could be employed, but even the most conservative ones end in utter failure. If you say we are just lucky to evolve, then please realize that you are not doing science. Rather, you are basing your science on utterly undisciplined probability. If you want to do that, then that’s fine. Just realize that Intelligent Design is a far better explanation in lieu of Darwinian evolutions utter unworkability.

Look at it this way: If you were before a firing squad and 50 marksmen missed you at point blank range, would you believe that it was just an unbelievably happy accident or would you believe that some intelligent person filled their guns with blanks? The choice is yours and I choose to believe in Intelligent Design because it makes the most sense!
 

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I already obliterated that

I already obliterated that argument 7 posts up. With a fraction of the words no less. Efficiency owns.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:This is in

gman740 wrote:

This is in response to some of the issues that BobSpence1 brought up:

  

Behe’s testimony at the Dover trial is not the issue. As it stands, Judge Jones merely repeated statements given to him by the ACLU plaintiff. This is a verifiable fact that Jones plagiarized 90% of his closing statements. There are a host of other reasons that this trial was a sham, but this is not really the issue so I will refain from further comments.

I said nothing about the conduct of the trial or the judge's comments. I was pointing out that at least two of Behe's claims were specifically shown to be false.

Quote:

Irreducible is valid. For example when you reduce the bacterial flagellum to achieve the Type III secretory apparatus, you have essentially changed the machine. Therefore, a given machine is irreducible if it cannot be demonstrated that it can have the same or similar function in a simpler format.

That completely misses the point. As long as there are intermediate paths which provide some functionality to the organism, the evolution of its current function is not blocked. Also note that there is nothing to stop the earlier, simpler structure continuing to exist and perform its different function while another instance evolves into the new structure. 

Requiring the intermediate structures to structures to perform the same function is an artificial constraint.

My comments on 'irreducible' still stand. For evolution to work, it only requires that the individual stages leading to the particular structure are all viable, and ideally have some positive utility to the organism. It does NOT require they have similar functionality to the final structure. I'm sorry if you don't get that. It isn't all that hard, but obviously ID'ers don't get it, because it knocks a big hole in the argument.

Quote:

I have already explained what specified means in a previous response. It is when you see both specificity, complexity and irreducibility at the same time in a given structure or in the DNA that you are hard pressed to explain how these can come together in any meaningful way without an intelligence or information repository to direct the outcome.

So you mean by 'specified' complexity simply that a particular DNA pattern is required, not just any complex structure.

First, there is never just one specific sequence of DNA which works in any given organism. So this allows for new structures to form from gene structures to form by duplication, mutation, relocation, etc, without necessarily affecting the viability of the organism.

If the new structure actually has some minimal survival/reproductive advantage, it will tend to spread thru the population. That is all that is required for evolution to 'work'.

No talk of 'information' renders this mechanism unworkable.

It would actually require an 'information repository' to block speciation - some record of the 'correct' or 'ideal' DNA structure for each species to block genetic drift and mutation when it goes beyond some arbitrary limit. It is the absence of such an information store and checking mechanism that allows the inevitable process of variations to continue indefinitely, eventually giving rise to what we see as new species.

Quote:

 

Yes, DNA does change. I do not deny that. The problem is that unless there is an intelligence directing the process, it changes for the worse. Concerning the notion that certain structures, like the eye, are less than ideal, that is a matter of opinion. The human eye is just fine for what it does and taking pot-shots at what you or I or anyone thinks would be better is sheer speculation.

Yes, most DNA variations are neutral or harmful, but to insist they will always be harmful is just plain wrong.

Quote:

You mentioned, “, there is nothing to stop a structure growing in complexity. The filtering of the variations which do naturally arise in DNA into viable new life-forms is covered by the principle of natural selection - the additional 'information" content is supplied by the constraints of the environment in which the life-form is living.” There are some pretty big presumptions here. Variations do arise but can they give rise to fundamentally different species? There is no evidence for this other than presumption and speculation. The constraints of the environment provides additional information? You have confused what life needs to adapt to with what it is that is responsible for adapting life to those conditions in the first place!

Of course, single variations will not give rise to fundamentally different organisms, worthy of calling new species. Evolutionary theory does not assume that. It only requires continual small changes in some consistent direction, the unworkable variations dying out. 

The analysis of the genetic structure of more and more different organisms provides massive evidence of the common origin and subsequent branching into different species, which is now the strongest evidence for evolution. 

I should be a little more specific about 'information' and the environment.

The constraints of the environment provide the essential filtering of the random new information generated by reshuffling and mutation of the genes into the few versions that actually are viable, and maybe even more viable.

This is where genuinely novel information comes from - random variation + testing for usefulness.

Non-random processes, such as conscious design, risk only following paths which can be rationally derived from existing knowledge. It requires some way of exploring all possible new designs to find those which are based on very different patterns.

In evolution, DNA variation provides the random shuffling, the need to successfully thrive and reproduce provides the testing framework.

Quote:

I am not sure what bacteria experiments you are referring to. Of note is the fact that the bacteria never change into anything that is a non-bacteria! You never observe a new species! Thus, micro-evolution and adaptability to the environment is one thing while macro-evolution into anther species is another thing. There is no evidence for the latter. All evolutionists have is inference based on selective fossils or micro-evolution/adaptation experiments. Another thing: in these experiments, the net change often is zero. For instance, bacteria that develop antibiotic resistence and confer that resistance to other bacteria often replicate more slowly and die off after the antibiotics are removed from the experiment. Thus, the original, non-resistant bacteria re-emerge and the net change is zero. The same thing happended to Darwin’s finches. As the season changed to winter, they went from short to long beaks and then back to shorter beaks the following summer. Is this really even micro-evolution? Or is it merely built-in adaptability? At any rate, none of these examples are anything close to macro-evolution. For that to happen, the DNA of the organism would have to undergo vast, fundamental changes in information. Thus, there are no demonstrations showing the “basic sorts of processes required to allow abiogenesis and evolution to happen”.
 

The experiment with bacteria I was referring to is described here.

It is much more significant than the emergence of resistant strains.

We have not had anywhere near enough time in lab experiments to evolve what would be classified as a new species, even with bacteria, so that is not a relevant criticism.

Regarding the emergence of the fundamental components/chemicals of life, see here.

So there most definitely are demonstrations of these basic processes.

What we haven't found is a separate 'information repository' or other mechanism that would be required to block 'macro-evolution'.

EDIT:

The only information repository we have found is that of the actual DNA of all life, which has been progressively built up and edited by evolutionary processes, and that is all that is required. Evolution proceeds based on small changes from what has already been tested by its survival.

EDIT 2:

It just occurred to me that the insistence that the earlier simpler forms of a structure have similar function to the complete structure are based on the assumption that the evolutionary process would have to proceed the same way as conscious design, toward a particular purpose.

But, evolution has no such purpose.

So when it happens, by fortuitous chance, that some simpler structure could, with some simple addition, serve some different useful purpose, that is likely to evolve.

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


gman740
gman740's picture
Posts: 7
Joined: 2009-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Goodbye for now.

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4



st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) }

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}

I really appreciate you guys responding to my posts.  I've been on other sites and you can't get anywhere with all the name calling!  When you bring up issues, ideas or concerns someone angrily lashes out. This tells you that they are easily offended by anyone who challenges their ideas. This is unfortunate, for iron sharpens iron and disagreement and questioning is fundamental to growth and discovery. Thus, I hope you will consider that evolution has its problems and you would do well to see what the other side has to say. Consider Bill Dembski's book "The Design Revolution" or Micahel Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Also, check out the docudrama "Expelled: No Intelligence allowed" by Benstein. Don't take the words of others, check these out for yourselves! For now I am going to disengage. I don't have any more time to spare but I really do appreciate the responses. I'll let you guys have the last word. Thank you all!

 

(Gman740: "Follow the truth, wherever it may lead!")


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Welcome to the

Welcome to the forum.

Quote:
You seem to assume that the information is just there.

What is information? Obviously, atoms are just there. Life is made of atoms.

Quote:
Therefore, a given machine is irreducible if it cannot be demonstrated that it can have the same or similar function in a simpler format.

Why must it have the same function?

http://www.rationalresponders.com/chemical_evolution

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

Irreducible complexity is an argument from ignorance and God of the gaps argument. The Creationist merely presents a system that the Creationist him/herself cannot understand, then declares that God wins by default when the other person cannot deliver a reply that the Creationist feels is satisfactory.

Quote:
The problem is that unless there is an intelligence directing the process, it changes for the worse.

No. Mutations are random, thus neutral. Natural selection automatically selects for the best fit to survive. 

Quote:
Concerning the notion that certain structures, like the eye, are less than ideal, that is a matter of opinion.

No, it's a fact. It's less than ideal.

Quote:
and taking pot-shots at what you or I or anyone thinks would be better is sheer speculation.

No, it's not. Scientists understand this well enough to know what works and what doesn't. The human body is less than ideal. We get allergies. We choke on food. Etc.

Quote:
Variations do arise but can they give rise to fundamentally different species?

If variations can arise, then different species can arise. Different species just have more variations. 

Quote:
There is no evidence for this other than presumption and speculation.

Speciation has been observed in the laboratory and in nature. It is supported by extensive fossil records, phylogenetics, geographical distribution, etc.

Quote:
Of note is the fact that the bacteria never change into anything that is a non-bacteria! You never observe a new species!
 

Bacteria is not a species. It is a phylum.

Quote:
Thus, micro-evolution and adaptability to the environment is one thing while macro-evolution into anther species is another thing.

The only difference between micro and macroevolution is time scale, as indicated by their prefixes. Enough microevolution, added together, equals macroevolution; there is no difference in mechanism.

Quote:
Thus, the original, non-resistant bacteria re-emerge and the net change is zero.
 

That does not mean the net change is zero. There can be other differences.

Almost all organisms are sufficiently complex that a net change of zero over extended periods of time is virtually impossible. 

Quote:
Is this really even micro-evolution? Or is it merely built-in adaptability?

They are the same thing.

Quote:
At any rate, none of these examples are anything close to macro-evolution.

In taxonomy, scientists have already divided many of Darwin's finches into different species. 

Quote:
For that to happen, the DNA of the organism would have to undergo vast,

Vast?

Quote:
fundamental changes in information.
 

Fundamental?

Quote:
Now what are our odds of getting that one sweet side?
 

What's wrong with the other sides?

Quote:
Does anybody believe that evolution can honestly win such a lottery?
 

Once life begins, evolution is inevitable. After the initial spark, every side of the dice is a different lottery win. Lampooning the result after it has already occurred is ludicrous. If we were telepathic jello-like creatures instead of humans, you'd be laughing at how improbable it is that we are telepathic jello-like creatures.

Quote:
If you say we are just lucky to evolve, then please realize that you are not doing science.
  

We are lucky to evolve, although I am a determinist. Please explain how this is not science. 

We could have been telepathic jello-like creatures instead.

Quote:
If you were before a firing squad and 50 marksmen missed you at point blank range, would you believe that it was just an unbelievably happy accident or would you believe that some intelligent person filled their guns with blanks?

I see bullet holes, so they obviously aren't blanks.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:

Quote:
I really appreciate you guys responding to my posts.

Thanks for coming here and discussing these issues with us.   

You're dreadfully ignorant of the subject, but you're polite, and you didn't just drive-by. For that, I respect you.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Quote:I

butterbattle wrote:

Quote:
I really appreciate you guys responding to my posts.

Thanks for coming here and discussing these issues with us.   

You're dreadfully ignorant of the subject, but you're polite, and you didn't just drive-by. For that, I respect you.


QFT. I wish all were the same. We wouldn't even be here if such were the case.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:Thus, I hope

gman740 wrote:
Thus, I hope you will consider that evolution has its problems and you would do well to see what the other side has to say.

Evolution's "other side" is actually the scientists working in the field. All scientists do is work at chipping away at the details that might be wrong in a theory. That's a full-time job for every scientist on the planet.

gman740 wrote:
Consider Bill Dembski's book "The Design Revolution" or Micahel Behe's "Darwin's Black Box". Also, check out the docudrama "Expelled: No Intelligence allowed" by Benstein.

I'd consider it, if you'd consider four years out of your life to get a basic scientific education. There's a bit of an imbalance of information, there. In order to prepare yourself for discussions of actual science, you might have to learn a bit about it.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
So, who besides me thinks

So, who besides me thinks this guy is taking Dembski's class and is posting here to fulfill the course requirements?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/so_thats_where_some_of_our_tro.php


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3686
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
KSMB wrote:So, who besides

KSMB wrote:

So, who besides me thinks this guy is taking Dembski's class and is posting here to fulfill the course requirements?

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/08/so_thats_where_some_of_our_tro.php

Three more to go.

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5486
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hi Dr. Dembski    

Hi Dr. Dembski

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10348
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Are they completely insane?!

Are they completely insane?! They can't possibly make this work for every student. Some will inevitability read well thought out and logical responses that will erode their brainwashing and eventually lead to their conversion. They're doing half of our job for us! Damnit, I'm going to have to be more careful with some of my responses.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:That

BobSpence1 wrote:

That completely misses the point. As long as there are intermediate paths which provide some functionality to the organism, the evolution of its current function is not blocked. Also note that there is nothing to stop the earlier, simpler structure continuing to exist and perform its different function while another instance evolves into the new structure. 

That's exactly what happened to the human eye.

Some of our less-related cousins such as lemurs have only bichromatic vision (red and green). The blue cones in our eyes and our more-closely-related primate cousins (apes, for instance) eyes are a duplicate of one of the others (the gene sequence for the red cones, I believe).

This is shown by the inactive DNA at either end of the gene sequence. They are essentially identical between the original and the copy.

Sorry I'm not more precise; it's been years since I took biology.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5809
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The bit aboutFor that to

The bit about

Quote:
For that to happen, the DNA of the organism would have to undergo vast changes...

is utterly contrary to what we observe  -  the difference in the DNA sequence between ourselves and the other top primates is down in the low single-digit percentage. No way describable as 'vast'.

Even widely different species don't vary all that much, because the underlying molecular chemistry of life is very similar in all forms of life, and this is what the DNA sequence most directly regulates.

Such misconceptions are part of the same error which intuitively assumes that what we perceive as very different outcomes must be due to very different causes. Chaos theory is the extreme counter-example to this intuition.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Jormungander
atheistScience Freak
Jormungander's picture
Posts: 938
Joined: 2008-07-15
User is offlineOffline
gman740 wrote:As it stands,

gman740 wrote:

As it stands, Judge Jones merely repeated statements given to him by the ACLU plaintiff. This is a verifiable fact that Jones plagiarized 90% of his closing statements.

It is not plagiarism. Judges often simply repeat the statements of the wining side verbatim in a case. This post of yours shows a dangerous lack of understanding of our legal system. Not only is this not plagiarism at all, it is something that every lawyer and expert hopes will happen in a case. People hope that a judge will say that their expert opinion is the court's opinion. I don't understand why people claiming that the judge plagiarized the ACLU even think that this is a slur against Judge Jones. It is standard court policy. The fact that Judge Jone's detractors use this as a slur against him betrays their profound ignorance of what they are talking about.

Please, learn about our court system then present your opinion on it.

"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."
British General Charles Napier while in India


LohanP
Posts: 3
Joined: 2009-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, i think survival comes

Well, i think survival comes after when we can fight against the unwanted consequences may happen to us.Everybody is fighting the recession in one way or another.  (Except for rich people – but they don't deserve sympathy.)  Part of fighting the recession is handling layoffs, and for some, having to go job hunting.  It's never easy, and learning how to be marketing yourself effectively is a must, but with slim prospects, you have to find out how to come up with some cash in the mean time.  Some have moved back in with their parents, and many find odd jobs to earn a little extra.  Don't give up searching – ever.  You can't give up looking.  It's hard to cope with fighting the recession with no installment loans to back you up, but don't stop the good fight.