ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
If I ask you how you know that man evolved from fish and you say in the same way that a fruit fly changes into another fruit fly that cannot mate with the fruit fly that is his second cousin makes me want to laugh.
You don't actually have to "know" or suppose any such thing nor do we have to suppose any specific gods. But if we leave aside any supposed un-evidenced supernatural for a moment, which of itself imo would be a far more fantastic thing, then nevertheless and despite how incredible it may seem to some of us here and now, the ToE is a very rational and natural explanation supported by real evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
Nature is not selecting as if it wanted to eventually become thinking human beings. DNA is information that produces everything not by accident or random mutations but by plan and purpose--God put the information in DNA, mindless nature cannot inform, plan, purpose, or become complex on it's own.
--Dave
You may not think much of the ToE Dave or how DNA is explained within it but to presume it to be some kind of pre-engineered information is apparently a blind presumption based entirely on your presupposing that a particular God did it. Just evidence-free special pleading.
Do you really want to know or give some credence at least to how natural selection is proposed to work and how genetic information actually does increase? You only want to "know" that God did it, it seems.
One article was about genetic diseases. The other was the pros and cons of inbreeding. None of that is evidence that most genetic variation causes sterility. You truly need to change your screen name.
It should say Fool4anything.
Slogan/motto:
DYNAMIC: God is active, plural, and caring in nature. FREE: God's future is open for freedom of action. THEISM: God is infinite, personal being; rational and moral
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 06:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Selaphiel
Natural selection does not demand a mind. Some simple principles explains natural selection: 1) Offspring vary (due to mutation and sexual recombination) 2) Limited resources 3) Competition of resources 4) Those who are most fit to their environment have a greater chance of survival 5) Greater chance of survival = greater chance of reproducing 6) Those who reproduce bring their genes on to the next generation 7) Repeat. Result: Genes who make you fit to your environment gets preserved, genes that have negative effects in that particular environment gradually disappear due to a lower rate of reproduction.
Notice that 4) is relative. What is fit in one particular environment may be detrimental in another one. Take the example of the two mice populations in the desert, one with a tan fur color to match the sand to protect it from predators, another with black fur to do the very same purpose because that population resides in areas with large parts of black lava stone). That is an example of diversification, populations separating into different areas, starting to become more specialized to live in their respective environments, all due to natural selection.
Now explain to me where the mind is in step 1-7. Seems to me to be a consequence of facts, namely that variation. limited resources, competition and that the most fit gets to reproduce.
Step 1 is false. Offspring vary, as every one should know, because there exists a "gene pool of DNA", thank you Mendel, from which a variety, with limits, can be drawn from.
Larger gene pools have existed in the past and spread out into smaller ones, species into subspecies--speciation.
Darwin imagined the opposite to happen, the first gene, the first gene pool, a division of gene pools that in turn become larger, and so on.
Science confirms a gene pool--genome, for every living thing that ever lived. The fossil record demonstrates;
Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
This completely falsifies ToE.
--Dave
www.dynamicfreetheism.com
The only view of ultimate reality that provides
rational answers to the questions of human origin, destiny, and dignity.
The only view that proves the existence and explains
the nature of God.
Slogan/motto:
Never be haughty to the humble; never be humble to the haughty.
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 06:19 AM
Quote:
Step 1 is false. Offspring vary, as every one should know, because there exists a "gene pool of DNA", thank you Mendel, from which a variety, with limits, can be drawn from.
Larger gene pools have existed in the past and spread out into smaller ones, species into subspecies--speciation.
Darwin imagined the opposite to happen, the first gene, the first gene pool, a division of gene pools that in turn become larger, and so on.
Completely wrong. Darwin didn't even know what genes are. He supposed, as all scientists did at the time, that inheritance was like blending paint. And it caused him no small amount of trouble, since evolution shouldn't work if inheritance was like that.
Quote:
Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
Science refers to that as "stabilizing selection." Darwinian theory predicts that a well-adapted population in a stable environment shouldn't change much.
Quote:
Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors;
Gould said such long-term lineages were rarely seen in the fossil record, but he notes horses, among others as being examples where we do see a long history of gradual change. Unfortunately, the fossil record is very incomplete, but every now and then we get lucky. Would you like to see some others?
Quote:
it appears all at once and "fully formed."
Usually, for reasons Gould discusses at length. New species tend to appear in small, isolated populations. But not always. Horses, for example, evolved gradually, in large populations. So we can see those.
Quote:
This completely falsifies ToE.
Nope. If evolution was false, we wouldn't see any of those. And we do.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104554
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 06:25 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
Step 1 is false. Offspring vary, as every one should know, because there exists a "gene pool of DNA", thank you Mendel, from which a variety, with limits, can be drawn from.
Larger gene pools have existed in the past and spread out into smaller ones, species into subspecies--speciation.
Can you show us the physical mechanism responsible for this limit?
How does it know when to stop accumulating variation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
Darwin imagined the opposite to happen, the first gene, the first gene pool, a division of gene pools that in turn become larger, and so on.
Science confirms a gene pool--genome, for every living thing that ever lived. The fossil record demonstrates;
--Dave
Dave, you have to analyze this situation accurately and then ask yourself.
You are a religious (somewhat dense person) who is trying to promote a certain theology called DFT. The scientific community goes to work ever day, and painstakingly places the ideas under incredible scrutiny and rigorous analyses. 99% of people in genetics see no problem between Mendelian genetics and darwinian evolution. 99% of paleontologists and paleobiologists see the fossil record as corroborating evidence. Yet you are convinced they are all wrong, simply because you came up with some half-baked analyses of these issues.
So what is the more likely scenario:
1.) You are correct and they are all wrong.
2.) You are delusional and cannot see your own delusion because of your emotional and intellectual commitment to your specific interpretation of a religious text.
Slogan/motto:
There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 06:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DFT_Dave
Step 1 is false. Offspring vary, as every one should know, because there exists a "gene pool of DNA", thank you Mendel, from which a variety, with limits, can be drawn from.
Non-sense. We know gene pools change, that has been observes in experiments. Lenski's long term evolution experiment with E. Coli for example. His experiement started with 12 tribes from an original population, after a while the gene pools of those 12 tribes differed a lot from each other even though they were from the same original population. One of the tribes even evolved the ability to metabolize the citric acid in the growth medium (in addition to the regular glucose) which gave that tribe a major survival advantage compared to the other tribes.
So as certain offspring manages to reproduce and others do not or to a lesser degree, the ratio of gene representations in the pool changes and new ones may enter through mutations.
I also want to know what causes this limit. Show me this inherent limitation in the genome. The genome constantly changes due to mutations (collective term for radiation mutations and copy errors in DNA). There does not seem to be such a limitation, there certainly is no evidence for it. It is an arbitrary limit drawn by creationists who are more concerned about preserving the biblical idea of kinds than doing honest science.
Quote:
Larger gene pools have existed in the past and spread out into smaller ones, species into subspecies--speciation.
Darwin imagined the opposite to happen, the first gene, the first gene pool, a division of gene pools that in turn become larger, and so on.
Science confirms a gene pool--genome, for every living thing that ever lived. The fossil record demonstrates;
Stasis: Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking pretty much the same as when they disappeared; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
Sudden appearance: In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and "fully formed."
This completely falsifies ToE.
--Dave
Sorry Dave, but you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. The ToE does not state that a species necessarily replaces another one completely. The ToE is about diversification of life, species adapting to their environment. Remember Darwin's finches? It was not his claim that the one supreme finch replaced the other. His claim was that one original population of finch diversified into multiple species of finch adapted to their particular environment. So it is not always the case that one species replaces another. Some die off and some live for extended periods of time with little or no change because they are so incredibly well adapted to their particular environment so almost the only factor that remains is genetic drift (Sharks, crocodiles come to mind).
Secondly, your statement about fossils is non-sense. Have you seen the fossils that show the evolution of the whale? There is a very clear direction of evolution, a mammal becoming more and more adapted to a life in water. The same can be observed in the evolution of human beings from other hominids. So your statement about stasis and sudden appearance is false Something tells me you have been reading Stephen Jay Gould quote mines on creationist websites. Stop reading those garbage sources and read biology written by academically trained biologists that aren't clueless and do not have the desperate need to extract science from 2500 year old mythological texts. In terms of percentage, there are more professional historians that deny the holocaust than there are professional biologists that deny the theory of evolution, that should tell you something.
"By the tender mercy of our God, the dawn from on high will break upon us to give light to those who sit in darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace." (Luke 1:78-79)
“There is no saint without a past, no sinner without a future.”
Oh, so when it's directed at you it is ad hominem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuu
OK, thanks for clearing up that point of Stripeology. Humans aren't animals. Moronic. See what I mean about you not knowing what you oppose? You can't even define the word animal. OK, so not only do you deny facts of biology, including the classification system invented by the creationist Linnaeus, but you admit to making up strawmen. You can't get basic definitions or others' arguments right. Maybe you should stick to posting on the subject of the ABs. At least they win stuff. You could bask in the reflected glow of their success given the complete lack of your own.Which ones, the individual differences or the average composition of the genepool by generation?Never mind. Go the AB's, eh Stripe.Why are you addressing this to me? Isn't this the subject of your own private conversation with a sock puppet, in which you mock it for believing mindless creationist canard strawmen?You have no clue about how to argue any of this. Would you like some hints?Stuart
One article was about genetic diseases. The other was the pros and cons of inbreeding. None of that is evidence that most genetic variation causes sterility. You truly need to change your screen name.
It should say Fool4anything.
You obviously didn't read all of it on both links.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104554
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angel4Truth
You obviously didn't read all of it on both links.
Prove it.
Do you honestly think I have not seen this material before?
Who do you think you are fooling?
I have a some close friends with genetic and congenital disorders. In fact the inguinal hernia I had corrected back at around 26 is classified as a congenital disorder when it appears at or near birth. I have studied this subject matter for at least 12 years now. I have also done quite a bit of research on the genetics behind inbreeding.
Can you tell me exactly what it is you think I am missing?
Do you know the differences and similarities between genetic and congenital?
Fact is that genetic variation happens in each individual. So if your original statement was accurate, at least 50% of people born would be sterile. But I do not think you are quite bright enough to even understand that.
Militant Moderate
Last edited by noguru; February 29th, 2012 at 07:25 AM.
How stupid, you give an example of intelligent beings with a plan and a purpose to illustrate how a mindless, purposeless process might work in the same way--no way.
--Dave
The point was that it (the program) doesn't consciously select individuals, but rather weeds out those not fit for the program by its own environment. When you plug your ears with your fingers and shout "LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU", try not to push so hard that you damage your brain.
Information is a measure of uncertainty in a message. Which might sound paradoxical, but that definition is the way that low-powered transmitters can reliably send data over millions of kilometers of space.
Shannon information is a measure of uncertainty in a message inside of a communication system. this is a very important distinction. Shannon and those before him realized the extreme difficulties of measuring meaning in a particular message. So instead of directly measuring meaning in a particular message, he came up with a measurement that calculated the improbability of a string of characters that contain the message. in other words Shannon information measures the max potential information carrying capacity of a particular string of characters.
The fundamental problem of communication is that of reproducing at one point either exactly or approximately a message selected at another point. Frequently the messages have meaning; that is they refer to or are correlated according to some system with certain physical or conceptual entities. These semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the engineering problem. The significant aspect is that the actual message is one selected from a set of possible messages. The system must be designed to operate for each possible selection, not just the one which will actually be chosen since this is unknown at the time of design.
Quote:
As you might realize, this means that any new mutation increases the information in a population.
no,"any new mutations" do not add new functional 'information'.
Location: Foothills of the Berkshires. We is mountain folk.
Rep Power: 104554
Christian
More right than left
Slogan/motto:
"May you always know the truth and see the light surrounding you"
Reputation:
February 29th, 2012, 11:04 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffblue101
Shannon information is a measure of uncertainty in a message inside of a communication system. this is a very important distinction. Shannon and those before him realized the extreme difficulties of measuring meaning in a particular message. So instead of directly measuring meaning in a particular message, he came up with a measurement that calculated the improbability of a string of characters that contain the message. in other words Shannon information measures the max potential information carrying capacity of a particular string of characters.
no,"any new mutations" do not add new functional 'information'.
That is only true if you remove the component of millions of selections going on. Shannon's formula does not factor in the number of offspring produced and how natural selection acts upon that. You do realize that, right?
That is only true if you remove the component of millions of selections going on. Shannon's formula does not factor in the number of offspring produced and how natural selection acts upon that. You do realize that, right?
I already posted the improbability of evolution of selecting for functional sequences in a previous thread which I'll repost below.
is made up of the total number of potential equences for a given sequence size. For example, the total sequence space size for English language 3-letter sequences is 263 = 17,576. Of hese, only about 1 in 18 are defined in the English language system. The sequence space size for 7-letter sequences is 267 = 8,031,810,176. Of these, only about 1 in 250,000 are defined. The same thing is true of biosystem genetic and protein sequences. The sequence space for a 100 amino acid sequence takes in the possibility of 20 potential amino acid residues per position for a total of 20100 = 10^130. Depending on the functional system in question that requires 100 amino acids at minimum, the vast majority of potential sequences in the sequence space of 10^130 sequences would not carry that function to any selectable degree.
this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10(77), adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences.
for every one functional protein there are 10^77 power useless combinations.
Many scientists, including several prominent agnostics,
are persuaded that Darwinian trial-and-error could not have produced the necessary genetic infrastructure for life to be possible. The fraction of all possible AA[amino acids] chains having any biological value is miniscule. Requiring hundreds of unrelated combinations of amino acids forming polypeptides, in the right proportion and same place, for the simplest of autonomous life forms to be possible, is indistinguishable from demanding a miracle. Additional requirements for other classes of biochemicals found in all cells compounds the improbability. The minimal requirements for a putative initial evolutionary starting point via naturalist means cannot be justified from what is known from chemical and thermodynamical principles....
A new gene which produces a polypeptide serving no useful function which is merely harder to degrade, will not provide a selective advantage. In fact, being unable to degrade and recycle such building material in a regulated manner would be disadvantageous
natural selection can not "search" through all the usesless combinations of amnio acids and find a functional sequence given the max theoretical resources of the universe.
Linear Mode
