|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/17/2008 12:09:15 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
Then please tell us where did the last universal common ancestor come from? ToE's only answer is "hocus pocus"!
No, once again the ToE does not answer this question. God could have created life, it could have arisen naturalistically, or it could have been a flying pink unicorn.
The mechanism by which life arose is irrelevant to the ToE, because the ToE is used to explain the patterns of speciation once life began.
Your fallacious objection is equivalent to calling atomic theory invalid because physicists can't explain where atoms came from.
< Message edited by HocusPocus -- 11/17/2008 12:52:58 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/18/2008 12:43:12 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
The information isn't in the set of letters; it is in the ordering of the letters. If the DNA codes for a different amino acid, that it didn't code for before, that is new information. By what definition of new and information is this not new information? Yes the info is in the sequence, but contrary to English, you always getting a workable 'word' no matter what the sequence, even if the word is the wrong one, and causes damage. I guess you didn't read all I wrote since I conceded that in rare cases new information may be added.
quote:
If evolution works, we'd expect that organisms would be at or near a local maximum fitness where most non-neutral mutations would be harmful. Evolution explains this nicely. This is moot, since if ID is true we would expect the designer to engineer the code correctly from the start. Which is exactly what we see - the interpretation of the data is different than that of Darwinisms. Show us one single organism that is not already well designed or that does not use DNA. Go back as far in time as you please you won't find anything. Everything in the fossil record appears suddenly and well formed and as far as we know must have the DNA base.
NDE explains nothing of this since it cannot explain the coded nature of the DNA information - you've completely side-stepped that issue, the correction mechanisms and the impossibility of such mechanisms arising without intelligence.
quote:
You're wrong again, but you're changing the subject. My point was mutations add new information to the population. By any reasonable definition of new and information, mutations add new information to a population. Again if you'd read what I said you'd know that I conceded to certain informational additions - just not the wild, ever creative, free-for-all Darwinists nonsense that purportedly creates all 13+ million life forms on earth.
You do not understand the difference between change of data which actually deletes or harms the correct information and the actual addition of data. Saying that there's new information in the population doesn't deal with the corruption of that information as per deleterious. Addition of data would be adding a new base pair - truly NEW information would thus be added.
Darwinian biologists typically have a very poor understanding of the nature of information itself and worse of coded information. You're repeating that pattern here.
As for changing the subject I suggest you re-read the OP.
Let me clarify the problem you don't see here:
quote:
Some might say that crystal formation is an example of the spontaneous formation of self-replicating complexity. However, crystal formation is not an example of a language system where the collective function of the parts is greater than the sum of all the parts. The information needed for the order of a crystalline structure is entirely contained by each molecule within that structure. This is not the case with the information contained in a molecule of human DNA. The information for the specific order of this molecule is not contained by any of the individual molecules that make up this strand of DNA. The information content is more complex than the molecules themselves. The information carried by DNA is greater than the sum of its parts. The same thing is true of the English language system. The letters in this sentence that you are reading now do not know how to self-assemble themselves to form this sentence in a meaningful way. Clearly then, the information in a crystalline structure does not even come close to the most simple language system, much less the information content of DNA or living systems of function.
In other words, the final structure is not really any more complex than the sum of its parts. This is not like DNA and other symbol-based language systems where the information carried by the parts is much greater than the total sum of the information carried inherently within the parts themselves Dr. sean pitman
The essential difference between naturally occurring pattern and an intelligent design is language. All language comes from a mind. Therefore all things containing language are designed.
DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism. You have not addressed the origin or coded nature of that information, even if we concede to "new" (modified) information being "added".
The book "Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life" is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact: “Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
quote:
"As a biochemist and software developer who works in genetic and metabolic screening, I am continually amazed by the incredible complexity of life. For example, each of us has a vast ‘computer program’ of six billion DNA bases in every cell that guided our development from a fertilized egg, specifies how to make more than 200 tissue types, and ties all this together in numerous highly functional organ systems. Few people outside of genetics or biochemistry realize that evolutionists still can provide no substantive details at all about the origin of life, and particularly the origin of genetic information in the first self-replicating organism. What genes did it require – or did it even have genes? How much DNA and RNA did it have – or did it even have nucleic acids? How did huge information-rich molecules arise before natural selection? Exactly how did the genetic code linking nucleic acids to amino acid sequence originate? Clearly the origin of life – the foundation of evolution - is still virtually all speculation, and little if no fact." Chris Williams, Ph.D., Biochemistry Ohio State University
As far as we know DNA has been there since day one. Darwinism can't explain it's information or the coded nature of that information.
You've merely focused on a minute detail (rare beneficial mutations in the code) and gone from it to all living organisms in one huge leap of blind faith. The rest of the details you've simply ignored as though they don't matter. The standard Darwinist slight of hand.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/18/2008 3:40:01 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
No, once again the ToE does not answer this question. God could have created life, it could have arisen naturalistically, or it could have been a flying pink unicorn.
Actually no, a flying pink unicorn (or the FSM) are ruled out for obvious the reasons that they would simply be a part tiny of nature itself, too small, too impotent and the FSM is utterly foolish.
quote:
The mechanism by which life arose is irrelevant to the ToE, because the ToE is used to explain the patterns of speciation once life began.
Your fallacious objection is equivalent to calling atomic theory invalid because physicists can't explain where atoms came from. Yes the usual Darwinist escape mechanism. So when did evolution start?
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/18/2008 8:37:27 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
So when did evolution start?
I just told you.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/19/2008 3:32:58 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
So when did evolution start?
I just told you.
That's funny, I don't remember seeing any time reference, date, period, epoch .... or even a given set of necessary elements. Hmmm... Please continue telling me.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/19/2008 3:40:13 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 3062
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Please continue telling me. Please continue telling me...more hocus pocus!
Isn't it sad, GHitch, that most don't even realize how faith-based their Darwinism really is?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/19/2008 3:56:30 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
The information isn't in the set of letters; it is in the ordering of the letters. If the DNA codes for a different amino acid, that it didn't code for before, that is new information. By what definition of new and information is this not new information? Yes the info is in the sequence, but contrary to English, you always getting a workable 'word' no matter what the sequence, even if the word is the wrong one, and causes damage. I guess you didn't read all I wrote since I conceded that in rare cases new information may be added.
Rare cases is all that is necessary for evolution to proceed.
quote:
quote:
If evolution works, we'd expect that organisms would be at or near a local maximum fitness where most non-neutral mutations would be harmful. Evolution explains this nicely. This is moot, since if ID is true we would expect the designer to engineer the code correctly from the start. Which is exactly what we see - the interpretation of the data is different than that of Darwinisms. Show us one single organism that is not already well designed or that does not use DNA. Go back as far in time as you please you won't find anything. Everything in the fossil record appears suddenly and well formed and as far as we know must have the DNA base.
If evolution and common descent are correct, there wouldn't be any organisms not suited for its environment nor would there be any that don't use DNA. I can't answer your bolded request, because evolution and common descent are true.
quote:
You do not understand the difference between change of data which actually deletes or harms the correct information and the actual addition of data. Saying that there's new information in the population doesn't deal with the corruption of that information as per deleterious. Addition of data would be adding a new base pair - truly NEW information would thus be added.
Natural selection eliminates harmful mutations from the population.
You don't seem to understand that information is in the sequencing, not in the number of characters in the alphabet. If I have written a paper and wish to add new information, I do not need to invent new letters. I just need to sequence the existing alphabet in new ways. The amount of information is unrelated to the number of characters in the alphabet. Morse code has just two characters -- Actually three if you count the pause. Any information that can be expressed in the English alphabet can be expressed in Morse code and visa-versa. New information can be added to the DNA without inventing new base pairs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/19/2008 4:23:56 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
That's funny, I don't remember seeing any time reference, date, period, epoch .... or even a given set of necessary elements. Hmmm... Please continue telling me.
Evolution begins when life begins. Evidence to date indicates that life began approximately 3.7 billion years ago.
How life arose is irrelevant to the process of evolution.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 9:36:24 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Yes the info is in the sequence, but contrary to English, you always getting a workable 'word' no matter what the sequence, even if the word is the wrong one, and causes damage.
Although I support your general thesis, this statement is not actually true. There are 4 different nucleotides in DNA. The ribosomes read these 3 at a time in order to decipher one of 20 amino acids that comprise all proteins in life. However there are 64 possible combinations of the nucleotides - 4 x 4 x 4 = 64. So over 2/3 of all possible sequences would code for nothing at all relevant to life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 9:47:35 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
Addition of data would be adding a new base pair - truly NEW information would thus be added.
Actually the addition (or deletion) of a single base pair is known to be the most fatal mutation possible since, per above, it slides the rest of the chain to be out-of-sync with the three-at-a-time decoding of the sequence in the ribosomes. In other words, it causes MOST of the remainder of the nucleotide sequence to be read as "nothing at all" rather than valid amino acid "words". The damage is usually limited to a single protein, since the "goal posts" that mark the beginning-end of protein instructions are not usually affected.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 10:03:23 AM
|
|
|
demolay
Posts: 94
Joined: 10/31/2008
Status: offline
|
P.S.
Regarding this discussion of the "language" of DNA. Something is a language only if it has a reader. In the case of DNA, the reader is the ribosome that interprets the nucleotide sequences as meaning specific amino acids, and "knows" to assemble them in the sequence presented into protein chains. However the ribosome is itself a protein structure, encoded by DNA, and often manufactured by other ribosomes.
So the question arises as to how could DNA have evolved as "the language of life", when it is only valid as a language due to the "reader" (ribosome) being created by that language? I've never seen an evolutionist answer these kind of "chicken and egg" questions believably.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 10:27:12 AM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
It fails to explain the origin of complex coded information contained in all living organisms
It fails to explain the origin of nano bio-machinery contained in all living organisms
Unless it is a theory of origins, no theory needs to explain origins in order to be valid. Evolution is not a theory of origins.
quote:
It fails to account for irreducibly complex systems contained in all living organisms
Likewise, creationists/IDers cannot account for nor even prove the validity of so-called "irreducible complexity."
quote:
It fails to account for the human moral sense and altruism
Of course: that is because morals are learned traits that are not inherited genetically.
quote:
It fails to explain the general lack of transitional forms in the fossil record which should number in the multiple millions but don't
No one knows how many fossils "should" exist, but the ones that do aptly demonstrate evolution at work. Btw, there are no such things as "transitional" life forms; all species are in flux at all times.
quote:
Natural selection (originally a creationist concept) has failed as a sufficient explanatory mechanism for the level of complexity and diversity in nature
First of all, no component of evolution was "originally a creationist concept" given that creationism- a rebuttal to evolution- followed the theory of evolution, not the other way around. How can a rebuttal precede what is being rebutted?
Second, the combination in varying degrees of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift are more than "sufficient explanatory mechanisms."
quote:
Random mutations can never account for the sophisticated, factory-like organization within the cell
Actually, eukaryotes reveals evolution at work there, too. Organelles within the cell contain their own DNA separate from the cell nucleus, and they program some of their own protein synthesis. This suggests that organelles may have originally been prokaryotic invaders, whereas they have now evolved into integrated mechanisms.
quote:
It fails to account for how, in the midst of greater numbers nefarious mutations, any of the rare beneficial mutations could dominate bio history
What do you mean by "dominate bio history?"
< Message edited by 1dblthnk02 -- 11/20/2008 11:39:48 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 10:28:54 AM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
Although I support your general thesis, this statement is not actually true. There are 4 different nucleotides in DNA. The ribosomes read these 3 at a time in order to decipher one of 20 amino acids that comprise all proteins in life. However there are 64 possible combinations of the nucleotides - 4 x 4 x 4 = 64. So over 2/3 of all possible sequences would code for nothing at all relevant to life.
No, what this means is that there is overlap among codons. There are several different codons that code for "Start", several that code for Arginine, Leucine, etc.
quote:
ORIGINAL: demolay
P.S.
Regarding this discussion of the "language" of DNA. Something is a language only if it has a reader. In the case of DNA, the reader is the ribosome that interprets the nucleotide sequences as meaning specific amino acids, and "knows" to assemble them in the sequence presented into protein chains. However the ribosome is itself a protein structure, encoded by DNA, and often manufactured by other ribosomes.
So the question arises as to how could DNA have evolved as "the language of life", when it is only valid as a language due to the "reader" (ribosome) being created by that language? I've never seen an evolutionist answer these kind of "chicken and egg" questions believably.
You are a few decades behind. Ribosomes are not protein structures, but rather RNA structures with a bit of protein. Their catalytic sites are found in the RNA sequences, so their protein component can be experimentally removed without eliminating their catalytic function.
With the discovery of ribozymes in the early 1980's, a possible answer to your question was found, and the more molecular biologists research RNA and ribozymes, the more the data line up. Ribozymes are composed of RNA, and catalyze reactions using RNA as their substrate.
These ribozymes are capable of carrying out many of the vital reactions necessary for life, including the synthesis of complimentary strands of RNA and transcribing these strands into fRNA, and the translation of mRNA into proteins.
Thus, RNA is capable of the two main properties needed for life: Encoding genetic information in the form of nucleic acids, and acting as a catalyst for replication and transcription.
< Message edited by HocusPocus -- 11/20/2008 11:29:23 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 1:03:59 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Unless it is a theory of origins, no theory needs to explain origins in order to be valid. Evolution is not a theory of origins. Yes, the usual Darwinist escape route. And contrary to your standard Darwinist trained response, evolution is indeed a theory of origins. It purports to explain the "origin of species". Darwinism is atheist materialisms' creation myth.
quote:
Likewise, creationists/IDers cannot account for nor even prove the validity of so-called "irreducible complexity." Completely false. Desing detection principles account for it very well.
Also, you've been reading too much Ken Miller nonsense.
Ex. There are 40 parts in the e. coli flagellum, so co-option doesn't work at all unless you can point to the precursors of each part. Can't.
The Ken Miller et al. "explain-it-away" attempt fails even more miserably once you realize that precise instructions are required to assemble the pieces of the flagellum in the correct order. If the order is wrong it is worthless and self-destructs. If the pieces are the wrong shape or size - same thing. Those instructions are coded in the DNA.
Only in Darwinism can one look at mechanical engineering and say, "that can be explained by random events". James M. Gillis once said, "Only in Atheism does the spring rise higher than the source, the effect exist without the cause, life come from a stone, blood from a turnip, a silk purse from a sow's ear, a Beethoven Symphony or a Bach Fugue from a kitten walking across the keys....." And we may well say the same - just replace the word "atheism" with Darwinism.
Commonly in Darwinism we see generally intelligent persons throw away their faculty of reason and claim that biological factories containing 1000's of sophisticated inter-cooperating nano machines, assembly lines, transport vehicles, quality control mechanisms and tightly controlled assembly instructions, all came about by pure accident.
Go figure. One is forced to wonder how such utter nonsense ever managed to take hold in science. As stated by Sir Frederick Hoyle, quote:
There are so many flaws in Darwinism that one can wonder why it swept so completely through the scientific world, and why it is still endemic today.
quote:
Of course: that is because morals are learned traits that are not inherited genetically. If morals were learned it would be easy to get rid of them by learning the contrary, but it never works. You still have a conscience. You will always remain with a basic concept of right and wrong, good and evil - and that no matter whether you are taught it or not and no matter what you do to try to get rid of it.
Besides your position is untenable - once you realize that it actually means there are no real morals morality itself must be nothing but human illusion. But if morality itself be invalid, nothing is right and nothing is wrong and you should not complain if your neighbor beats you and takes all your belongings for it is not robbery or aggression but merely his doing as he pleases.
quote:
No one knows how many fossils "should" exist, but the ones that do aptly demonstrate evolution at work. Btw, there are no such things as "transitional" life forms; all species are in flux at all times. We know very well that there should be at the very least millions. After 150 years of searching? There aren't.
Darwin wrote that there must be an "infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life." bolding mine
As for your "no such things as transitional", I think you should stop and think about that a few seconds at least before swallowing it whole.
quote:
First of all, no component of evolution was "originally a creationist concept" given that creationism- a rebuttal to evolution- followed the theory of evolution, not the other way around. How can a rebuttal precede what is being rebutted? Creationism followed Darwinism? Surely you jest. Creationism is as old as the world. And Darwin took the term Natural Selection from Edward Blyth - a creationist who wrote on it before he did. Do your home work before posting any more nonsense please.
quote:
Second, the combination in varying degrees of natural selection, mutation, and genetic drift are more than "sufficient explanatory mechanisms." You have a lot of faith in unprovable hypotheses. Perhaps you could try to find proof of your statement? NDE can't even explain where or how the coded information got into life.
There isn't any proof - over volumes and mountains of overwhelming speculation and conjecture.
The only empirical evidence we have supports micro-evolution. You cannot extrapolate micro into macro. Why? Because we know the genome is programmed for constancy and stability - not wild changes. Nothing outside of the "family" level has even been demonstrated and indeed, by Darwinists' own confessions, cannot be demonstrated. So we're supposed to just take their word for it huh?
quote:
What do you mean by "dominate bio history?" How it can explain the hypothesis that beneficial mutations are responsible for the exist of 13 million life forms on earth. That's domination of the beneficial over the deleterious. In real life it doesn't work that way.
While you think this over (please do), I suggest you consider the existence of approx. 13 million life forms and try to imagine just how many transitional forms (and their fossils) it had to have taken to get them all as of today.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 1:33:35 PM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
You are a few decades behind. Ribosomes are not protein structures, but rather RNA structures with a bit of protein. Their catalytic sites are found in the RNA sequences, so their protein component can be experimentally removed without eliminating their catalytic function.
With the discovery of ribozymes in the early 1980's, a possible answer to your question was found, and the more molecular biologists research RNA and ribozymes, the more the data line up. Ribozymes are composed of RNA, and catalyze reactions using RNA as their substrate.
These ribozymes are capable of carrying out many of the vital reactions necessary for life, including the synthesis of complimentary strands of RNA and transcribing these strands into fRNA, and the translation of mRNA into proteins.
Thus, RNA is capable of the two main properties needed for life: Encoding genetic information in the form of nucleic acids, and acting as a catalyst for replication and transcription.
Ribosome : A minute round particle composed of RNA and protein that is found in the cytoplasm of living cells and serves as the site of assembly for polypeptides encoded by messenger RNA.
What you fail to see here is that transcription and translation are impossible without a designing, engineering intellect that sets up their rules.
You want to translate your post from English to French? You need a translator. 'Translator' implies knowledge of both languages. Darwinisms explanations (actually there aren't any) fail again. How do chemical processes 'know' how to translate from one molecular language (DNAs ) to another (RNAs)? Something or someone had to have set up the coding conventions. But code & convention imply intelligence by very definition, therefore it had to be someone.
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 1:48:15 PM
|
|
|
1dblthnk02
Posts: 754
Joined: 3/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Yes, the usual Darwinist escape route. And contrary to your standard Darwinist trained response, evolution is indeed a theory of origins. It purports to explain the "origin of species".
You misquote by truncation. The full title and phrase is thus: "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"
It is a statement about speciation, not abiogenesis.
quote:
Darwinism is atheist materialisms' creation myth.
Darwinism is a form of creationism? I doubt that you would get much resounding agreement from others in the creationist camp.
quote:
Completely false. Desing detection principles account for it very well.
What detection principles?
quote:
Also, you've been reading too much Ken Miller nonsense.
Actually, I had to google him. Thanks for the tip.
quote:
Ex. There are 40 parts in the e. coli flagellum, so co-option doesn't work at all unless you can point to the precursors of each part. Can't.
The flagellum argument is Wm. Dembski's strawman that assumes the impossibility of something that evolution doesn't even state.
quote:
Only in Darwinism can one look at mechanical engineering and say, "that can be explained by random events".
Evolution is not "random." It operates by some very definable and predictable natural laws.
quote:
If morals were learned it would be easy to get rid of them by learning the contrary, but it never works.
If morals were so expendable, we most likely would never have developed them in the first place.
quote:
You still have a conscience. You will always remain with a basic concept of right and wrong, good and evil
But the components of the concept of right/wrong, good/evil is entirely subjective according to one's culture and time era.
quote:
Besides your position is untenable - once you realize that it actually means there are no real morals morality itself must be nothing but human illusion.
I never said that morals aren't real. I said that they are learned rather than genetically inherited; therefore, morals are not germane to the theory of evolution and speciation.
quote:
We know very well that there should be at the very least millions. After 150 years of searching? There aren't.
And you think that we've found them all?
quote:
As for your "no such things as transitional", I think you should stop and think about that a few seconds at least before swallowing it whole.
I've already thought about it; there are no transitional forms. Species do not evolve from one precise design to another precise design. That is where any design theory fails.
quote:
Creationism followed Darwinism? Surely you jest. Creationism is as old as the world.
Creation accounts abound throughout human history. But modern creationism is a reaction to, and a rebuttal of the theory of evolution.
Do you honestly deny this?
quote:
And Darwin took the term Natural Selection from Edward Blyth - a creationist who wrote on it before he did.
Edward Blythe was not a creationist. He was a zoologist and a pharmacist, his religious beliefs notwithstanding.
He was also mentally unbalanced, btw.
quote:
You have a lot of faith in unprovable hypotheses. Perhaps you could try to find proof of your statement?
You are the one who said "sufficient explanatory mechanism," not "proof." Natural selection, genetic drift, and mutation explains a great deal.
quote:
The only empirical evidence we have supports micro-evolution. You cannot extrapolate micro into macro. Why? Because we know the genome is programmed for constancy and stability - not wild changes.
The genome is not "programmed for constancy and stability." Where did you get that?
quote:
How it can explain the hypothesis that beneficial mutations are responsible for the exist of 13 million life forms on earth.
And where did you get that?
You seem to be laboring under some very distracting disinformation.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 3:34:34 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
Unless it is a theory of origins, no theory needs to explain origins in order to be valid. Evolution is not a theory of origins. Yes, the usual Darwinist escape route. And contrary to your standard Darwinist trained response, evolution is indeed a theory of origins. It purports to explain the "origin of species". Darwinism is atheist materialisms' creation myth.
False! How can Darwinism be a creation myth when Darwin's theory makes no attempt to explain creation?
quote:
quote:
No one knows how many fossils "should" exist, but the ones that do aptly demonstrate evolution at work. Btw, there are no such things as "transitional" life forms; all species are in flux at all times. We know very well that there should be at the very least millions. After 150 years of searching? There aren't.
Darwin wrote that there must be an "infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life." bolding mine
I hope you got that Darwin quote from some creationist site. I hope you didn't get it from reading Darwin. Here is what you quoted in context:quote:
If then there be some degree of truth in these remarks, we have no right to expect to find, in our geological formations, an infinite number of those fine transitional forms which, on our theory, have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life. We ought only to look for a few links, and such assuredly we do find- some more distantly, some more closely, related to each other; and these links, let them be ever so close, if found in different stages of the same formation, would, by many palaeontologists, be ranked as distinct species.
(bolding mine)
Clearly your statement about what Darwin said is false. Where did you find that misrepresentation?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 4:21:05 PM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Darwin wrote that there must be an "infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life." bolding mine
How embarrassing. If I have learned anything from my interaction with creationists regarding evolution, it is to NEVER trust a creationist when they give you a quote. Or more generally, never trust scientific claims made by a creationist.
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
How do chemical processes 'know' how to translate from one molecular language (DNAs ) to another (RNAs)?
How does water 'know' to fill a hole?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/20/2008 10:01:23 PM
|
|
|
Veritas
Posts: 522
Joined: 4/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: HocusPocus
quote:
ORIGINAL: GHitch
Darwin wrote that there must be an "infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life." bolding mine
How embarrassing. If I have learned anything from my interaction with creationists regarding evolution, it is to NEVER trust a creationist when they give you a quote. Or more generally, never trust scientific claims made by a creationist.
Quote mining is where someone takes a quote out of context so as to misrepresent the author's intent. Creationists have made quote-mining into an fine art. Whenever I see a creationist quoting an Darwin or some other evolutionist, I usually go to TalkOrigins.org to check. They have a section called The Quote Mine Project: or Lies Damn Lies and Quote Mines that's devoted to putting creationists' attempts at misrepresentation into context. I don't find this one there though. I found where GHitch could have found what he posted:quote:
From Darwin and the Nature of Species by David N. Stamos
For example, in a passage about the fossil record, Darwin claims that all throughout biological history there must have been "an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life"
Apparently Stamos is a professor of Philosophy at York University. Obviously he is grossly misrepresenting what Darwin actually said. Sad!
I'd like to know where GHitch found this bit of dishonesty.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/21/2008 12:47:58 AM
|
|
|
GHitch
Posts: 273
Joined: 7/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 1dblthnk02
What detection principles? The same ones used by forensic anthropologists, archaeologists, SETI etc.
quote:
Evolution is not "random." It operates by some very definable and predictable natural laws. Ya right. State the laws and how the work - mathematically if you can.
quote:
If morals were so expendable, we most likely would never have developed them in the first place. No one developed them, you're born with it and it isn't going away.
quote:
But the components of the concept of right/wrong, good/evil is entirely subjective according to one's culture and time era....
I never said that morals aren't real. I said that they are learned rather than genetically inherited; therefore, morals are not germane to the theory of evolution and speciation. Are you sure? Because if you are right, then anyone could torture you to death and be guilty of nothing at all - as long as the culture and era says it's ok, right? German culture under Hitler decided Jews were sub-human, not evolved enough, and social parasites and so decided to kill 'em all. According to your view he did nothing objectively wrong. When you finally figure that out you'll have to look elsewhere than mere culture to find real moral values.
If there are no absolute objective moral values then subjective ones are of no authority at all and no one has any objective obligation to obedience.
quote:
And you think that we've found them all? I don't think they've found any - except adaptations within the family.
quote:
I've already thought about it; there are no transitional forms. Well I guess that explains why tiktaalik and all the other 'transitionals' are always being brought up in all the NDE run sci mags huh.
quote:
Creation accounts abound throughout human history. But modern creationism is a reaction to, and a rebuttal of the theory of evolution. Do you honestly deny this? Absolutely. You can't change the data by now adding the word modern. Your history is way off. Newton was a creationist as were most of the great scientists of the past as well as those who actually defined the scientific method. Creationism, including it's 'modern' form has been around since day one.
quote:
Edward Blythe was not a creationist. He was a zoologist and a pharmacist, his religious beliefs notwithstanding.
He was also mentally unbalanced, btw. Blyth was indeed a creationist and wrote on NS 23 years before Origin. quote:
There can be no doubt of Darwin's regard for Edward Blyth: in the first chapter of The Origin of Species he writes "...Mr Blyth, whose opinion, from his large and varied stores of knowledge, I should value more than that of almost any one..." He suffered a mental breakdown after his return from India - where btw, he was considered India's foremost naturalist.
quote:
" There has been, strangely enough, a difference of opinion among naturalists, as to whether these seasonal changes of colour were intended by Providence as an adaptation to change of temperature10, or as a means of preserving the various species from the observation of their foes, by adapting their hues to the colour of the surface; against which latter opinion it has been plausibly enough argued, that "nature provides for the preyer as well as for the prey." The fact is, they answer both purposes; and they are among those striking instances of design, which so clearly and forcibly attest the existence of an omniscient great First Cause. Experiment demonstrates the soundness of the first opinion; and sufficient proof can be adduced to show that the other is also sound. Some arctic species are white, which have no enemy to fear, as the polar bear, the gyrfalcon, the arctic eagle-owl, the snowy owl, and even the stoat; and therefore, in these, the whiteness can only be to preserve the temperature of their bodies [VI. 79.]; but when we perceive that the colour of nocturnal animals, and of those defenceless species whose habits lead them to be much exposed, especially to enemies from above, are invariably of the same colour with their respective natural haunts, we can only presume that this is because they should not appear too conspicuous to their enemies.".
-- Blyth, Magazine of Natural History, 1835 my bold
Sorry but you don't know what you're talking about.
quote:
The genome is not "programmed for constancy and stability." Where did you get that? A well known observable fact. If you actually did your homework or even just thought about it you'd know this. The genetic code is full of precise instructions and error detection and correction mechanisms which preserve the kind yet allow for variation within the family. Dogs beget dogs not horses. Flies produce flies not fish. If the genome were as unstable as NDE requires it would be easy to prove as we'd see it clearly all around us - we don't - we see species suddenly appearing and then remaining unchanged for millions of years.
quote:
And where did you get that? You seem to be laboring under some very distracting disinformation. And seeing that you don't get it, you seem to understand practically nothing of your own preferred hypothesis!
_____________________________
"The formation within geological time of a human body, by the laws of physics..., starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components." Kurt Godel
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Reasons Darwinism will ultimately collapse - 11/21/2008 1:28:42 AM
|
|
|
HocusPocus
Posts: 17
Joined: 11/16/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Veritas
Quote mining is where someone takes a quote out of context so as to misrepresent the author's intent. Creationists have made quote-mining into an fine art. Whenever I see a creationist quoting an Darwin or some other evolutionist, I usually go to TalkOrigins.org to check. They have a section called The Quote Mine Project: or Lies Damn Lies and Quote Mines that's devoted to putting creationists' attempts at misrepresentation into context. I don't find this one there though. I found where GHitch could have found what he posted:quote:
From Darwin and the Nature of Species by David N. Stamos
For example, in a passage about the fossil record, Darwin claims that all throughout biological history there must have been "an infinite number of those fine transitional forms, which on my theory assuredly have connected all the past and present species of the same group into one long and branching chain of life"
Apparently Stamos is a professor of Philosophy at York University. Obviously he is grossly misrepresenting what Darwin actually said. Sad!
I'd like to know where GHitch found this bit of dishonesty.
Yes, I'm well aware of the proliferation of quote mining by creationists, and the quote mine project on talk origins.
Creationists seem to have this obsession with authority (GHitch is a prime example, constantly quoting the authorities), and in their attempts to "expose" evolution they will undoubtedly quote some famous figure like Darwin or Gould, only to be shown by anyone who knows what they are talking about that their supposed slam-dunk quote is not only out of context, but usually implies the exact opposite of what they wanted it to imply.
Generally a common sense approach can do away with these quote mines. If creationists would honestly think about the quotes they use (without knowing they are quote mines), it's quite obvious that there's something fishy going on. As I said, it's generally a quote from a famous authority on evolution, in which this authority admits that evolution is a complete hoax. Really? This famous authority who has spent his/her life studying and writing about the facts of evolution, is now admitting that he/she knew all along it was complete rubbish?
(Edited for TOS 6)
< Message edited by Consecrated2God -- 11/21/2008 9:04:07 AM >
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
