posted
My apologies for starting the thread drift. We can continue the conversation here, if you all like.
In response to Ron:
quote:creation theory
I'm curious what scientific theory exists that goes by this name.
From kmbboots:
quote:If you dismiss the "anti-dog" person, you may never understand that, instead of being a dog hater, they are concerned for the safety of children. If the anti-dog person just dismisses the pro-dog person as caring more about dogs than about children, you may never find a compromise like leash laws or restricted areas in parks for dogs.
I agree. I think of it in the same way as I look at judgment. Don't dismiss out of hand just as you wouldn't be prejudice.
Look at the argument. Ask questions. Understand it. Then, and only then, can you feel free to dismiss it if it is deserving.
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at the argument. Ask questions. Understand it. Then, and only then, can you feel free to dismiss it if it is deserving.
The oft-neglected/maligned part of this is that there are legitimate reasons for dismissing someone's opinions. There comes a point when you can actually say "No, that is incorrect/irrelevant/or just doesn't belong in what we're talking about."
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Javert, as applied to speciation, creation theory is that God created all species at once, in the form of main progenitors. Each primary species was created with a library of alternate characteristics, that can be expressed simply by certain genetic switches (that are known to exist) being switched on or off. Thus the original canine could give rise to the hundreds of species of dogs that exist today, but no dog can ever become a cat, because the characteristic feline genes were not present in the progenitor of dogs, or any other species progenitor. (In other words, there is no parent species that can give rise to species as different as cats and dogs. The characteristics for cats and dogs had to be uniquely and originally created in a progenitor for each species.)
Evolution teaches that the most simple species came into being through natural processes first, and the same natural processes caused variations in the species, leading to more advanced and complex species arising. The mechanism cited for driving evolution is chance mutation, operating over vastly long lengths of time, and branching out from common parents as they will. As mutation changes one or two DNA segments, the environment will favor mutations that are good, so more of that gene coding will be reproduced in future generations. This mechanism cannot occur, of course, for genetic traits that are not expressed, since environment could not favor them step-by-step, as is required.
I believe that advance gene-mapping can reveal conclusively which method is responsible for the great variety in speciation that exists on earth. If we can identify species progenitors, like an original canine--perhaps a wolf--then identify all the needed genetic characteristics to produce a Cocker Spaniel already present in the Wolf, just turned off, that will constitute conclusive proof. Those alternate characterists had to be created by a deliberate act of Intelligence, because evolution cannot account for unexpressed traits being fully developed in a genome.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
We already know that the first part of your response to Javert is wrong.
Also, gene mapping will not really add a lot to this debate, since it will merely show that the genes are astonishingly similar across all species -- even those separated by wide taxonomic (and presumably genetic/evolutionary) gaps.
And, your last sentence is also false. Evolution can and easily does account for unexpressed traits being fully developed in a genome. In fact, it works a lot better with that stuff there. It gives evolution something to work on.
Although one might quibble with what you mean by "fully developed"
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
For those not completely tired of the issue, here is an MP3 of PZ Myers debating Jeff Simmons (Discovery Institute) that I found still entertaining.
posted
Hey, this is actually rather interesting. I would advise people to read Ron's post in detail rather than quibble over hypotheses and whatnot. (As it happens, what he is suggesting is by no means a hypothesis, it's a wild-assed guess. Technical term.) This Creationist is actually proposing an experimentally falsifiable prediction of his theory! We should nail him to the wall on this!
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Each primary species was created with a library of alternate characteristics, that can be expressed simply by certain genetic switches (that are known to exist) being switched on or off.
Okay...here's the link to the ensembl entry for mouse:
Can you point us to this library of alternate characteristics that can be found in this genome?
If all the information for evolution is alreayd "front-loaded", can you show us an example of a spot of DNA that could be "switched on" to make the next evolutionary change in mice?
If not, why not?
quote:Thus the original canine could give rise to the hundreds of species of dogs that exist today, but no dog can ever become a cat, because the characteristic feline genes were not present in the progenitor of dogs, or any other species progenitor.
Okay, so if I link you to the ensembl entries for dogs and cats, can you point to the "feline" parts of the cat genome, and the "canine" parts of the dog genome?
If not, why not?
quote:(In other words, there is no parent species that can give rise to species as different as cats and dogs. The characteristics for cats and dogs had to be uniquely and originally created in a progenitor for each species.)
So what about a common progenitor between animals of the same order, but different genera, like tigers and house cats?
If I were to give you the genetic sequence of homo sapiens and helacyton gartleri, would you be able to point out the genetic sequences that prove that those two genomes did not originate from the common ancestor? (H.Gartleri is a modern life-form that mostly lives in petri dishes and other lab plasticware)
quote:Evolution teaches that the most simple species came into being through natural processes first, and the same natural processes caused variations in the species,
No, it doesn't. That's like saying "scientists think that earthquakes are caused by the motion of the earth's crust, and most Jenga towers fall because of the same natural processes."
quote:leading to more advanced and complex species arising. The mechanism cited for driving evolution is chance mutation, operating over vastly long lengths of time, and branching out from common parents as they will.
Thsi is about as wrong as saying that you make a PB&J sandwich with only bread and peanut butter.
I'm sure that I'm not the first person to tell you that.
quote:As mutation changes one or two DNA segments, the environment will favor mutations that are good, so more of that gene coding will be reproduced in future generations.
The way you write that, it's like saying "My collander favors keeping the pasta, and letting the water go, becuase it knows the pasta is good".
The collander don't know anything, it doesn't choose anything, it makes no value judgements. What goes through, goes through. What doesn't doesn't. And the end of the operation, most of the pasta is on one side, most of the water on the other.
quote: This mechanism cannot occur, of course, for genetic traits that are not expressed, since environment could not favor them step-by-step, as is required.
A promotor is not "expressed", not in the way that biologist use the term. Why on earth would you claim that evolution doesn't work on promotors?
quote:I believe that advance gene-mapping can reveal conclusively which method is responsible for the great variety in speciation that exists on earth.
Well, why don't you show us what today's gene-mappign demonstrates? Link all you like to ensembl, everyone can follow your links, the whole site is free.
quote:If we can identify species progenitors, like an original canine--perhaps a wolf--then identify all the needed genetic characteristics to produce a Cocker Spaniel already present in the Wolf, just turned off, that will constitute conclusive proof.
But the ancestor to the canine family is long extinct.
We don't have its DNA.
And anyway, sequencing the whole genome takes a lot of time, with a big organism. A bacterium, sure, two weeks tops, with the new instruments, once a suitable analysis pipeline is in place. But vetebrates...much bigger, more repetative...but surely you knew that.
We do, however have, for instance, the genome of a bacteria that is unable to digest nylon, and the genome of its descendants, who can.
Would you like me to try and send you those genomes?
quote:Those alternate characterists had to be created by a deliberate act of Intelligence, because evolution cannot account for unexpressed traits being fully developed in a genome.
Okay, why don't you show us an example of a "fully developed unexpressed trait" that can be found in the genome of any organism on ensembl?
Can you show us a single example?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
What Ron says is actually partially true. The genome is not solely responsible for unique characteristics inherited in the diverse canines. What is called the "epigenome," which includes what was formerly called "junk DNA," is able to turn "on" or "off" certain genes. Species signatures, or perhaps a better term would be lineage signatures, are used to track the ancestry of people and animals today. There is a "canine indicator" and "feline indicator," but they are not immune to mutagens, and therefore could, but won't likely, allow a canine to evolve into a feline (because dogs are more advanced beings).
This, however, does not account for 100% of the variety in species. There is no denying that there are mutagens in the environment; chemicals, solar rays, etc. that can mutate the genome itself in small bits. This is how cancer is caused, and that one (actually two) simple mutations in a genome of thousands of genes. Occasionally, some mutations might not be so bad, and these genes are more likely to be inherited because they produce a greater survival/reproductive efficiency. This is what evolution articulates.
Let me be clear with you Ron: evolution does NOT itself say that life was generated from primordial soup, nor does it itself say that all life came from a single first life form, nor does it say that God had no part in it. These nots and nors are opinions and theories held by some people that accept the notion of evolution. That does not mean the whole concept is faulty. Many scientific theories are mistaken for tangents that are taken off of them that can sometimes prove to be completely false.
Posts: 1029 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer: What Ron says is actually partially true. The genome is not solely responsible for unique characteristics inherited in the diverse canines. What is called the "epigenome," which includes what was formerly called "junk DNA,"
No, it doesn't. "Junk DNA" is a sequence of A's, C's, G's and T's that isn't believed to have any function.
Epigenetics is the study of how those ACGT molecules are chemically altered to affect expression, and the epigenome is the description of all those modifications.
quote:Species signatures, or perhaps a better term would be lineage signatures, are used to track the ancestry of people and animals today.
Species relatedness can be assessed through a variety of sequence comparisons, and while one might be able to say "SAMD9 is only present in primates", no one would call it a "primate indicator".
quote:There is a "canine indicator" and "feline indicator," but they are not immune to mutagens, and therefore could, but won't likely, allow a canine to evolve into a feline (because dogs are more advanced beings).
You know this can't make sense.
Plants in deserts on two different continents did not independantly evolve the same "cactus" indicator. But they both evolved into very similar looking plants.
Now, of course, they can't evolve themselves into being actually related, and a cursory DNA comparison would quickly show that the two populations were not closely related, but they woudl still both be cacti, not because of any magic indicator sequence, but because they possess a number of the characteristics that we have defined as belonging to cacti.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least 500 sections of "junk"DNA are ultra-conserved. If they didn't serve important functions, there would be nothing to prevent them from undergoing rapid mutation.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look at the argument. Ask questions. Understand it. Then, and only then, can you feel free to dismiss it if it is deserving.
Dismiss is not the correct word here. Once you look at an argument, ask questions, and understand it, then you can feel free to render a personal judgement about the argument, either rejecting or accepting it for the time being, and to have faith in the judgement you rendered. However, it is almost always unwise to completely dismiss the argument, because additional evidence may come along that allows you to understand it or judge it in a different light.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Javert, as applied to speciation, creation theory is that God created all species at once, in the form of main progenitors. Each primary species was created with a library of alternate characteristics, that can be expressed simply by certain genetic switches (that are known to exist) being switched on or off. Thus the original canine could give rise to the hundreds of species of dogs that exist today, but no dog can ever become a cat, because the characteristic feline genes were not present in the progenitor of dogs, or any other species progenitor. (In other words, there is no parent species that can give rise to species as different as cats and dogs. The characteristics for cats and dogs had to be uniquely and originally created in a progenitor for each species.)
So... what do you do if remains are found of an animal which is clearly ancestral to both dogs and cats? Just say, "Fine, in that case, dogs and cats are simply varieties of the same species"?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: At least 500 sections of "junk"DNA are ultra-conserved. If they didn't serve important functions, there would be nothing to prevent them from undergoing rapid mutation.
Evidence shows that some of those regions can be deleted, and the mice are viable, and, in lab settings, no different from wild-type.
Maybe the effect only shows up over generations, or maybe the phenotype just doesn't show up in a lab setting.
Now, if a Creationist had chosen to actually lift a finger to carry out this straightforward experiment, one might have to start taking them seriously.
But it's been more than a hundred years since any Creationist was interested in doing science.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The characteristics for cats and dogs had to be uniquely and originally created in a progenitor for each species.
See, this disturbs me on a religious level. "Had to be"? Ron, your god may have such limitations, but my God does not.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: the more common tactic is to argue that the common ancestor is 'clearly' a member of one or the other group, and that scientists who say otherwise are deluding themselves.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa: "See, this disturbs me on a religious level. "Had to be"? Ron, your god may have such limitations, but my God does not."
Thank you. That's something that has always bothered me too, Lisa. I may not believe in any gods anymore, but when I did, this mindset disturbed me, and even now, it hints to me that something fishy is afoot.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then again, there's closemindedness on the other side as well. As in swbarnes2's dismissal of possible value of "junk" DNA by saying that it's considered meaningless.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
But there's no guarantee it does, and is possible that it has none, if the evidence points in that direction.
And even if it does have a use, like the appendix, it's probably something more or less incidental. However, I wonder what use the broken gene for making Vitamin C (was that it? The one without which we get scurvy, good source of which is citrus fruits?) could serve.
I'd not be surprised, I mean, if those leagues of broken and repeated genes do serve a function, but certainly not the same kind, or at least to the same extent, as the functional genes.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Then again, there's closemindedness on the other side as well. As in swbarnes2's dismissal of possible value of "junk" DNA by saying that it's considered meaningless.
What I wrote is plainly available above.
Misstateing what I said is plainly not going to work.
Sequences like this:
CACACAGCGACACACACACACACAGCACACACACACAG...that go on for 300 bases, or a thousand bases are not currently believed to have a function. That's the state of the consensus opinion. Thats' the kind of stuff we call "junk DNA"
Now, I'm perfectly will to to concede that things like promotors sequences were once classified as "junk" DNA, meaning that at the time, they were not believed to have a function.
Then they were found to have a function, and everyone stopped calling them that.
If you really think that every single stretch of DNA has a function, what do you predict will happen with, say, a megabase long deletion in a region of "junk" DNA?
If the mice turn out to be phenotypically indistinguishable from wild-type mice, you don't think it's reasoanble to conclude that at least some of the DNA might, in fact, do nothing?
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And even if it does have a use, like the appendix, it's probably something more or less incidental.
I wouldn't say it's "probably" anything. The correct scientific stance is "I don't know". I believe recent research has indicated a function for at least some areas of junk DNA. The fact that some regions of junk DNA are highly conserved also indicates some possible, if unknown, function exists. The fact that some regions of junk DNA can be deleted without causing apparent harm is not proof that those areas have no function or that all junk DNA therefore functionless.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, I'm perfectly will to to concede that things like promotors sequences were once classified as "junk" DNA, meaning that at the time, they were not believed to have a function.
I think the problem is one of terminology. For decades, it has been common for all non-coding DNA to be referred to as "junk" DNA. You are now referring to "junk" DNA as being only the sequences for which we are reasonably confident there is no function. I think that's where the confusion lies.
Even with the scientific blogosphere (Panda's Thumb, scienceblogs, etc.), your definition is not pervasive. In fact, this is the first time I've heard such a restrictive definition for "junk DNA", though I believe it's a better definition than the commonly used one.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:And even if it does have a use, like the appendix, it's probably something more or less incidental.
I wouldn't say it's "probably" anything. The correct scientific stance is "I don't know". I believe recent research has indicated a function for at least some areas of junk DNA. The fact that some regions of junk DNA are highly conserved also indicates some possible, if unknown, function exists. The fact that some regions of junk DNA can be deleted without causing apparent harm is not proof that those areas have no function or that all junk DNA therefore functionless.
Oh for goodness sake.
No one is claiming that there is any stretch of DNA for which we are 100% positive has absolutely no fuction.
The problem is with the people who are arguing something that mainstream science doesn't support.
See, when intelligent designers design things, they don't design extraneous, random functionless bits. Therefore, Creationists have to deny that there are any such sequences in DNA. Hence Lisa's split of DNA seuqneces into only two categories: the stuff whose function we know, and the stuff whose function we don't. No room there for a third category, the stuff with no function. My definition of "junk" DNA included the last two, and Lisa "fixed" it to only include the second.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, you asked: "So... what do you do if remains are found of an animal which is clearly ancestral to both dogs and cats? Just say, 'Fine, in that case, dogs and cats are simply varieties of the same species'?"
Yes, that would be a logical conclusion, if that were to be proven to be the case by gene-mapping. It would come as a great surprise, of course. Smilodon the progenitor of the tiger and the wolf? Not likely. But maybe not impossible.
The reason why all species had to be created in the form of progenitors (in keeping with creation theory), is simply because that is how most creationists have long understood the Genesis text, where it says: "Then God said, 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind'; and it was so." (Genesis 1:24; NKJV; see also vs. 11, 12, 21, 25) The late creationist biologist, Dr. Frank. L. Marsh (whom I once met), coined the term baramin, to designate the basic Genesis kind. It is formed of the Hebrew bara (created) + min (kind).
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now, I'm perfectly will to to concede that things like promotors sequences were once classified as "junk" DNA, meaning that at the time, they were not believed to have a function.
I think the problem is one of terminology. For decades, it has been common for all non-coding DNA to be referred to as "junk" DNA. You are now referring to "junk" DNA as being only the sequences for which we are reasonably confident there is no function. I think that's where the confusion lies.
Even with the scientific blogosphere (Panda's Thumb, scienceblogs, etc.), your definition is not pervasive. In fact, this is the first time I've heard such a restrictive definition for "junk DNA", though I believe it's a better definition than the commonly used one.
Okay...the first hit on Panda's Thumb, a link to Pharyngula:
"Regulatory regions have been known since the 1950s. I know regulatory regions; developmental biologists are acutely interested in them, sometimes to the point that they forget that there are functional genes attached to them. And I assure you: regulatory regions have never been classified as junk DNA. Junk DNA and regulatory regions are not synonyms."
But if this is your field more than it is the author's, I'm prepared to take your word over his.
Posts: 575 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:No one is claiming that there is any stretch of DNA for which we are 100% positive has absolutely no fuction.
No, but you did say that "Junk DNA" is a sequence of A's, C's, G's and T's that isn't believed to have any function". Until this conversation, the only exposure I've had to the term "junk DNA" referred to all DNA that did not code for proteins, some of which appears to have a function, and some of which appears to not.
Like I said, the confusion was over vocabulary. I don't think that I or Lisa disagree with the (clarified) substance of what you are saying.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good. And my point is that it is those areas of DNA that some people call "junk DNA" where we should look to see if we can find characteristic coding that is active and expressed ("turned on") in variations of the same species--and is it that sequence (along with others) that are responsible for the unique characteristics of the species variations?
And yes, King of Men, thank you for recognizing what I am proposing--a verifiable, experimental test that can falsify baraminology--which is basic to creation theory. By all means, try to nail me to the wall with it. Just understand that if you prove baraminology is true, then you will have nailed evolution theory to the wall.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"The reason why all species had to be created in the form of progenitors (in keeping with creation theory), is simply because that is how most creationists have long understood the Genesis text"
Is... is that it? Really, that's all it is?
You speak of science, of doing science correctly. Yet your basic reason for believing any of this is about as far from science as something can be!
As for the "kind" thing... what, precisely, do you mean?
Species level? Genus level? Family level? Order, class, phylum?
What kind of kinds do you mean, precisely? Which level was it, at that beginning?
What genetic evidence suggests that level? How does the fossil record jive with this, especially all the things like trilobites, so vastly different from current forms of life?
Kind is a very vague word. Created kind, as you suggest, does not make it any clearer, because it does not make clear which, specifically, are different kinds, and how you tell the difference.
Seriously.
Brown bears and black bears are each a "kind" of bear. Bears, humans and cats are all "kinds" of mammals. Mammals, and reptiles and birds are all "kinds" of vertebrates. Humans, insects and sponges are all "kinds" of animals.
quote:But if this is your field more than it is the author's, I'm prepared to take your word over his.
I'm just relating what my understanding of the common usage of the term "junk DNA" was prior to this thread.
From the same Panda's Thumb article:
quote:It’s also not true that science ignored junk DNA, in fact as this posting points out science has been studying Junk DNA for quite some time and in doing so discovered novel potential roles for some Junk DNA.
From another hit on Panda's Thumb:
quote:...so we cannot say for certain that the transcripts identified in the ENCODE project as being derived from non-coding parts of the genome (“junk DNA”) are exactly analogous to...
Another:
quote:"...That's how evolutionary science drives the discovery of functions for some of the so-called "junk" DNA."
In none of these contexts is it clear that junk DNA "isn't believed to have any function."
I'm not posting this to argue the definition. I prefer the definition that you use and it appears that some other scientists are using it in the same way. I was just trying to explain why it appeared that I disagreed with you when I was actually only confused by your terminology.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Based on no evidence, I feel like the term "junk DNA" is moving out of the common jargon,, mostly because of the confusion showing up in this thread. This could just be amongst my colleagues though.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron, there are numerous genes that have been discovered to be the result of past mutations and were not present in the original species.
The most famous recent discovery is that there were no genes for blue eyes in early human population, and that the gene only spread after a mutation occurred.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
0Megabyte, creationism is the theory that life, earth, and universe, were created by an Intelligent Designer we call God. This is the only other alternative to saying everything came into being of its own accord by natural processes operating on the basis of pure chance. Since life, earth, and the universe manifest an extreme amount of complex order, the presumptive greater likelihood is that all was the product of Intelligent Design.
You see five stones lined up in a row in the woods, and you know someone was there and arranged the stones as a marker, probably to indicate direction. You have no doubt. You know. And yet you come across the genome, with trillions of bytes of highly complex, inter-dependent order, and you blithely accept the claim that it all came about by chance, just because someone suggests unimaginably long lengths of time for it to have happened. Not to mention the whole universe, and all the laws of physics, that have to be "just so" for anything to work.
Now, any reasonable person must admit that life, earth, and the universe were either created by Intelligent Design, or somehow came into being on its own by chance. Why is only the latter possibility science? The former possibility, which is far more reasonably likely, is surely just as scientific. Especially if it is the truth. How can the truth not be science?
And it is only one step more to consider that if God did create life, earth, and the universe, then He would most likely have desired to communicate in some way with His creatures, us humans. Otherwise why did He bother to make us? And if He wanted to communicate with us, is not the Bible the most likely means by which He would have done this? Call it all "faith," but these are not unreasonable steps of logic.
If the Creator has given us His own first-hand testimony about the creation of life on this world, then how could it possibly be unscientific to take it into consideration? Faith is not irrational. Indeed, faith may be a part of true science. It has to be, without dispute, if it is true.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:You see five stones lined up in a row in the woods, and you know someone was there and arranged the stones as a marker, probably to indicate direction. You have no doubt.
Only because we know people line stones up to indicate direction, or we know that people assemble rudimentary objects or shapes into patterns to communicate ideas. Nothing is obvious about the rocks placed in a row until we have a significant amount of experience with the sort of beings which we suspect placed the rocks. We have no such foreknowledge of the supposed assembly (or assembler) of the molecules that form DNA.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
"0Megabyte, creationism is the theory that life, earth, and universe, were created by an Intelligent Designer we call God."
I'm well aware of what creationism is. And I'm also aware that you aren't even bothering to differentiate between I.D. and creationism.
"This is the only other alternative to saying everything came into being of its own accord by natural processes operating on the basis of pure chance."
This is false, for multiple reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that the theory we use is, in essence, the opposite of chance.
Furthermore, there are plenty more than the three theories stated (three, not two, mind. The two you mention, and the one we actually believe.)
"Since life, earth, and the universe manifest an extreme amount of complex order, the presumptive greater likelihood is that all was the product of Intelligent Design."
Why do you assume so?
This also begs the question: Where did the intelligent designer come from?
And yes, you can say God always was... but if God, an entity almost certainly more complex than the universe, could "always have been", why couldn't the less complex universe "always have been"?
"You see five stones lined up in a row in the woods, and you know someone was there and arranged the stones as a marker, probably to indicate direction. You have no doubt. You know. And yet you come across the genome, with trillions of bytes of highly complex, inter-dependent order, and you blithely accept the claim that it all came about by chance, just because someone suggests unimaginably long lengths of time for it to have happened."
False analogy.
Seriously false analogy.
Even if you actually got what we argue correct, which you didn't, it'd still be a false analogy.
The difference between a series of rocks, and life, is this: Chemical processes that both reproduce as well as possess a key point: heredity.
That's the key concept. And in any conversation about origins, it needs to be written thus:
HEREDITY!
Rocks, or better, an aluminum can, while formed in a complex manner, has no heredity. They do not reproduce. They do not pass on the same traits to the things they reproduce. Fire creates more fire, but it does not possess heredity.
Chemical reactions, and the laws of chemistry, however, show that self-replicating molecules can come about, and in fact have. They appear in every single cell, and break no laws in doing so.
The point I'm getting across is this: rocks in a row does not, when it finds the right materials, make a copy of itself with those materials. Chemicals, however, do.
And that's a fact.
"Not to mention the whole universe, and all the laws of physics, that have to be "just so" for anything to work."
Several points here:
Perhaps there is a deistic god that wound up the world before it began. I don't know. But even if there was, it wouldn't prove that it was the god you worship, not in the least.
And it wouldn't prove your special creation happened 6,000 years ago.
Further: How, again, do you know that conditions have to be "just so"?
Other kinds of universes could work in ways we have not predicted. Other kinds of living things could be there.
Even if they were nothing like us, don't make the mistake of being so Earth-centric as to think our kind of life is the only kind that can exist. Further, don't make the mistake that the various kinds of life that can exist in our universe are the only kinds that can exist.
Remember the weak anthropic principle.
"Now, any reasonable person must admit that life, earth, and the universe were either created by Intellgent Design, or somehow came into being on its own by chance."
Uh, false.
Again. Things did not come about on their own by chance. That's the exact opposite of evolutionary theory.
So, once more, please stop with the false dichotomies. And all the other logical fallacies, for that matter, which I'm listing as I go on.
"Why is only the latter possibility science?"
The strawman you're using isn't science. Try to get that right, please.
"The former possibility, which is far more reasonably likely, is surely just as scientific."
You're right. It's exactly as scientific as the other theory you listed.
" Especially if it is the truth. How can the truth not be science?"
Um... when you never went to the trouble of collecting evidence, testing, etc?
Plenty of conclusions can be true, but come to through an unscientific manner.
There's such a thing as a "lucky guess" after all.
"And it is only one step more to consider that if God did create life, earth, and the universe, then He would most likely have desired to communicate in some way with His creatures, us humans. Otherwise why did He bother to make us? And if He wanted to communicate with us, is not the Bible the most likely means by which He would have done this? Call it all "faith," but these are not unreasonable steps of logic."
One step more, yes. But you haven't adequately shown the previous steps, and these steps are therefore moot, until you do.
"If the Creator has given us His own first-hand testimony about the creation of life on this world, then how could it possibly be unscientific to take it into consideration?"
Depends entirely on the nature of the testimony.
Does he show it using the scientific method? Does he use evidence, prove it with formula, all of which he would easily be able to do if he existed?
Or does he just say so?
If the former, it's not unscientific. If the latter, it's not science. But it's still something quite huge if a god literally hands us his own first-and testimony.
Of course, you've yet to prove that any such god actually has done so.
Try doing that first, please. Once again, the whole idea is moot until you do.
"Faith is not irrational. Indeed, faith may be a part of true science. It has to be, without dispute, if it is true."
Believing something without evidence is not rational. However, it has nothing to do with whether it's accurate or not.
Once more, stop equating truth with science! Just because something is true does not magically make it science. It's the method that's key. People can come to correct answers through nonscientific means, and through random wild guessing. Just because your guess was right does not mean it's science.
---
Anyway. To be clear: Stop claiming evolution says the opposite of what it says!
Yes, evolution would not be possible without random mutations. However. Random mutations alone does NOT equal evolutionary theory. As another person said, that's like saying you make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich with peanut butter and bread.
Heredity is the bread. Chance mutations are the peanut butter.
But the equally important jelly, without which there is no PB&J sandwich, is natural selection. Some variations reproduce more effectively than others, and become more common, for the simple fact that they reproduce faster, or better, or survive longer, or whatever.
So please, could you at least try get the theory right when you try to debunk it?
It kind of helps, for the straw man you love to beat is not evolutionary theory, and beating it does nothing but damage your credibility.
You can't destroy an argument if you're attacking something that's unrelated to said argument.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if you see order anywhere, you're saying that it must have happened through complete random chance or by the design of an intelligent creator? It seems to me that people are made all the time through neither of those means.
Let's say, hypothetically, that my wife finds herself nine months pregnant. One year ago she had nothing in her uterus, and now she has something that is so large that she can hardly stand, and astronomically more complex than five stones lined up in the woods. Are you saying that the only two possibilities for how this thing got there are random chance or an intelligent entity building it from its tiny component parts?
If I were to present you a book that professed to be written by a man who visited my wife every night and added some more hand-crafted cells and molecules to the creature in her belly, would you instantly believe it, as the only alternative to its absolute truth is that these organs happened to form themselves by random chance, against phenomenal odds?
Are you so convinced of the dichotomy between random chance and intelligent design that you never consider the irrevocable laws of physics and biology?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: You see five stones lined up in a row in the woods, and you know someone was there and arranged the stones as a marker, probably to indicate direction. You have no doubt. You know. And yet you come across the genome, with trillions of bytes of highly complex, inter-dependent order, and you blithely accept the claim that it all came about by chance, just because someone suggests unimaginably long lengths of time for it to have happened. Not to mention the whole universe, and all the laws of physics, that have to be "just so" for anything to work.
Quick question. If you think everything was designed in the first place, how are you differentiating the design in the stones from the design of everything else?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I saw five rocks in a row in the woods, I would not assume someone had done it. It is entirely possible that they just randomly ended up that way. If there were footprints beside the rocks and maybe little pits indicating where the rocks used to be, then I would think human influence. Mankind tends to find patterns where they don't exist.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: And yet you come across the genome, with trillions of bytes
More like billions of byes and in the low billions at that.
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: of highly complex, inter-dependent order
Maybe one day you or resh will provide a formal definition of "complex."
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: and you blithely accept the claim that it all came about by chance, just because someone suggests unimaginably long lengths of time for it to have happened.
Come on Ron. I know that you know that there is more to the acceptance of evolutionary theory than the concept of long time intervals.
Here's an interesting video that you probably won't find very interesting. It addresses the claim that complexity cannot come about through an evolutionary process. It uses a very simple model but the overall message should be clear.
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil Laugh]](graemlins/evillaugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
