Being a Theistic evolutionist?

[rossum]

That is like saying we know where the OS on any computer came from, it was copied from the "parent” installation disk or iCloud server onto the computer so it has a very obvious and well-known antecedent. It explains, precisely, NOTHING.

Then until ID explains the origin of its proposed designer, it too has explained “precisely NOTHING”.

Evolution has demonstrated increases in the information contained in DNA through observed mutational processes: duplication and point mutations. Where are the equivalent ID experiments demonstrating increases in information due to the action of the designer?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Design of an experiment just means that the experiment is designed. That is all.

No. Design of an experiment means that you could not get the results you wanted without designing the experiment.

Experiments are not random events. They are intelligently designed.

So you are caught up in a semantic bind.

Either the universe and everything in it is intelligently designed, or it is all random and meaningless.

What is a third alternative?

 

[TEPO]

Whats amazing to me, is that science attempts to interpret man by what exists on the ‘outside’. It looks at everything around us to understand us… What might be a better thing to do would be to study us, without simplifying things by trying to reduce us to the low levels of our own understandings… It’s not an honest approach to research IMHO.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Evolution has demonstrated increases in the information contained in DNA through observed mutational processes: duplication and point mutations. Where are the equivalent ID experiments demonstrating increases in information due to the action of the designer?

So what you’re saying is that if I say the universe and everything in it seems to be the product of intelligent design, that intelligent design is not provable without getting inside the mind of the designer?

Or are you just saying there is no designer of the universe?

In which case you are clearly an atheist. Prove that!

 

[TEPO]

Do you have an example of what you mean? Some inter-generational transfers are epigenetic, while others are built into DNA (such as the pattern of a spider’s web).

rossum

What I’m saying is that there is some sort of memory that exists which is proven through DNA, as reproduction produces the like. But alterations do occur. While atmospheric changes take place, for example, DNA may alter lung structure -therefore the basic DNA structure allows for a lung change through time, while other changes, such as having two eyes instead of 4 remain the same…

So what force is it that denies change to take place in one area while other changes take place. IOW, we know that the ‘change’ is called Evolution… So what is the other factor called that causes resistance to change? memory?

Is this a concept that has even been identified?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Then until ID explains the origin of its proposed designer, it too has explained “precisely NOTHING”.

Well, not quite true. If chemistry and laws of physics cannot adequately explain genetic code, then the field is open to other explanations. Certainly, science is free to attempt to establish that something has been missed in the body of evidence and it plans to continue searching. However, ID need not explain “the origin of the proposed designer” it need only define the minimal and defining characteristics that would serve to explain the origin and nature of the code itself.

Archeological or forensic evidence does not need to explain the “origin of the proposed agent,” but, rather, that the artifact in question could only have been the result of agency. The “origin” of the agent is a secondary question only pursued after the question of agency has been plausibly established. Let’s keep our ducks on a row, here, rossum.

All scientific theories are given latitude in terms of progression of where the evidence leads. If X is established we have reason for thinking Y. What you are doing is insisting that Y must be established BEFORE you accept X, i.e., that the origin of the Designer must be proved before you accept that a “designer” is needed.

Evolution has demonstrated increases in the information contained in DNA through observed mutational processes: duplication and point mutations. Where are the equivalent ID experiments demonstrating increases in information due to the action of the designer?
rossum

I realize this is an old one, but “junk DNA” was also consistent with “observed mutational processes” because such an unguided process would be expected to have a great deal of non-functional or “junk” code. Turns out that wasn’t true, consistent with a design hypothesis.

All the evidence for “mutational process” is also consistent with designed processes, so these do not rule out design even though under “cobbled together” interpretations they don’t PROVE the mutational processes but, rather, are just not inconsistent with them. That isn’t much of a burden to carry, though.

 

[rossum]

I am not clear that an explanation for the increase or decrease in information is even an issue. The question is why information that was susceptible to alteration existed in DNA in the first place.

Currently the most popular hypothesis is that it was copied from an RNA precursor.

The “increase” part is important because it means that we can start with a simple precursor and add small increases in information every few generations and so end up, after many generations, with a more information-rich descendant.

For example, on a rough calculation there are 3.47e12 generations between us and the first primitive living cell. Our genome contains 3e9 base pairs, which is equivalent to 6e9 bits of information. That allows 578.37 generations on average for each bit of information to be added to the human genome. 580 generations is 11,600 years. That means that the human genome has added one bit since 9,600 BCE. We are looking at a very slow accumulation of information over a very long time.

If the amount of information has increased, the issue still comes down to how the original information could have been amenable to addition without destruction, since “random” change to information is virtually always destructive. Got one?

Certainly I have one. First, the great majority of random changes to our genomes are not destructive, but neutral. Of those that are not neutral, the majority are deleterious with a small number being beneficial. Natural selection weeds out the deleterious changes, leaves the neutral mutations unaffected and increases the proportion of the beneficial changes. Natural selection is a highly non-random process that differentially amplifies mutations.

If information “amount” has decreased then an explanation for the inverse correlation of increase in complexity in life forms to decrease in genetic information would be required. Got one?

Yes. Evolution is a process of information transfer from the environment to the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Any reduction is due to the environment. Cave fish do not need eyes in dark caves, so the information for making eyes is degraded or lost in those species. It is deleterious to expend energy growing eyes when there is no light to see. Natural selection removes that information.

There is information in DNA, how did that information come about since it could not have been the result of chemical processes or physical laws.

Your assertion is false. Information in DNA can come about due to processes of mutation and natural selection. Mutations provide a wide range of (name removed by moderator)uts, and natural selection differentially amplifies those (name removed by moderator)uts, increasing the beneficial ones and eliminating the deleterious ones. A beneficial mutation is one which matches the organism’s environment. Hence the information transfer from the environment to DNA. The more information is transferred over time, the more information there is in the DNA.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The claim of atheistic evolution then is that any and all physicall processes are purely ‘random’.

I am not aware of any atheist who claims that the physical process of gravity is purely random. Nor are there any biologists who claim that natural selection is purely random. Someone is misinforming you.

rossum

 

[Peter_Plato]

Your assertion is false. Information in DNA can come about due to processes of mutation and natural selection. Mutations provide a wide range of (name removed by moderator)uts, and natural selection differentially amplifies those (name removed by moderator)uts, increasing the beneficial ones and eliminating the deleterious ones. A beneficial mutation is one which matches the organism’s environment. Hence the information transfer from the environment to DNA. The more information is transferred over time, the more information there is in the DNA.

rossum

Well, no. Mutation and natural selection presuppose a minimal amount of information because both presuppose and could not occur without replication. Information could “be added” to an information rich base, but the genesis of that base is not explained by mutation and natural selection since both presuppose and rely on it.

Clearly, the more robust the information base, the more leeway that mutation and natural selection would have in terms of not “messing up the works.” It certainly isn’t clear how mutation and natural selection could start with nothing “information-wise” and build to a rich database without a whole lot of presupposing.

 

[TEPO]

I am not aware of any atheist who claims that the physical process of gravity is purely random. Nor are there any biologists who claim that natural selection is purely random. Someone is misinforming you.

rossum

I dont understand how biologists can even believe in natural selection considering plant evolution. The fact that all life forms whether plant or animal, change and stay the same… We know one is evolution. What is the other.

Its the elephant in the room. the most important part…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Certainly I have one. First, the great majority of random changes to our genomes are not destructive, but neutral. Of those that are not neutral, the majority are deleterious with a small number being beneficial. Natural selection weeds out the deleterious changes, leaves the neutral mutations unaffected and increases the proportion of the beneficial changes. Natural selection is a highly non-random process that differentially amplifies mutations.

rossum

If the great majority of random changes are neutral we would expect to find a great deal of non-functional or “junk” code - code that does nothing or has no effect, which can be changed without making a substantial difference to the genome. That isn’t the case, however. A very tiny amount of code, if any, is “neutral” in the way you describe. Even if a large portion of neutral parts exist, these might be “unused sectors” intended for future designation in the way the formatting of a hard drive is “open” to future data by design.

Either way, much of this is going to depend upon understanding how genetic code works and clearly more headway is being made by treating it as being designed towards specific ends than treating it as an amplified assemblage of selected mutational effects, but time will tell.

 

[Peter_Plato]

.

Yes. Evolution is a process of information transfer from the environment to the DNA of organisms living in that environment. Any reduction is due to the environment. Cave fish do not need eyes in dark caves, so the information for making eyes is degraded or lost in those species. It is deleterious to expend energy growing eyes when there is no light to see. Natural selection removes that information.
rossum

Removes it or ignores it? Is it “hidden” and unused or deleted? How do you know?

That last is a serious question. You know it or presume the answer?

 

[TEPO]

I know you know what I’m talking about Rossum. Just give me anything to go on, whatever you think, just go with it.

This battle betwween evolutionists and non-evolutionists doesnt need to exist… What if this is really a battle between human Progressive and Traditional instincts, which trace back to our own spiritual properties of evolution and memory.

…the two really should get along peacefully -without one overshadowing the other forcefully as we see in science today and in the world.

 

[edwest2]

Scientists discover a second code hidden in DNA:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Discoveries regarding non-coding DNA (formerly ‘junk DNA,’ but note interpretation bias):

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123142029.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140217085240.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100623132102.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

Scientists discover a second code hidden in DNA:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Discoveries regarding non-coding DNA (formerly ‘junk DNA’, but note interpretation bias):

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/01/140123142029.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/02/140217085240.htm

sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100623132102.htm

Peace,
Ed

From the first article…

The discovery of duons has major implications for how scientists and physicians interpret a patient’s genome and will open new doors to the diagnosis and treatment of disease.

“The fact that the genetic code can simultaneously write two kinds of information means that many DNA changes that appear to alter protein sequences may actually cause disease by disrupting gene control programs or even both mechanisms simultaneously,” said Stamatoyannopoulos.

This means “mutations” may effect a kind of double jeopardy on cells, making mutations doubly risky with regard to functional code.

The plot continues to thicken …

 

[Ambien89]

I am not aware of any atheist who claims that the physical process of gravity is purely random. Nor are there any biologists who claim that natural selection is purely random. Someone is misinforming you.

rossum

Yes, they assert that a contingency is indeed purely ‘random’. That is to say that they deny the principle of sufficient reason. From such a position, all ‘laws’ are ad hoc. The other route is that all contingencies are purely necessary, which relies on a monistic conception of substance as simply being existence, which is to apply the description of God to the world. These statements require philosophical debate and have nothing to do with sheer induction. These are the things that frame understanding itself.

 

[TEPO]

Science has ignored the fact that there exists a force that resists evolution through mutation and genetic drift. If such a force didn’t exist, we wouldn’t all look so similar -and we wouldn’t work properly.

In the meantime, the science community focuses solely on ‘changes’, the winner, while completely ignoring the force of memory, which is depicted as the loser. But is it? By studying the force of memory in humans, or in life in general, can we assume that the purest form of life is an unchanging, unalterable constant, where matter around it become possessed by a massive force of memory life? Perhaps that is what God is… An unchanging ‘life’ that possesses elements through His thoughts. Pure life to the fullest extent and completely unchangable. That would make sense to me.

 

[TEPO]

If this were not true, then resistance to change would not exist, and life would not exist. But since we know this force does exist, yet it remains the elephant in the room, we know that life resists change and death, because they are at odds. If there is a source for life, it must also be opposed to change and death. But it could only be opposed to these things if it was already surrounded by eternal perfection. Which explains heaven…

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
*Thank you for the very clear explanation – **Populations evolve, not individuals. ***

This is the exact position of 21st century science of human evolution which directly opposes the Catholic teaching of monogenism, two sole human founders of the human species.

You keep talking about " the exact position of 21st century science of human evolution**" as if it has supplanted the basic 20th century understanding. It has not. The 20th century understanding of evolution is still the basis. Some researchers have gone further and proposed conclusions that are in direct opposition to Catholic teaching on monogenism. But you don’t have to believe them to believe in evolution, which is not directly opposed to Catholic teaching.

I put the familiar comment in bold. The “as if it has supplanted the basic 20th century understanding” is not implied in any of my posts.

Perhaps, it will make more sense to consider the additions to 20th century scientific research. For example, the 21st century completion of the Human Genome Project is huge. Scientists now study more than 3 billion human DNA base pairs.

Last year, the find of the Dmanisi Skull once again proved “that a single fossil can transform our picture of human ancestors.” Paleoanthropologists are trying to piece together the puzzle of one of the most complete sculls which relates to two different hominin populations. “Or it could belong to a new species.” (Science, VOL 342, 20 December 2013, page 1435)

Plus, there is a claim that the Wright-Fisher model and its modern adaptations have recently improved to the point that some of the time-honored 20th century assumptions may be replaced by new data methods.

Even when we look at the 20th century, there are radical changes to the original evolution concepts because of the work of evolutionists Motoo Kimura and Carl Woese who, on a Google link, are listed among the rebels and mavericks in biology. In the 2012 book Science & Human Origins, by Ann Gauger, Douglas Axe, & Casey Luskin, ISBN-13: 978-1-936599-04-2 (paperback), Dr. Gauger, in chapters one and five, presents current information about evolution. In chapter five, she answers the old 1995 genetic diversity problem via a review of scientific literature from the last decade of the last century to present. More important, she uses the insights gained in this century to evaluate proposals of the old century.

We need to consider the fate of the Piltdown Man and move on into the present where the science of human evolution does teach that populations did evolve over time until they evolved into the first population of all humans. In any century, since Pentecost, the Catholic Church has never taught that the first population of humans committed the one Original Sin. May I gently suggest that those of us, who are a tad interested in the science of human evolution, get up to speed when it comes to the population (polygenism) opposition to the basic Catholic doctrines (plural intended) of Original Sin.

 

[TEPO]

I also think it’s odd that dark matter neither emits or absorbs light. In fact, it appears to be non-reactive to anything suggesting that it might be unchangable by outside means.

Since it cannot be seen, it’s only known to exist because of IT’S gravitational pull which effects other things, so there is no evidence that dark matter can be effected by anything else. In fact it appears to only effect. With this in mind, it appears that physical life and dark matter seem to share some things in common… Resistance to change (to some extent), and the ability to manipulate surroundings.

Dark energy is amazing too, because it does not dilute as the universe expands. Rather, it’s density remains constant unlike radiation, electricity or any other force we know of. It’s unchangeable and seems to live forever. If human life were considered soul and body, it could be compared to dark energy and dark matter…