Design

[rossum]

Right. And I call it micro-evolution which no one denies. It is the creative claim evolution makes that is the issue.

The smallest macro-evolutionary change I am aware of is three mutations to make a new species. Are you saying that evolution cannot stretch to three mutations? See Tauber and Tauber (1977).

This is why it is so important that the design side provide an objective way to measure CSI. It is easy to show that evolution can increase Shannon information and Kolmogorov information. In the absence of a valid measure of CSI it is impossible to tell whether or not evolution can increase CSI. What impact did those three changes have on CSI? Increase, decrease or unchanged? How do you tell without measuring?

Merely claiming that evolution cannot increase CSI is not enough. It needs to be measured accurately and objectively.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The smallest macro-evolutionary change I am aware of is three mutations to make a new species. Are you saying that evolution cannot stretch to three mutations? See Tauber and Tauber (1977).

This is why it is so important that the design side provide an objective way to measure CSI. It is easy to show that evolution can increase Shannon information and Kolmogorov information. In the absence of a valid measure of CSI it is impossible to tell whether or not evolution can increase CSI. What impact did those three changes have on CSI? Increase, decrease or unchanged? How do you tell without measuring?

Merely claiming that evolution cannot increase CSI is not enough. It needs to be measured accurately and objectively.

rossum

Begs the definition of a “new species”.

When Theory and Experiment Collide

 

[rossum]

What we actually observe is rapid appearance, stasis and variation within. We do not see bacteria becoming anything other than bacteria. It seems they stay what they begin as.

I know that grass does not grow. I spent a whole ten minutes looking at a blade of grass and it didn’t grow at all. You need to look n the right timescale for large scale changes.

Thousands of generations of fruitflies in the longest running evo experiment and they are still fruitflies.

You do realise that there are over 1,500 different species of fruit fly? All of those species macro-evolved from a single ancestor. Fruit fly (Drosophila) is a genus, not a single species. There is plenty of room for macro-evolution within the Drosophila.

We see HGT all over the place.

No. We see it in bacteria and arche. It is very rare in eukaryotes.

Junk DNA is no more.

False. Junk DNA is doing very well. Creationist sources latched onto a single study, Encode, and misrepresented its results.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Begs the definition of a “new species”.

The two do not interbreed. They have different breeding seasons as well as different camouflage colouration, so live in different trees. Hence they are different species

rossum

 

[buffalo]

I know that grass does not grow. I spent a whole ten minutes looking at a blade of grass and it didn’t grow at all. You need to look n the right timescale for large scale changes. (living fossils)

You do realise that there are over 1,500 different species of fruit fly? All of those species macro-evolved from a single ancestor. Fruit fly (Drosophila) is a genus, not a single species. There is plenty of room for macro-evolution within the Drosophila.

(no hard evidence)

No. We see it in bacteria and arche. It is very rare in eukaryotes.

False. Junk DNA is doing very well. Creationist sources latched onto a single study, Encode, and misrepresented its results. (every day we are finding uses for it - like a huge database it is called upon when needed)

rossum

 

[buffalo]

The two do not interbreed. They have different breeding seasons as well as different camouflage colouration, so live in different trees. Hence they are different species

rossum

Species is a man-made construct. Camo is adaptation. Living in different trees? Really?

 

[tonyrey]

I’m genuinely curious. Where does accepted micro-evolution collide with the unaccepted macro?

If germs can evolve, then can really tiny bugs? Big bugs? Mice? Cats? People? Elephants? Blue Whales? Dinosaurs?

Where is that line and how do I know I’ve found it?

Without going into unnecessary details, how about homo sapiens?

 

[tonyrey]

I know that grass does not grow. I spent a whole ten minutes looking at a blade of grass and it didn’t grow at all. You need to look n the right timescale for large scale changes.

You do realise that there are over 1,500 different species of fruit fly? All of those species macro-evolved from a single ancestor. Fruit fly (Drosophila) is a genus, not a single species. There is plenty of room for macro-evolution within the Drosophila.

No. We see it in bacteria and arche. It is very rare in eukaryotes.

False. Junk DNA is doing very well. Creationist sources latched onto a single study, Encode, and misrepresented its results.

rossum

Is homo sapiens nothing more than the product of DNA?

 

[tonyrey]

Yet another ad hominem - and a red herring into the bargain. The issue is Design not a supposed cross-church conspiracy. It would be more pertinent to answer one simple question: Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?

And even here you still use this false dichotomy which tries to trap me into accepting ID.

Please explain why the choice between Design and non-Design is a false dichotomy.

The ID fan allows me only two options - on the one hand Design, reason and purpose. On the other hand, Chance, materialism and Dawkins.

What is the other option?

It’s a religious argument, you used the word God in it. I never said anything about a cross-church conspiracy, you invented that. And it is a fact that ID demands no loyalty to any particular religion, only to itself in its false dichotomy. ]And even here you still use this false dichotomy which tries to trap me into accepting ID.

The ID fan allows me only two options - on the one hand Design, reason and purpose. On the other hand, Chance, materialism and Dawkins.

It’s a religious argument, you used the word God in it.

The term God is also used in philosophical arguments/

I never said anything about a cross-church conspiracy, you invented that. And it is a fact that ID demands no loyalty to any particular religion, only to itself in its false dichotomy.

As I said, the Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals, and it has successfully created a schism among Catholics.

Did this supposed schism occur as the result of Chance and Physical Necessity? Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever? Why do you keep evading a simple question in a philosophical discussion?

 

[Vonsalza]

Please explain why the choice between Design and non-Design is a false dichotomy.

“Design and Non-Design” is a true dichotomy. The Latin negation of (non-) simply means “not-”. Cats and shotguns are examples of “non-design”, even if they don’t pertain to the question of “How did humanity come into being”.

Now “Design and Evolution”, that is not a dichotomy. Some believe the planet was seeded by aliens. So there’s another option.

Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?

He created it for His own reasons. None of which we know.

 

[tonyrey]

Yet another ad hominem - and a red herring into the bargain. The issue is Design

Please explain why the choice between Design and non-Design is a false dichotomy.

The ID fan allows me only two options - on the one hand Design, reason and purpose. On the other hand, Chance, materialism and Dawkins.

Please name the other options?

It’s a religious argument, you used the word God in it.

The term God is also used in philosophical arguments…

I never said anything about a cross-church conspiracy, you invented that. And it is a fact that ID demands no loyalty to any particular religion, only to itself in its false dichotomy.

Yet you claim:

As I said, the Discovery Institute is funded largely by evangelicals, and it has successfully created a schism among Catholics.

Did this supposed schism also occur accidentally?

In a philosophical discussion it is reasonable to expect an answer to a straightforward question:

Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?

 

[tonyrey]

Please explain why the choice between Design and non-Design is a false dichotomy.

There is a vast difference between Non-Design and non-design.

Now “Design and Evolution”, that is not a dichotomy. Some believe the planet was seeded by aliens. So there’s another option.

The issue is the** ultimate **explanation of the universe not the origin of life on this planet.

Did God create the universe for no reason or purpose whatsoever?

He created it for His own reasons. None of which we know.

The issue is not whether we know the reason(s) for creating the universe but whether God created the universe for any reason.

 

[Vonsalza]

I find it interesting that my last reply was somehow moved above the post I was replying to.

At any rate…

There is a vast difference between Non-Design and non-design.

As it relates to how dichotomies and Latin negation work, no. No there is not.

The issue is the** ultimate **explanation of the universe not the origin of life on this planet.

No, ID and evolution work toward answering life on the planet. They do not attempt to explain how Jupiter, the Milky Way and quasars got where they are. They do not address “how do magnets work?” They are not “theories of everything”.

The issue is not whether we know the reason(s) for creating the universe but whether God created the universe for any reason.

If we don’t know the reasons why God “made it all”, then we can’t have an intelligent conversation about those reasons in general. Best guess? It pleased God to do it.

 

[tonyrey]

The belief in Chance and Necessity is supposed to be a result of Chance and Necessity…:whacky:

The proponents of Chance and Necessity always (and necessarily) exclude themselves as if they are independent observers who transcend Chance and Necessity but they never explain how they can violate the law of conservation of energy…

 

[Vonsalza]

The belief in God is supposed to be a result of God…:whacky:



rossum

I think this bears reposting as it identifies the blasting of the same type of logic used by the blaster.

And on:

The proponents of Chance and Necessity always (and necessarily) exclude themselves as if they are independent observers who transcend Chance and Necessity but they never explain how they can violate the law of conservation of energy…

I don’t see that they do exclude themselves from it. I think you’ve put your cart in front of your horse.

 

[tonyrey]

The proponents of Chance and Necessity always (and necessarily) exclude themselves as if they are independent observers who transcend Chance and Necessity but they never explain how they can violate the law of conservation of energy…

They may not be aware they are excluding themselves but if** all** their thoughts and conclusions are determined by Chance and Necessity they are biological computers incapable of insight and independent reasoning. There is no guarantee they will ever know the truth because there are far more ways of being wrong than right. A mindless brain isn’t worth having. We don’t trust computers to make our decisions for us because we know they are programmed and they don’t know what they are doing. The truth makes us free but we have to be free to reach the truth! Otherwise it’s like looking for a needle in a haystack, i.e. a waste of time and energy…

 

[buffalo]

I find it interesting that my last reply was somehow moved above the post I was replying to.

At any rate…

As it relates to how dichotomies and Latin negation work, no. No there is not.

No, ID and evolution work toward answering life on the planet. They do not attempt to explain how Jupiter, the Milky Way and quasars got where they are. They do not address “how do magnets work?” They are not “theories of everything”.

If we don’t know the reasons why God “made it all”, then we can’t have an intelligent conversation about those reasons in general. Best guess? It pleased God to do it.

But we do know - He made it for us.

 

[tonyrey]

There is a vast difference between Non-Design and non-design.

As it relates to how dichotomies and Latin negation work, no. No there is not.

 

[tonyrey]

But we do know - He made it for us.

But not only us…

 

[tonyrey]

False. Junk DNA is doing very well. Creationist sources latched onto a single study, Encode, and misrepresented its results.

Do you attribute the existence of everyone - including yourself - to junk DNA?