Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rossum said:
You say “amount”. That is a measure. How do you accurately and objectively measure FSCI? Now you have to objectively define both “specified” and “functional”. Your new acronym has just doubled the work you have to do.

Calculating odds requires numbers. If you do not have numbers then you have no odds. How do we objectively measure those numbers?

rossum
Click to expand...
Working…working…working…
 
buffalo said:
Magic, the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) is being taught in biology class.
Click to expand...
Natural selection is not “blind unguided chance”. If you do not include natural selection then whatever you are doing it is not relevant to evolution. Too many creationist probability calculations leave out the effects of natural selection, so they are not relevant to evolution.

Also remember that chemistry is not “blind unguided chance” either. If we mix a load of hydrogen and oxygen atoms together then “blind unguided chance” would result in equal quantities of H[sub]2[/sub]O and HO[sub]2[/sub]. A lot of things in science are not “blind unguided chance”.

rossum
 
rossum said:
Natural selection is not “blind unguided chance”. If you do not include natural selection then whatever you are doing it is not relevant to evolution. Too many creationist probability calculations leave out the effects of natural selection, so they are not relevant to evolution.

Also remember that chemistry is not “blind unguided chance” either. If we mix a load of hydrogen and oxygen atoms together then “blind unguided chance” would result in equal quantities of H[sub]2[/sub]O and HO[sub]2[/sub]. A lot of things in science are not “blind unguided chance”.

rossum
Click to expand...
You are not claiming that NS has foresight?
 
Charlemagne_III said:
This is right on.

A pope accepting evolution does not make evolution a dogma, and evolution, because it is science, can be wrong.

What the pope said (all he can say) is that accepting evolution is not a heresy, which is altogether different from saying it is a truth.
Click to expand...
Correct. Pithy AND well-said. 👍
 
buffalo said:
You are not claiming that NS has foresight?
Click to expand...
No, it does not. My point is that NS is not “unguided chance”. It is guided by current (not future) conditions in the immediate environment. Mutations for white fur will be advantageous in snowy environments, and so will be selected for.

NS differentially amplifies beneficial mutations and reduces deleterious mutations. White fur becomes more common and black fur rarer in snowy environments. In a different environment white fur may be deleterious rather than advantageous and so would be rare. NS depends on the environment.

rossum
 
rossum said:
No, it does not. My point is that NS is not “unguided chance”. It is guided by current (not future) conditions in the immediate environment. Mutations for white fur will be advantageous in snowy environments, and so will be selected for.

NS differentially amplifies beneficial mutations and reduces deleterious mutations. White fur becomes more common and black fur rarer in snowy environments. In a different environment white fur may be deleterious rather than advantageous and so would be rare. NS depends on the environment.

rossum
Click to expand...
I call this adaptation.
 
Vonsalza said:
Maybe you don’t “see it” because you’re not Catholic, but Catholics are fairly free to hold a diversity of opinions on things not defined by dogma.

I don’t find that this diversity spawns atheism. I find that it spawns discussion.

And just because most on the forum are, presumably, not employed in a “life-science” field does not mean that they somehow can’t hold a sound opinion. As the old adage goes, “Ask 10 doctors, get 11 different opinions.”
Click to expand...
Discussion of evolution was banned here for a while, and before that there were almighty flare ups between ID fans and other Catholics. Same thing happened in my church, and the pastor banned discussion. I know of no other subject which can sow such discord in a church. Take any congregation getting along happily, put a single ID fan into it, and mayhem ensues. Don’t know why as virtual no one involved ever has any education in life sciences beyond a fondness for pictures of kittens. ID has succeeded brilliantly in creating a cross-church special interest group who often seem to feel they have more in common with each other than the people sitting alongside them in their own churches. Got to give those evangelicals credit for their asymmetric warfare against established religions.
 
inocente said:
Discussion of evolution was banned here for a while, and before that there were almighty flare ups between ID fans and other Catholics. Same thing happened in my church, and the pastor banned discussion. I know of no other subject which can sow such discord in a church. Take any congregation getting along happily, put a single ID fan into it, and mayhem ensues. Don’t know why as virtual no one involved ever has any education in life sciences beyond a fondness for pictures of kittens. ID has succeeded brilliantly in creating a cross-church special interest group who often seem to feel they have more in common with each other than the people sitting alongside them in their own churches. Got to give those evangelicals credit for their asymmetric warfare against established religions.
Click to expand...
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?
 
rossum said:
No, it does not. My point is that NS is not “unguided chance”. It is guided by current (not future) conditions in the immediate environment. Mutations for white fur will be advantageous in snowy environments, and so will be selected for.

NS differentially amplifies beneficial mutations and reduces deleterious mutations. White fur becomes more common and black fur rarer in snowy environments. In a different environment white fur may be deleterious rather than advantageous and so would be rare. NS depends on the environment.

rossum
Click to expand...
Are all your beliefs, actions and decisions caused by NS?
 
buffalo said:
No, it can be designed with purpose.

I have yet to see the proven evolutionary pathways for the blood clotting system as well as the ATP synthase motor. It just had to happen right?
Click to expand...
The belief in Chance and Necessity is supposed to be a result of Chance and Necessity…:whacky:
 
tonyrey said:
Are all your beliefs, actions and decisions caused by NS?
Click to expand...
No. Evolution is a population phenomenon: populations evolve, individuals do not.

NS does have an effect on me – I cannot breathe water for example – but it is too strong to call that effect a “cause” in the sense you appear to mean here.

rossum
 
tonyrey said:
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?
Click to expand...
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. 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.
 
STT said:
That is no a fair answer. So ID is applicable theory when it comes human and is not applicable when it comes to bacteria and viruses! By they way, you are at least accepting that bacteria and virus evolve naturally.
Click to expand...
Actually they adapt rapidly through super fast communication between them.
 
inocente said:
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. 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.
Click to expand...
There is a third - IDvolution, the philosophy - God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.

This accounts for the diversity of life we see. The core makeup shared by all living things have the necessary complex information built in that facilitates rapid and responsive adaptation of features and variation while being able to preserve the “kind” that they began as. Life has been created with the creativity built in ready to respond to triggering events.
Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on Earth have the same core, it is virtually certain that living organisms have been thought of AT ONCE by the One and the same Creator endowed with the super language we know as DNA that switched on the formation of the various kinds, the cattle, the swimming creatures, the flying creatures, etc… in a pristine harmonious state and superb adaptability and responsiveness to their environment for the purpose of populating the earth that became subject to the ravages of corruption by the sin of one man (deleterious mutations).
IDvolution considers the latest science and is consistent with the continuous teaching of the Church.

Climb aboard…
 
buffalo said:
Right. And I call it micro-evolution which no one denies. It is the creative claim evolution makes that is the issue.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Vonsalza said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.

Thousands of generations of fruitflies in the longest running evo experiment and they are still fruitflies. Some with added nonfunctional wings or features. This would be devolution.

I submit the Linnaeus classification has led us down a wrong path. The tree of life has fallen and is now a bush. We see HGT all over the place. Junk DNA is no more. As genetics and epigenetics mature I believe we will see front loaded limiting (name removed by moderator)uts.

Behe has a book titled The Edge of Evolution. It might be a good place to start.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top