Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate

[PEPCIS]

Can you show me where theistic evolution has been denounced by your church?

Do you believe absolutely, positively that there is no god/s?

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

That’s not a mutation. That’s a fine example of methicillin resistant staphlococcus aureus bacteria dominating because of its pre-existing resistance. No mutation necessary. One cite that I visited stated that MRSA evolved “through random mutations and the acquisition of plasmids.”

So as I said, mutations caused methicillin resistance just as the cite stated.

No, just as the cite CLAIMED. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that MRSA evolved via random mutations.
Monty Arch:

However, if the staph had prexisting resistance , methicillin would not have worked in the first place.

No, that is not true. MRSA is RESISTANT to methicillin. It is much harder to kill MRSA than non-resistant SA.

But reality is that plasmids occur naturally in bacteria, and bacteria could have acquired a plasmid (by consumption) that was beneficial to methicillin resistance. Again, no mutation necessary.

Monty Arch:

Plasmids are not consumed. They don’t exist outside the cell. They are transferred from cell to cell directly via conjugation.

Excuse me for not using the right word. Same difference.
Monty Arch:

Also, plasmids undergo mutations.

Well, that’s the claim.

 

[The_Barbarian]

No, just as the cite CLAIMED. There is no SCIENTIFIC evidence that MRSA evolved via random mutations.

I gave you the citation and the abstract of the study that documented how it did.

Originally Posted by Monty Arch
Also, plasmids undergo mutations.

Well, that’s the claim.

That’s a fact. The mutation that produced the bacterium that digests nylon was a frameshift mutation on a plasmid.

**Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1984 April; 81(8): 2421–2425.
PMCID: PMC345072
Birth of a unique enzyme from an alternative reading frame of the preexisted, internally repetitious coding sequence.
S Ohno

The mechanism of gene duplication as the means to acquire new genes with previously nonexistent functions is inherently self limiting in that the function possessed by a new protein, in reality, is but a mere variation of the preexisted theme. As the source of a truly unique protein, I suggest an unused open reading frame of the existing coding sequence. Only those coding sequences that started from oligomeric repeats are likely to retain alternative long open reading frames. Analysis of the published base sequence residing in the pOAD2 plasmid of Flavobacterium Sp. K172 indicated that the 392-amino acid-residue-long bacterial enzyme 6-aminohexanoic acid linear oligomer hydrolase involved in degradation of nylon oligomers is specified by an alternative open reading frame of the preexisted coding sequence that originally specified a 472-residue-long arginine-rich protein.**

If you go mano a mano with reality, reality always wins.

 

[PEPCIS]

I’ll repeat it here for your edification. Information is abstract; it conveys meaning; it has purpose; it is aperiodic.

Thank you for that, again my apologies for missing it. I will make the point that your definition does not allow any calculation of the amount

of information.

That is true. I have yet to see any means (including Remine’s) which clearly states that information is accurately quantitative. It is quite clear that Shannon/Kolmogorov/Fisher, et al, do NOT measure information, but only the MEDIUM that carries the information.

rossum:

Your definition is purely qualitative, not quantitative.

That is not true. My statements (which you continue to dismiss and/or attempt to counter them with imaginative scenarios) clearly have shown that the level of information changes EVEN WHEN FEWER DATA CHARACTERS ARE USED.

rossum:

Hence you have no basis to stand on when you talk about “increase” or “decrease” of information. With your definition you can only talk about the presence or the absence of information.

As I have shown, that is not true. My definition acknowledges the true residence of information within the MEDIUM, while yours denies its existence.

rossum:

One of the things that Darwin discovered was that the development of organisms was . . . not random because it preferentially selects the most successful variants.

Natural Selection is undoubtedly true. But your belief that random mutations add anything that can benefit a species survival is not true. Hence, you are relying on RANDOMNESS to feed Natural Selection. No scientific experiment has ever been devised which has shown that random mutations have produced anything of the sort.

rossum:

ID is not at the moment science.

It is science. Just because you refuse to accept it as science does me no harm.

rossum:

ID has so far failed to articulate any way to falsify itself. How would we recognise anything that could not have been designed?

By distinguishing between information and order. Information cannot arise via natural mechanisms. Order can.

“An entity about which we know nothing, used powers of which we are not aware, to arrange some DNA, or RNA or something, into a pattern at some unspecified time in the past and possibly also the present.”

Bogus. Totally unecessary to science. ID is not interested in pursuing WHO the Creator is, or by what powers He created by, or WHEN He did so. ID is only interested in differentiating between information and order.

Actually, my “claim” is a response to your claim that information arises spontaneously as the result of random forces operating within natural selection.

rossum:

Using my definition of information I have shown this.

Sorry, but all you have shown is a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. You have NOT ESTABLISHED BY REFERENCE TO ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that information actually arises by the means that you have analogized.

Yes, it COULD, MIGHT, POSSIBLY. But it most likely would result in a decrease in the accuracy of the approximation of pi. I say it “COULD, MIGHT, POSSIBLY” because the chances are so rare that you don’t even have to compute it.

rossum:

I am glad to see that you now agree with me. You previously claimed that it was impossible; I showed that it was possible albeit unlikely.

I have still not acquiesced to your claims. The ONLY thing that I agree to is that there is a possibility, but that the probability of this occurring is far beyond anything that could ever produce anything that approximates an increase of information to Pi.

That is why I stated that “I say that “most likely would result in a decrease in the accuracy of the approximation of pi”.” To which you agreed that “Deleterious mutations [far] outnumber beneficial mutations.”

 

[PEPCIS]

"PEPCIS:

The problem with your approach to information is that you continue to fail to appreciate the difference in measuring the MEDIUM, and understanding that a measurement of information (by Shannon methods) being larger is not amenable to reason and logic.

I have to use mathematical definitions of information if I want to be able to measure it. Your definition does not allow me to measure information.

Yours is not a “mathematical definition of information” because it does not define information. It only defines the MEDIUM that carries the information, and improperly calls it information. You can call a cat a dog all day long, simply because your machines can only receive (name removed by moderator)ut if it is a cat, but that still won’t make the dog a cat.

But I could make the following two statements:

I own a yellow vehicle.
I own a yellow car.

The second has fewer letters, so Shannon computations would render it as containing less information, but our reason and logic and intuition steps in to counter the results, because it is painfully obvious that the second statement actually renders MORE INFORMATION than the first.

rossum:

The amount of information imparted may not be as obvious as you think.

This is what I mean when I say that you go to imaginative lengths to protect your idealism regarding evolution. Such dishonest approaches do you damage because it makes it appear that you are adhering to a religion of evolution, rather than a scientific theory of evolution.

ALL OF YOUR PREVIOUS statements have clearly stated that you ONLY accept the measurement of the MEDIUM as a means of measuring the information it contains. Now you wish to begin a totally different means of determining the information content of a statement which utilizes SUBJECTIVE AND UNKNOWN CRITERIA as a means of determining information content.

rossum:

What is the proportion of yellow vehicles in all vehicles? What is the proportion of yellow cars in all cars? Since these proportions are likely to be different, which of your statements contains more information will depend on exactly what these two ratios are. I would not like to say which is the greater without measuring first.

No, you’re simply not dealing with this forthrightly. According to the multitude of your previous statements, information is measured by the measurement of the MEDIUM. Why do you change that now???

 

[PEPCIS]

What is the “purpose” of the information in a hurricane?

To talk to another hurricane?

:tiphat::tiphat::tiphat:

 

[PEPCIS]

What is the “purpose” of the information in a hurricane?

"Buffalo:

To talk to another hurricane?

“Shooting the breeze” no doubt.

Sorry, I’ll get my coat…

rossum

LOL Even better!!!

:extrahappy::bowdown::bowdown2::bowdown::bowdown2::extrahappy:

 

[rossum]

That is true. I have yet to see any means (including Remine’s) which clearly states that information is accurately quantitative.

I am glad that we have some agreement here. We both agree that your definition of infomration is not quantitative.

My statements (which you continue to dismiss and/or attempt to counter them with imaginative scenarios) clearly have shown that the level of information changes EVEN WHEN FEWER DATA CHARACTERS ARE USED.

You are not being consistent here. You just agreed that your measure of information was not quantitative. Now you claim that the “level of infomration” changes. Can you please define what you mean by “level of information” and how you measure it. What was the level before, what was the level after and what was the difference between them? You cannot measure levels with a non-quantitative definition.

Natural Selection is undoubtedly true.

Again it is good that we can agree.

But your belief that random mutations add anything that can benefit a species survival is not true.

You are incorrect. Random mutations can add benefit to species survival, as is shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment. For a beneficial mutation in humans see the Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation. As I have said before, unless you can back up your personal opinion with references then you are not going to make much headway. Both myself and The Barbarian have posted many references to scientific data and experiments that back up what we say. You come out with personal opinions that are not always correct. You need data to back up your opinions otherwise they will not carry much weight in this discussion.

Hence, you are relying on RANDOMNESS to feed Natural Selection. No scientific experiment has ever been devised which has shown that random mutations have produced anything of the sort.

You are wrong. Even a quick look through the science should have shown you the Luria-Delbrück experiment I referenced above - Luria and Delbrück won a Nobel Prze for their work in 1969. You appear not to know enough about this subject to debate it correctly. You need to learn a lot more about biology and evolution in order to be effective in your discussions. AIUI The Barbarian is a professional scientist and has immediate access to the scientific literature - he certainly has a more detailed knowledge of the biological literature than I do.

By distinguishing between information and order. Information cannot arise via natural mechanisms. Order can.

Evolution can give rise to Shannon, Kolmogorov and Fisher information. ID has yet to come up with an equivalent non-subjective definiton of information.

Bogus. Totally unecessary to science. ID is not interested in pursuing WHO the Creator is, or by what powers He created by, or WHEN He did so. ID is only interested in differentiating between information and order. (Emphasis added)

Oh dear. You just gave the game away. ID is not creationism, no siree Bob! ID is real science, and not creationism in a lab coat pretending to be scientific by talking about “the Designer” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Now you have to go and blow the whole thing by mentioning “the Creator”. You are never going to get ID into schools that way because you will fail the “no religion in schools” test; and the whole reason for ID is to do an end run round that provision by pretending to be scientific in order to hide the religious content. Haven’t you read the Wedge Document where all this is laid out? Get with the program PEPCIS, you are out of line!

Sorry, but all you have shown is a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. You have NOT ESTABLISHED BY REFERENCE TO ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE that information actually arises by the means that you have analogized.

Gene duplication followed by mutations of one of the copies creates new information - there are now two different proteins where there was one single protein before. That is new information whatever way you measure it. It is also how we got all our different globin proteins: myoglobin, alpha-haemoglobin, beta-haemoglobin and the various different embryonic haemoglobins, zeta haemoglobin etc.

I have still not acquiesced to your claims.

My claim is that a more accurate value of pi is not impossible. Rare, but not impossible. At least we seem to agree on that.

rossum

 

[PEPCIS]

Information is abstract; it conveys meaning; it has purpose; it is aperiodic.

"rossum:

I will make the point that your definition does not allow any calculation of the amount of information.

PEPCIS:

That is true. I have yet to see any means (including Remine’s) which clearly states that information is accurately quantitative.

I am glad that we have some agreement here. We both agree that your definition of infomration is not quantitative.

No, I didn’t mean to say that it isn’t quantitative, only that it isn’t ACCURATELY quantitative for the purposes that you and I understand to need it for.

My statements (which you continue to dismiss and/or attempt to counter them with imaginative scenarios) clearly have shown that the level of information changes EVEN WHEN FEWER DATA CHARACTERS ARE USED.

rossum:

You are not being consistent here. You just agreed that your measure of information was not quantitative. Now you claim that the “level of infomration” changes.

As I said, I never stated that you can’t see that information changes. We can even measure the MEDIUM to test, but that is an inaccurate means of validating the true change in information. As I noted with the example of the “yellow car/vehichle.”

rossum:

Can you please define what you mean by “level of information” and how you measure it.

Firstly, you have already noted that the information changed by application of Shannon computations. According to this definition, it is not a requirement to even work out the computations on paper, when you can see and visually count the number of data points has increased. WE KNOW THAT INFORMATION HAS CHANGED. WE ALREADY AGREE THAT IT HAS CHANGED. WE ARE NOT IN DISAGREEMENT that it has changed.

But your belief that random mutations add anything that can benefit a species survival is not true.

You are incorrect. Random mutations can add benefit to species survival, as is shown by the Luria-Delbrück experiment

.

You didn’t read this too well, did you? Notice that wiki states: “The conclusion was that mutations in bacteria, as in other organisms, are random rather than directed.” Gee, that’s the same thing that I stated.

The conversation began by your absurd evolutionary canard:

One of the things that Darwin discovered was that the development of organisms was . . . not random because it preferentially selects the most successful variants.

To which I stated:

. . . you are relying on RANDOMNESS to feed Natural Selection. No scientific experiment has ever been devised which has shown that random mutations have produced anything of the sort.

The Luria-Delbrück experiment is NOT an experiment which shows how that random mutations have produced anything of the sort of an increase in information, much less BENEFICIAL mutations.

I especially liked this statement from wiki: “Nevertheless, there is no evidence yet for directed mutagenesis.” Which is to say that the experiment FAILED to produce evidence of forced mutation, that “force” being the bacteria REACTING to its environment and producing mutations which are desireable and necessary to its survival.

rossum:

For a beneficial mutation in humans see the Apolipoprotein A-I Milano mutation.

Evolutionists want so badly to find mutations that are beneficial (and, by the way, this is the only one that they can find) that they step all over themselves and bumble and fumble by disregarding other concerns and avenues of investigation.

Is this “mutation” only visible in this specific population set of 50 individuals? Is it not found anywhere else in the world? If so, how can we know that? Without this information, we could never claim that this is truly a mutation.

Having said that, is it possible that in 10,000 years of mutations that one, single, solitary mutation could create a “positive” effect on the species? Perhaps. But at what negative costs? This has not been determined.

In other words, just because this group of 50 have the variant gene does not mean it was mutated. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of evolutionists. They do such a good job at shoveling canards.

 

[Leela]

Hi IDers,

What do you make of the fact that Darwinism has resulted in so many correct predictions and that none of these predictions could have been made by making the assumption of design?

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered. The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening. Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

Darwin predicted that precursors to the trilobite would be found in pre-Silurian rocks. He was correct: they were subsequently found.

Similarly, Darwin predicted that Precambrian fossils would be found. He wrote in 1859 that the total absence of fossils in Precambrian rock was “inexplicable” and that the lack might “be truly urged as a valid argument” against his theory. When such fossils were found, starting in 1953, it turned out that they had been abundant all along. They were just so small that it took a microscope to see them.

There are two kinds of whales: those with teeth, and those that strain microscopic food out of seawater with baleen. It was predicted that a transitional whale must have once existed, which had both teeth and baleen. Such a fossil has since been found.

Evolution predicts that animals on distant islands will appear closely related to animals on the closest mainland, and that the older and more distant the island, the more distant the relationship.

It was predicted that humans must have an intermaxillary bone, since other mammals do. The adult human skull consists of bones that have fused together, so you can’t tell one way or the other in an adult. An examination of human embryonic development showed that an intermaxillary bone is one of the things that fuses to become your upper jaw.

In 1861, the first Archaeopteryx fossil was found. It was clearly a primitive bird with reptilian features. But, the fossil’s head was very badly preserved. In 1872 Ichthyornis and Hesperornis were found. Both were clearly seabirds, but to everyone’s astonishment, both had teeth. It was predicted that if we found a better-preserved Archaeopteryx, it too would have teeth. In 1877, a second Archaeopteryx was found, and the prediction turned out to be correct.

Almost all animals make Vitamin C inside their bodies. It was predicted that humans are descended from creatures that could do this, and that we had lost this ability.When human DNA was studied, scientists found a gene which is just like the Vitamin C gene in dogs and cats. However, our copy has been turned off.

In “The Origin Of Species” (1859), Darwin said:
“If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.”
This challenge has not been met. In the ensuing 140 years, no such thing has been found. Plants give away nectar and fruit, but they get something in return.

A thousand years ago, just about every remote island on the planet had a species of flightless bird. Evolution explains this by saying that flying creatures are particularly able to establish themselves on remote islands. Some birds, living in a safe place where there is no need to make sudden escapes, will take the opportunity to give up on flying. Hence, Evolution predicts that each flightless bird species arose on the island that it was found on. So, Evolution predicts that no two islands would have the same species of flightless bird. Now that all the world’s islands have been visited, we know that this was a correct prediction.

An animal’s bones contain oxygen atoms from the water it drank while growing. And, fresh water and salt water can be told apart by their slightly different mixture of oxygen isotopes. (This is because fresh water comes from water that evaporated out of the ocean. Lighter atoms evaporate more easily than heavy ones do, so fresh water has fewer of the heavy atoms.) Therefore, it should be possible to analyze an aquatic creature’s bones, and tell whether it grew up in fresh water or in the ocean. This has been done, and it worked. We can distinguish the bones of river dolphins from the bones of killer whales. Now for the prediction. We have fossils of various early whales. Since whales are mammals, evolution predicts that they evolved from land animals. And, the very earliest of those whales would have lived in fresh water, while they were evolving their aquatic skills. Therefore, the oxygen isotope ratios in their fossils should be like the isotope ratios in modern river dolphins. It’s been measured, and the prediction was correct. The two oldest species in the fossil record - Pakicetus and Ambulocetus - lived in fresh water. Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus and the others all lived in salt water.

Does any of this prove that Darwinism is correct? No, theories are never proven. We just accumulate such data that is consistent with a theory, or need to revise the theory when contradictory evidence is found. The point is that these predictions could have been proven wrong, but weren’t, and that evolutionary theory was useful in telling people what sort of evidence to look for and where.

The value of a theory is in the verifiable predictions that it makes. To call evolutionary theory into question, I think you need to show where evolution makes the wrong predictions. Do you have any such examples?

Best,
Leela

 

[rossum]

WE KNOW THAT INFORMATION HAS CHANGED.

I know that information has changed because I can measure it before and after and see that the values are different. That is how science tells if something has changed. How do you know that it has changed? What value did you measure before? What value did you measure after? What is the difference between them? Your subjective opinion is not acceptable as science. One of the reasons for the great success of science is that as far as possible it tries to avoid subjective opinions. You opinion is not science.

You didn’t read this too well, did you? Notice that wiki states: “The conclusion was that mutations in bacteria, as in other organisms, are random rather than directed.” Gee, that’s the same thing that I stated.

To quote your post #717 in this thread: “But your belief that random mutations add anything that can benefit a species survival is not true.” As you correctly say, the Luria-Delbrück experiment confirms that the mutations are indeed random. It also shows that those same random mutations are beneficial because they added a bacteriophage which killed bacteria without the mutations while bacteria with the mutation survived. That is a random mutation benefitting species survival. Your unsupported statement is shown to be wrong, as have many of your unsupported statements. As I have previously suggested, you need to look for a better source - the one you are using at the moment is lying to you.

The Luria-Delbrück experiment is NOT an experiment which shows how that random mutations have produced anything of the sort of an increase in information, much less BENEFICIAL mutations.

If not being killed by a bacteriophage is not beneficial then you have a very strange definition of “beneficial”. The Luria-Delbrück experiment showed both that mutations are random and that they can be beneficial. Random mutations can be beneficial, as is shown by a Nobel Prize winning experiment. Your personal disbelief carries no scientific weight against that. If you have any evidence to support your position then please show it, until you do so your position is unsupported.

Evolutionists want so badly to find mutations that are beneficial (and, by the way, this is the only one that they can find) that they step all over themselves and bumble and fumble by disregarding other concerns and avenues of investigation.

We only need to find one to show that beneficial mutations are possible. There are plenty of others, for example the HbC mutation that protects agains malaria: malariaPlasmodium falciparum.

Is this “mutation” only visible in this specific population set of 50 individuals? Is it not found anywhere else in the world? If so, how can we know that? Without this information, we could never claim that this is truly a mutation.

Given a population of six billion and that not all of them have been tested, then it is possible that this mutation has spontaneously arisen elsewhere. In an area without a fatty Western diet this mutation would probably be neutral and so would not spread by natural selection. So far only the small group from Limone sul Garda have shown this mutation in all the people tested. There is a different mutation in the same protein, Apolipoprotein A-I(Paris), which has a lesser protective effect than the Milano mutation. Apolipoprotein A-I(Milano) and apolipoprotein A-I(Paris) exhibit an antioxidant activity distinct from that of wild-type apolipoprotein A-I.

Next time I would advise you to do a little research before posting. You obviously did not do any research into human mutations before making your incorrect claim that “this is the only one that they can find”. I have now given you three beneficial human mutations: Apolipoprotein A-I(Milano), Apolipoprotein A-I(Paris) and HbC. There is another that is commonly used as an example and many others that are available in the scientific literature, but not so much quoted in this type of discussion. Rushing into posting without doing your research just gives me an easy target to shoot at, and continually being shown to be wrong will not do your overall case any good.

Having said that, is it possible that in 10,000 years of mutations that one, single, solitary mutation could create a “positive” effect on the species?

Again you lack of research is letting you down. There is more than “one, single solitary mutation” in question here. Because you have failed to look at what is already known you have based you argument on an incorrect assumption. Your argument fails, your credibility takes another knock and your attempt to disprove evolution is even further from success. You really do need to do more research; if you do not then you will continue to make errors and you will continue to lose these points. Learn to research before you post. For example if I go to Google scholar (scholar.google.com/) and search on “human mutation” I get over two million hits. Two million hits. The data is out there; if you do not read it then you will be at a disadvantage in this discussion because I do read it. Do your research before posting; you will learn some useful things.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

As in your assumption that information must have an intelligent source, you’ve erred in assuming that random mutations plus natural selection equals a random result.

One of most important things to remember is that a random process plus a non-random process is a non-random process.

Would you like to test that fact? I can show you, if you’d like.

 

[grannymh]

Originally Posted by grannymh forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
Question: Are there any creationist sites which are reputable, i.e., tell the truth?

LOL That’s funny. The better question is “Are there any creationist sites which tell lies?” Why do you default to the concept that “All creationist sites lie”? :tsktsk:

Could it be that de
fault is in the reading
of the original question?

 

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

ID has so far failed to articulate any way to falsify itself. How would we recognise anything that could not have been designed?

PEPCIS:

By distinguishing between information and order. Information cannot arise via natural mechanisms. Order can.

Evolution can give rise to Shannon, Kolmogorov and Fisher information.

You asked me HOW it would be that you could recognize when something is designed. I told you. What has that got to do with your tired old claim???

“An entity about which we know nothing, used powers of which we are not aware, to arrange some DNA, or RNA or something, into a pattern at some unspecified time in the past and possibly also the present.”

PEPCIS:

Bogus. Totally unecessary to science. ID is not interested in pursuing WHO the Creator

is, or by what powers He created by, or WHEN He did so. ID is only interested in differentiating between information and order. (Emphasis added by rossum)

rossum:

Oh dear. You just gave the game away.

LOL What? Because I happen to personally believe that the Creator is the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, while you believe it is Shiva??? You are funny!!

rossum:

ID is not creationism, no siree Bob!

And I NEVER said that it was. You are very strange indeed…

rossum:

ID is real science, and not creationism in a lab coat pretending to be scientific by talking about “the Designer” (nudge, nudge, wink, wink). Now you have to go and blow the whole thing by mentioning “the Creator”. You are never going to get ID into schools that way because you will fail the “no religion in schools” test; and the whole reason for ID is to do an end run round that provision by pretending to be scientific in order to hide the religious content.

That’s what I like about evolutionists…they love to misrepresent their opponent’s position. I responded to YOUR STUPID CHARGE THAT WE DON’T KNOW WHO THE CREATOR IS. So I answer you by CORRECTING you that you don’t speak of the CREATOR because ID is not concerned with proving Him. I then am charged with inserting creationism into ID??? ROFLMBO!! It was YOU who attempted to insert a “higher power” into the conversation.

Actually, my “claim” is a response to your claim that information arises spontaneously as the result of random forces operating within natural selection.

rossum:

Using my definition of information I have shown this [to actually happen].

PEPCIS:

Sorry, but all you have shown is a HYPOTHETICAL scenario. You have NOT ESTABLISHED BY REFERENCE TO ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE

that information actually arises by the means that you have analogized.

rossum:

Gene duplication followed by mutations of one of the copies creates new information - there are now two different proteins where there was one single protein before. That is new information whatever way you measure it. It is also how we got all our different globin proteins: myoglobin, alpha-haemoglobin, beta-haemoglobin and the various different embryonic haemoglobins, zeta haemoglobin etc.

That’s a nice “just-so” story. But it is not SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of mutations (and therefore information) arising randomly.

I have still not acquiesced to your claims.

rossum:

My claim is that a more accurate value of pi is not impossible. Rare, but not impossible. At least we seem to agree on that.

No, we don’t agree, because the probability is simply “out of this world.”

 

[PEPCIS]

Hi IDers,

What do you make of the fact that Darwinism has resulted in so many correct predictions and that none of these predictions could have been made by making the assumption of design?

Nothing. It’s a fanciful claim born out of the metaphysical. It has nothing to do with Science.

Leela:

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered.

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and where are those “transitional” fossils? Finding a trillion fossils is not going to help, because you have yet to identify any that are scientifically proven to be the progenitor of the previous.

Leela:

The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening.

Man, you sure did get taken in by all of that evolutionary propaganda. Jonathan Wells wrote an excellent book titled, Icons of Evolution. You should read it. In it, he details how the peppered moth has been proven to be nothing more than a case of Natural Selection. This never resulted in a new species, which is what evolution theory claims.

Also, where is the evolutionary prediction (BEFORE THE FACT) that this would happen? What journal was that published in?

Leela:

Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

I don’t really see too much sense in pursuing all of your canards (evolutionary canards they are). But let’s suffice to say that you claimed that “Darwinism has resulted in so many correct predictions…” But I haven’t seen any yet. Please cite the journal where this prediction was made (BEFORE THE FACT).

I would love to discuss the rest of these “predictions” but there are too many to handle all at once. Thanks for the fun!

 

[PEPCIS]

rossum, well, we had fun while it lasted. But I think that with the advent of your false accusations regarding me lying, obtaining false information from web -sites, and other inflammatory statements show me that you have reached your limit in honest debate.

Thanks for keeping it civil for as long as you did. You did much better than barbarian.

 

[rossum]

You asked me HOW it would be that you could recognize when something is designed. I told you.

Not quite. I asked you how I could recognise something that could not have been designed. Since Dr Dembski recognises that design can mimic any non-design process (false negatives for his explanatory filter) you answer is insufficient. Darwin explained how to recognise something that could not have evolved in Chapter Six of Origins - ID has yet to tell us how to recognise something that could not have been designed.

And I NEVER said that it was. You are very strange indeed…

You used the word “creator” instead of the word “designer”. Creationism relies on a creator, while ID relies on a designer. That was how you gave the game away.

That’s a nice “just-so” story. But it is not SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE of mutations (and therefore information) arising randomly.

We have scientific evidence of random mutations, which you quoted yourself from Wikipedia. We have scientific evidence of information arising from such mutations - does the haemoglobin in your blood contain infomraiton? That arose by just such a process of duplication and modification of one copy. There are about a half a dozen or so active globins in the human genome and more globin pseudogenes.

No, we don’t agree, because the probability is simply “out of this world.”

Do not mistake the very high improbablitities I calculated for the encyclopedia example with the actual probabilities in the real world. There are about 2.3 x 10[sup]93[/sup] different ways of making a functional Cytochrome C protein. Evolution only has to find one of them in order to have succeeded.

rossum, well, we had fun while it lasted.

Agreed.

But I think that with the advent of your false accusations regarding me lying, obtaining false information from web -sites, and other inflammatory statements show me that you have reached your limit in honest debate.

I am not aware of having made any false accusations, my apologies if I have. I have said that you are getting your information from sources that are lying to you - and I have shown this by referring to the evidence. I have said that you are doing insufficient research - and I have shown this by referring to the evidence. I have advised you to do more research before posting which, in my opinion, is good advice in any scientific discussion. Opinions do not count for much in science, only the evidence does. If you do not know what evidence there is in the scientific literature then you will not be able to make a good impression in a scientific discussion. You might want to read [utl=[URL]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/jul03.html]The[/URL] Mirage in this context.

Thanks for keeping it civil for as long as you did.

And thank you for also keeping it civil. It takes two to do so.

rossum

 

[The_Barbarian]

Rossum asks:
What do you make of the fact that Darwinism has resulted in so many correct predictions and that none of these predictions could have been made by making the assumption of design?

Nothing. It’s a fanciful claim born out of the metaphysical. It has nothing to do with Science.

Validated predictions are the way theories are tested and confirmed.

Posted by Leela
Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and millions - trillions if you count microfossils - have been uncovered.

Darwin predicted that transitional fossils would be discovered, and where are those “transitional” fossils?

Just about everywhere. The predicted transitions between birds and reptiles, reptiles and mammals, fish and tetrapods, ungulates and whales, humans and other primates, and thousands more. Name me a few major groups said to be evolutionarily related, and I’ll see if I can find you some transitionals for them.

Posted by Leela
The peppered moth evolved black colouring to adapt to pollution-stained trees when industrialisation took place. Remove the pollution and, evolutionary theory predicts, the light strain should once again predominate - which is just what is happening.

Man, you sure did get taken in by all of that evolutionary propaganda. Jonathan Wells wrote an excellent book titled, Icons of Evolution. You should read it. In it, he details how the peppered moth has been proven to be nothing more than a case of Natural Selection.

Wells doesn’t want to talk about that any more. Turns out that he cited the work by Majerus, in which he claimed the author said that moths don’t rest on tree trunks, so it wasn’t natural selection at all. But Majerus specifically wrote that moths do rest on tree trunks. Wells just made it up, and cited Majerus.
ncseweb.org/creationism/analysis/where-peppered-moths-rest

This never resulted in a new species,

Not all evolution leads to new species.

which is what evolution theory claims

No. Wells simply denied the facts, and made up a story about what Majerus actually wrote. You’ve trusted someone who is not worthy of anyone’s trust.

Posted by Leela
Evolutionary theory predicts that if you genetically engineer crops to produce a pesticide, this will lead to the evolution of insect strains which resist that pesticide, but it also predicts that you can slow the spread of resistance genes by growing regular plants alongside the modified ones. That has proved to be the case.

But let’s suffice to say that you claimed that “Darwinism has resulted in so many correct predictions…” But I haven’t seen any yet.

“Humans evolved in Africa.” - Charles Darwin.
Darwin himself never supported this notion. He believed that humans are all part of the same species, and he speculated that all humans originated in Africa. It was a controversial idea in his time, but research has proven him right. In fact, just four hours down the coast from where Darwin came ashore in South Africa, scientists recently dug up artifacts from what they believe could be the oldest community of modern humans.
theworld.org/node/24502

Much later, it was verified when the fossils of early humans were indeed found to have originated in Africa.

“Birds evolved from Reptiles.” - Joseph Huxley. 1859
aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/SM1/VertSk.html

And later transitionals between birds and reptiles were found. When a little heme was found to have survived in the bones of a T-rex, it was tested and found to be most like that of a bird, rather than like that of surviving reptiles, which is what the theory predicted.

How many would you like?

 

[PEPCIS]

"rossum:

ID has so far failed to articulate any way to falsify itself. How would we recognise anything that could not have been designed?

PEPCIS:

By distinguishing between information and order. Information cannot arise via natural mechanisms. Order can.

rossum:

Evolution can give rise to Shannon, Kolmogorov and Fisher information.

PEPCIS:

You asked me HOW it would be that you could recognize when something is designed. I told you.

Not quite. I asked you how I could recognise something that could not

have been designed.

I’m going to respond to a few more points so that I can set a few things straight. But first, I’m going to take care of the “non debate,” non sequitur, ad hominem **** that you keep on bringing out to whack me with.

To begin with, I’m a bit dissatisfied with the manner in which you debate. That was why I said “adios” to our exchanges. As I stated, you aren’t as bad as barbarian, but you seem to think that you didn’t do a damned thing wrong. “If I said something, gee willikers, I’m sorry.” doesn’t cut it. It’s pathetic sportsmanship in a debate setting to refer to your opponent’s knowledge, or lack thereof. I have not done that to you, in spite of the opportunities that I have had to do so.

There are other things that you have done, and I’ll address those at the appropriate time. But here’s the rub: notice that when we are discussing ad hominem attacks, we aren’t addressing the meat of the debate. I suggest that you like that, and that is why you do it.

Now, having said that, I will leave off this post, and continue on in a separate post in an attempt to at least partially divide the MEAT of the post (those things which are debatable) from the GARNISHINGS of the post (those things which should be excluded from any honest debate).

 

[PEPCIS]

Rossum,

I had originally intended to post answers to all the claptrap that you had posted concerning my person, but decided that it wasn’t necessary to show how dishonest you are being in the debate.

But, purely in the interest of showing where you are wrong, I will continue to ignore your blatherings about my person, and attend to a few more points that need clarification.​

"PEPCIS:

You asked me HOW it would be that you could recognize when something is designed. I told you.

rossum:

Not quite. I asked you how I could recognise something that could not have been designed.

Intelligent Design Theory is based upon the premise that you can determine those things which are designed. I’ve given methods for falsification in an ID setting - methods that are in current use in scientific disciplines. You have yet to refute those methods, or the scientists who use them.

For you to state that ID is required to recognize something that is not designed is something that you are uneccessarily imposing upon the theory. That would be like me stating that if you cannot explain to us abiogenesis, then therefore evolution is not a viable theory.

This brings me back to my original point: Information cannot arise by naturalistic means. And on the heels of this, I am STILL WAITING for your definition for information - NOT THE MEDIUM WHICH IT RESIDES UPON.

Why is it that you absolutely refuse to attend to this point? The answer is all too simple: because to acknowledge that there is a definition for information would bring you to lose the debate point. Which would lead me ultimately to conclude that you aren’t interested in finding truth, but in defending evolution at all costs.

Since Dr Dembski recognises that design can mimic any non-design process (false negatives for his explanatory filter) you answer is insufficient.

To begin with, you keep on asserting that I use the filter of “I know design when I see it.” *

You are partially correct, but not for the reasons you hope for. Just because I use this filter does not make it non-scientific. Contrarily, if I use this filter in conjunction with the whole filter of excluding those things that are not designed, then I will ultimately end up with the knowledge of whether a thing is designed or not. That these designed things “look like design” is not a fluke in the system, as even Dawkins acknowledges that DNA looks designed.

Dembski recognized that there might be times where a false positive might arise, but that this did not negate the practice of using it. Just because I have a net that catches 999 out of 1000 fish doesn’t mean that I should throw it away. Those are pretty good odds, and I think I’ll keep the net, thank-you-very-much. Many scientific disciplines operate on the same basis without accusations of “non-scientific” being leveled at them. Doctors employ medical tests all the time with false-positive and false-negative results, but that doesn’t stop them from using them, nor should it.

This doesn’t mean that we should not continue to look for ways to improve those filters in order to reduce the number of false-positives/negatives.

Now, do you have a definition for information yet?*