B
buffalo
Guest
Nature can produce patterns by itself. Snowflakes and fractals are just two examples. Nature does not produce music or instructions.
Happy Birthday, Mr. Darwin: Growing Majority of Americans Support Teaching Both Sides of Evolution Debate
- Status
R
rossum
Guest
How do you know that? If you are unable to measure, numerically, the information in DNA then you have no means of knowing whether the information has increased, decreased or stayed the same. Without a measure you are not in any position to say anything at all.
If we use Shannon information as a measure then we can show that information can be increased by evolution. If we use Kolmogorov information as a measure then we can show that information can be increased by evolution. If we use Fisher information as a measure then we can show that information can be increased by evolution.
Not always replaced, sometimes just added to, sometimes just subtracted and sometimes just tweaked slightly. A species of cave fish may lose the information needed to form eyes.
False. Does the human species have blue eyes or brown eyes? A population of a species is almost never uniform. There are genetic variations within the species.
As I indicated in my post, Haldane’s work has been looked at since he did it. He left out a number of things that were not known about at the time he did his work, such as neutral drift. For a discussion of Haldane (and of ReMine) see Haldane’s non-dilemma.
You just lost your argument. A few seconds on Google came up with Unmasking Evolution - Sample Lecture which contains your text exactly. Unless you are Laurence D Smart, the author of that site, then you have used his work unattributed; you did not even put quotation marks round the part you copied. In science plagiarism is theft - taking someone else’s work and passing it off as your own. In science plagiarism will cost you your job and any research grants that you might have. In science plagiarism loses you the argument. If you use someone else’s work then you must attribute it correctly. You did not do this so you lose.
Mr Smart’s criticisms of evolution are warmed over versions of Dr ReMine’s use of Haldane’s Dilemma. The arguments are incorrect, as shown in Ian Musgrave’s piece I linked to above. To take just one example, Mr Smart uses only “alteration of one DNA nucleotide in the chromosomes”; there are other mutations which alter more then one neucleotide at once. Sometimes hundreds or thousands of nucleotides are changed in a single mutation. Because of this incorrect (name removed by moderator)ut the rest of Mr Smart’s calculations are not relevant - GIGO.
By the way, Jesus Christ IS NOT Christianity. You do not get to tell us what evolution is or is not, evolution is defined independently of either you or me (as is Christianity). Evolution includes natural selection so natural selection is part (though not all) of evolution.
You have not done well in your post.
rossum
S
StAnastasia
Guest
Pandas and People is not new; in fact it is a poorly done reprint of an older creationist “textbook.”
“Intelligent Design” is a theology (and a bungled one), not a scientific theory, which is why biologists have no interest in it.
StAnastasia
L
Leela
Guest
I agree, nature can produce patterns and animals and people can produce patterns. Clearly you also think that God creates patterns. My question is how you can tell wether God created a pattern as opposed to nature or a person? ID theory is supposed to be about this question, right? But does it have a hypothesis about its answer?
G
grannymh
Guest
Dear oriel16,
There is a basic rule in writing/composition that says: What is omitted is not automatically excluded.
In other words, because I limit my current writing to one simple point (one poster on another thread referred to it as an obsession) does not mean that I am ignoring the catastrophic consequences in Europe. Nor am I ignoring similar catastrophic consequences in the U.S. if FOCA is passed on the Federal Level.
If it would help, I can admit that the “cause” the particular one which you described, did lead to catastrophic consequences in Europe. However, at this point, I choose not to write about this aspect.
Actually, I am researching Richard Dawkins, but I am nowhere near the point of writing.
This is another subject which is beyond my current writing. However, I do consider that science and philosophy should work together and I will probably use that aspect later depending on how I develop my current topic. I may also include what genuine science could be. Please know that I cannot make commitments about future writing.
As I see it, the pure concept of evolutionary theory is neutral. It is how it is used which can be bad or good. The evolutionary theory may work in some areas and it may not work in other areas. It may be stupid or it may be brilliant.
Personally, I have always reacted to being labeled because I feel that limits my spirit of curiosity. However, since being on this forum, I am learning some humility in accepting that other posters will claim that I think or don’t think this way or that way correctly.
Personally, I see empiricism linked to a different bigger problem.
It is your choice and well as my choice as to which should be addressed.
I cannot say that I understand all the scientific, sociopolitical and historical aspects. I do understand that there have been serious consequences. I am not unsympathetic and uncaring. It is a fact of reality that I am unable to include everything possible in my posts. Please remember that what is omitted is not automatically excluded from my thoughts.
Blessings,
granny
All human life is worthy of profound respect.
Refuse FOCA.
B
buffalo
Guest
Design is based on language, codes and symbols. You will find patterns in designs, but you don’t find symbols in natural patterns. You don’t walk the beach and see a word in the sand, unless it was written there.
L
Leela
Guest
You’ve proposed language as a way of distinguishing patterns of design by human beings and natural patterns. But that isn’t the issue. You need to find a way of distinguishing patterns designed by God from natural patterns and patterns designed by people.
B
buffalo
Guest
If we found the language of God would that suffice?
O
oriel16
Guest
That’s right,you cannot bring yourself to say outright that Darwin’s ‘cause’ is just a national supremacy document overlaid on biological evolution, somehow you give yourself the 'choice ’ not to see it for what it is but you are not alone in that respect.
I’ll tell you what,the people at the conference next week may well be just like you and I assure you that non-believing empiricists are by far more preferable than the hideousness of a Christian looking to believe in God and be assured by what they think is ‘science’ at the same time .Empiricism is an Arian strain and cannot view creation as both an inspiration itself or inspiring as they cannot accept the Trinity which effectively does the same thing.
When it comes down to it,your creation is dictated by a National Socialist god,if you do not have the technical competence to deal with the wider issue of where empiricism extracted science as a valuable facet within Christian tradition and now attacks it from the outside and rots it from the inside then take up knitting.
At least Newton was honest enough to openly admit he was an Arian but I would have known it through his work anyway.
I too have my imperatives when dealing with Arians -
usccb.org/nab/bible/2john/2john.htm
L
Leela
Guest
What are you talking about?
B
buffalo
Guest
It is a clear question - If we found the language of God would that suffice?
It’s a yes or no question.
L
Leela
Guest
Suffice for what? And what do you mean by “the language of God”?
B
buffalo
Guest
Code:
Originally Posted by **Leela** [forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=4868773#post4868773)
*You've proposed language as a way of distinguishing patterns of design by human beings and natural patterns. But that isn't the issue. You need to find a way of distinguishing patterns designed by God from natural patterns and patterns designed by people.It’s a yes or no question. I can see why you might want to avoid the yes or no.
L
Leela
Guest
So is the question, “do you still beat your wife?”Originally Posted by Leela forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*You’ve proposed language as a way of distinguishing patterns of design by human beings and natural patterns. But that isn’t the issue. You need to find a way of distinguishing patterns designed by God from natural patterns and patterns designed by people.
Buffalo asked- It is a clear question - If we found the language of God would that suffice?
It’s a yes or no question. I can see why you might want to avoid the yes or no.
Yes/No questions are not always straight forward. You seem to be feeling smug about this one, but I have no idea why.
If you can see why I might want to avoid your question, then please tell me why you think I would want to avoid it. Tell me what you mean by “language of God,” and what such a language supposed to “suffice” for.
You might also let me and everyone else know why it is impossible to ever get a straight answer out of you, and why you refuse to explain what you are talking about in more than one or two sentences or sentence fragments.
Best,
Leela
B
buffalo
Guest
Design has language, symbols, etc… So if we detect a symbol or language we attribute it to design. We can easily distinguish human design from nature’s patterns. Therefore we should be able to see God design in the same fashion.
S
Sideline
Guest
Interesting. What things did God not design? Because if God designed everything, to what would you compare the things that you are saying show evidence of design? You believe that everything was God’s design, right?
When someone says to me, “This watch must have been designed by a person.” I know they are right, because I can compare it to something that is not designed by a human. It isn’t that it is more complex, on the contrary compared to a fish or even potting soil, a watch is far less complex. What makes it seem like a human invention is that it is similar to other human inventions.
But you think that God made everything. So when you are saying that God designed DNA, you are comparing it too… something else God designed… and saying that God couldn’t have designed it using the same methods he used to design the other stuff he designed.
B
buffalo
Guest
God “designed” nature to abide by certain laws. Within nature patterns can emerge that He doesn’t need a direct intervention. ( One could say they have been designed/ordered to behave this way) They are natural. In the the other hand we have the supernatural.
S
Sideline
Guest
So you are saying that life has a supernatural cause?
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes. A mind.
S
Sideline
Guest
Oh, do you believe that science has the capacity to study the supernatural?
- Status