K
kalt
Guest
Proof?
- Status
R
reggieM
Guest
You asked why God would do something. Then you said that you didn’t want to know anything about God. I then pointed to the origin of DNA as a problem for evolution in general and for the patterns found in nature and you said you only wanted to talk about nested hierarchies, wondering, why would God be limited to creating within that structure?
The question points back to you – why would a discussion about what God did be limited to the narrow topic of twin nested hierarchies?
I think most evolutionists believe that. If evolution proves a materialist origin and development of human life (and moreso of all of nature and the universe itself), then I would agree that it’s fairly devastating to the Christian Faith. Most Catholics who fully accept evolutionary theory do not see that problem. At best, we’d have a God who was totally unnecessary except perhaps as a law-giver.
You’re changing the topic quite wildly here. You inisted previously that mutations were not part of the discussion, but you’ve introduced them here to validate your point.
The very definition of the word “saltation” is that of sudden or abrupt change (leap).
Wikipedia: In biology, saltation (from Latin, saltus, “leap”) is a sudden change from one generation to the next …
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I will happily explain why, but before i do…
Do you accept evolution and more importantly do you understand the theory?
K
kalt
Guest
Yes, as I said in an earlier post to you - the one about your 'limitation theory" being bogus.
I would love to see you prove that the God you can’t prove exists, was killed by evolution theory.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Evolution says nothing about the origin of DNA, so how on earth could it be a problem? Again you seem to misunderstand the theory.
No I’m not using DNA to validate my point, I’m simply pointing out once i get you to properly understand the significance on nested sets in respect to evolution, i will then be able to explain how DNA evidence solidifies evolutionary theory.
As for saltation, i am fully aware of what you mean, again your just incorrect. Here this will save me some typing…
youtube.com/watch?v=Sui4CadfhDM
You should watch the whole series.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
The god i cant prove exists? Not sure what you mean?Yes, as I said in an earlier post to you - the one about your 'limitation theory" being bogus.
I would love to see you prove that the God you can’t prove exists, was killed by evolution theory.
Evolution eliminates the idea that we were created in a god image. Christians believe were created in gods image. Therefore evolution falsifies the idea we are created in the image of a god, which in turn is devastating to Christianity.
R
reggieM
Guest
I believe you’re trying to defend theistic-Darwinism so you may want to ask yourself the same questions.
R
reggieM
Guest
As I said before, nested sets do not prove evolutionary theory. They’re not even a Darwinian prediction. The nested taxonomies were already discovered by the creationist Linneaus and he did not find that to be incompatible with Creation. His view merely echoed what Catholic thinkers had proposed centuries earlier – as St. Thomas Aquinas did in proposing that God created the original “forms” for creatures through His direct power. Linneaus merely used the word species and accepted that there was some modification to be seen through adaptation, but that comes with limits.
That is all consistent with creation.
Darwin did not discover or predict the hierarchies. He was merely interested in explaining them in a way that removed any need to cite a Creator. Without the mechanism, all the hierarchial view does is give a description – it’s not predictive of anything unless you know the mechanism. So, the issue is about the mechanism, not the pattern. Darwin’s mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations has massive problems and is inadequate as an explantion. There is not enough in it to disprove the work of a Creator acting within a natural structure. This then does point to the many other problems – the limits of what evolution can produce, the fact that there is not a vertical hierarchy (HGT, transpositions, etc) and fossils do not show necessary intermediate forms (which should not fit cleanly into classifications).
The idea that the presence of nested hierarchies supports an atheistic view is based on the assumption that evolution is directional and that relationships prove ancestry and that the hierarchy proves the mechanism.
The origin of biological universals like DNA is essential to understand since they are what caused the nested patterns to arise. You can’t just get rid of that problem by claiming that it’s “not evolution”.
If a Creator was necessary to create the universals, then the nested patterns that arose from that are part of the design. This still says nothing about the mechanism that produced the diversity in nature. The fact that there is a principle of organization (evidence of intelligence) and novel body plans and features arising from saltations – not to mention the enormous complexity of the simplest uni-cellular organisms (all weaknesses in the atheistic theory), then the presence of Intelligence as the originator and developer of life is the most reasonable conclusion to draw.
O
Orogeny
Guest
Yes.
I agree with the way the process was described in The July 2004 Vatican Statement on Creation and Evolution.
Peace
Tim
R
reggieM
Guest
Here’s an ID-oriented perspective on nested hierarchies which explains quite well “Why the Creator would do it that way”.
Regarding the homologies in non coding DNA, now those are really interesting! We know that many parts of non-coding DNA are ultra-conserved. That is probably some difficulty for darwinists to explain, but luckily not for ID. Indeed, we have never thought that non-coding DNA is “junk”. We do believe it is code, and very important code indeed! And that can apply to any part of non coding DNA, including transposons of all kinds, until we understand how the living functions of regulation, differentiation, morphogenesis etc. are implemented. [RM comment: This post was written before more evidence fully showed that the ID predictions on Junk DNA were proven true and the Darwinian predictions falsified.]
We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That’s why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.
- Homology in DNA, however nested, is not evidence of common descent, although it is certainly a strong support for it. Indeed, homology can be interpreted as reutilization of the code, even in absence of common descent. In other words, a designer could well reutilize solutions he has already used, even if he does not materially implement them in already existing “hardware”. So, if the designer modifies the code in already existing beings, we have reutilization/modification of the code and common descent is also true. On the contrary, if the designer implements the code, reutilizing parts he has already used, but on a completely new “hardware” (in other words, creating a new species not from an existing species, but, for instance, from inorganic matter), then homologies can just the same be explained as reutilization of the code, although common descent in that case is not true. Although, as I said, I tend to believe in the first hypothesis (designed common descent, with intentional modification of the code by the designer), both can be discussed.
- The darwinist hypothesis, instead, is one of unguided common descent. It is not true that there is any support to that hypothesis. Homologies, however nested, are not specific support to the hypothesis of unguided common descent (although they are compatible with it), because, as already said, they are also perfectly compatible with any design hypothesis. Besides, the “nesting” is far from being regular and corresponding to a specific “tree”. We all know the difficulties darwinists face each time they try to fix a specific “order”.
Regarding the homologies in non coding DNA, now those are really interesting! We know that many parts of non-coding DNA are ultra-conserved. That is probably some difficulty for darwinists to explain, but luckily not for ID. Indeed, we have never thought that non-coding DNA is “junk”. We do believe it is code, and very important code indeed! And that can apply to any part of non coding DNA, including transposons of all kinds, until we understand how the living functions of regulation, differentiation, morphogenesis etc. are implemented. [RM comment: This post was written before more evidence fully showed that the ID predictions on Junk DNA were proven true and the Darwinian predictions falsified.]
We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That’s why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.
R
reggieM
Guest
Interesting – as I said before, a hierarchical structure is actually evidence against Darwinian theory (gradualism). Here’s another post that explains that:
Hierarchic classification is, by its very nature, an orderly groups within groups arrangement in which boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended; absense of overlapping types implies the absence of sequential relationships.
Therefore the contrast between hierarchic classification and gradualistic evolution, which would leave behind an overlapping blurred and fundamentally indistinct pattern, could not be more complete. Nature is fundamentally non-sequential, in other words, a discontinuous phenomenon.
Furthermore, for gradualism to produce such hierarchic order it would be required that character traits once acquired can never subsequently be lost or transformed in any real sense and that the acquisition of new traits must leave previous traits essentially unchanged.
Therefore, in other words, character traits (such as hair and mammary glands unique to mammals, or pentadactyl limb unique to all terrestrial vertebrates) must remain fundamentally immutable. But why should these traits have remained immune to change, after all, are we not talking about evolution?
Put simply, gradualists who acknowledge hierarchic order are also acknowledging the fact that the crucial intergrading forms leading from one form to another are totally lacking. I have no idea how anyone can draw the conclusion of common descent from hierarchic classification.
Hierarchic classification is, by its very nature, an orderly groups within groups arrangement in which boundaries are distinct and the divisions in the system increase in a systematic manner as the hierarchy is ascended; absense of overlapping types implies the absence of sequential relationships.
Therefore the contrast between hierarchic classification and gradualistic evolution, which would leave behind an overlapping blurred and fundamentally indistinct pattern, could not be more complete. Nature is fundamentally non-sequential, in other words, a discontinuous phenomenon.
Furthermore, for gradualism to produce such hierarchic order it would be required that character traits once acquired can never subsequently be lost or transformed in any real sense and that the acquisition of new traits must leave previous traits essentially unchanged.
Therefore, in other words, character traits (such as hair and mammary glands unique to mammals, or pentadactyl limb unique to all terrestrial vertebrates) must remain fundamentally immutable. But why should these traits have remained immune to change, after all, are we not talking about evolution?
Put simply, gradualists who acknowledge hierarchic order are also acknowledging the fact that the crucial intergrading forms leading from one form to another are totally lacking. I have no idea how anyone can draw the conclusion of common descent from hierarchic classification.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
AH I didn’t see this post… Your analogy has no relevance to evolution.
Within the animal kingdom we most certainly do see limitation, but this limitation is easily explained through evolution.
Evolution can only work with what already exists. For example if an animal has a spine, the spine can evolve, but we are not going to see a sudden change to an animal with no bones and an exoskeleton.
Let’s say the designer is designing the animal kingdom, he as characteristics 1 - 30 to work with.
So he decided so make water dwelling animals, and he gives them the following characteristics.
A - 1,9,18,16,13
B - 2,3,9,11,19,20
C - 7,9,15,16.17,14
D - 12,4,7,3,16,13
E - 2,9,4,19
From a designers point of view there would be nothing wrong with this, he obviously has the ability to design all these attributes for if we didn’t we wouldn’t see them in animals.
Now let’s say he makes water some land dwelling animals. He gives them the following characteristics.
F – 1,3,21,29,28
G – 1,22,19,18,1
H - 5,30,21,39,1
I – 3,10,29,12,1
Again as the designer can obviously designer all these characteristics there would be nothing wrong with these designs.
Here’s the problem this is NOT what we see. What we see is more like this (this is a vast
simplification) –
Water
A – 1
B – 1,2
C – 1,2,3
D – 1,2,3,4
E - 1,20,21,26 (Note the characteristics of a land dwelling animal)
Land
F – 1,20
G – 1,20,21
H – 1,20,21,22,23
I – 1,20,21,22,23,24
So they question is why. Why isn’t there one land animal that doesn’t contain characteristic 20? Why do we see animal E that contains the characteristics of the land animals even when some of other the water dwelling animals have characteristics that are better suited to the function?
The problem is compounded when we see a lot of the characteristics are not only redundant but actually inhibit the animal. A designer (well a good one) would just surly just remove the bad characteristics, wouldn’t he?
So what we have IS limitation. Like my whales example; they are a mammal, therefore they must have lungs, they must have 4 limbs suited to land dwelling. Now don’t get me wrong their lungs and limbs are VERY well adapted, but surly a good designer would just give them gills and fins? Why is god limited to creating in nested sets???
“Well, let’s say you were designing a camera. You’d put a lens out front, right? And you’d
put the light sensor or film at the back, so the image from the lens was focused on it. And then you’d run all the wires and stuff away out the back so they didn’t block the light from hitting the sensor. I mean, that’s just common sense.
But that’s not how the eye works. Take that intelligent design you just came up with, and reverse it. Flip the light sensor so it’s backwards, bury it under the wires (which now block some of the light) and set it up so all the visual outputs have to be flipped around (because the picture is now inverted).
And don’t forget the blind spot, a region where you simply can’t see anything because you poked a hole in the middle of the sensor to run the wires through. That is the “miracle” of the human eye.
The miracle is that the damn thing works at all. If we were designing an eye, surely we could do better than what we’ve got. And if you or I could do better, what does that say about the Designer?” - geocities.com/lclane2/id2.html
Quite an amusing read.
It’s character combinations amongst other things that caused the likes of Darwin to question creation, because to be frank the idea that a designer is limited to designing animals in nested sets, even when he has already designed characteristics that would be FAR more suited to the purpose is utterly absurd. They only reason a designer would design like this is to make it look like we evolved.
We then saw the addition of DNA evidence, and guess what. We see the EXACT same pattern in the animals DNA. So much so we can actually over lap the two branched hierarchies and they fit PERFECTLY. DNA also shows exactly why animals are limited. We can only build on the DNA we inherit.
We can also trace back ERV’s and guess what. Yep you guessed it, they fit the branches PERFECTLY!
We can also trace back DNA similarity and guess what. Yep you guessed it, it fits the branches PERFECTLY!
We can adate the fossils and guess what. Yep you guessed it, the dates fit the branches PERFECTLY!
We have human chromosome two, we know the chromosomes involved and the exact bonding site.
It is absurd that in this day and age with the OVERWHELMING evidence for evolution people still deny it.
Now you will get people that will try to deny there evidence, and that fine. But if you want to challange the evidence you must do it properly, by research and peer review anything else is worthless.
R
reggieM
Guest
Even going back to the supposed evolution of bacteria, we would have to accept that even though bacteria exist today which are perfectly adapted to the environment, they also evolved into complex multi-cellular organisms through to humanity – while their non-evolving partners stayed as bacteria.
This is where an immense amount of new information is required (the human brain with 100 billion neurons in an immensely complex neural network of synergistic functions). This cannot come from natural selection – so that part of the mechanism is basically irrelevant.
So on the question of “Why would God …” the better question is "why would evolution turn bacteria into the incredible diversity of life that we see on earth today? There is no good explanation for that, other than “survival”, but that explanation totally fails because bacteria survives without evolution, and most of the novel features and variation in nature is not necessary for survival (certainly not the human brain’s power).
Most of the “explanation” is a tautology. It cannot predict what the changes will be and who the survivors will be. It claims only that the survivors are the organisms that survived. They are the survivors because they were best fit for survival.
This is where an immense amount of new information is required (the human brain with 100 billion neurons in an immensely complex neural network of synergistic functions). This cannot come from natural selection – so that part of the mechanism is basically irrelevant.
So on the question of “Why would God …” the better question is "why would evolution turn bacteria into the incredible diversity of life that we see on earth today? There is no good explanation for that, other than “survival”, but that explanation totally fails because bacteria survives without evolution, and most of the novel features and variation in nature is not necessary for survival (certainly not the human brain’s power).
Most of the “explanation” is a tautology. It cannot predict what the changes will be and who the survivors will be. It claims only that the survivors are the organisms that survived. They are the survivors because they were best fit for survival.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
No this is were your your misunderstanding evolution. We are no more evolved than todays bacteria.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
"On the contrary, if the designer implements the code, reutilizing parts he has already used, but on a completely new “hardware” (in other words, creating a new species not from an existing species, but, for instance, from inorganic matter), then homologies can just the same be explained as reutilization of the code, although common descent in that case is not true."
This is fundamentally wrong. If god was reusing code he would not be bound to sets. He could reuse any of the designed code NOT just the code that fits the sets. Why would god not reused the gills code on whales?
"Although, as I said, I tend to believe in the first hypothesis (designed common descent, with intentional modification of the code by the designer), both can be discussed."
So we are reduced to god is a bad designer that designed it to make it look like we evolved. Thats all i was looking for, i think everyone can see that answer for what is really means.
Finally, even the arguments about “errors in the code repeated in different species” and “homologies in non coding parts of the code” have no meaning. Regarding errors, they are common in any code, adn they are perfectly compatible with the idea of reutilization of the code, especially in our first form, where not only the code, but also the implementation, is reutilized. Moreover, it is very difficult to establish what is really an “error”, when you don’t know all the intentions of the designer, and not even how most of the code works.
No that not how code works, code it constantly debugged and streamlined to attain better performance. Then we see the famous we don’t understand god stance, well gee that answers a lot. If everyone had that attitude we would never discover anything. Dark ages anyone?
Regarding the homologies in non coding DNA, now those are really interesting! We know that many parts of non-coding DNA are ultra-conserved. That is probably some difficulty for darwinists to explain, but luckily not for ID. Indeed, we have never thought that non-coding DNA is “junk”. We do believe it is code, and very important code indeed! And that can apply to any part of non coding DNA, including transposons of all kinds, until we understand how the living functions of regulation, differentiation, morphogenesis etc. are implemented. [RM comment: This post was written before more evidence fully showed that the ID predictions on Junk DNA were proven true and the Darwinian predictions falsified.]
Utter nonsense. Please point me to this peer reviewed paper, i cant wait to read it.
We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That’s why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.
Here we see the fundamental problem, “any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID research every day,” research should be pro nothing. Research must be carried out BEFORE you draw the conclusion.
This is fundamentally wrong. If god was reusing code he would not be bound to sets. He could reuse any of the designed code NOT just the code that fits the sets. Why would god not reused the gills code on whales?
"Although, as I said, I tend to believe in the first hypothesis (designed common descent, with intentional modification of the code by the designer), both can be discussed."
So we are reduced to god is a bad designer that designed it to make it look like we evolved. Thats all i was looking for, i think everyone can see that answer for what is really means.
Finally, even the arguments about “errors in the code repeated in different species” and “homologies in non coding parts of the code” have no meaning. Regarding errors, they are common in any code, adn they are perfectly compatible with the idea of reutilization of the code, especially in our first form, where not only the code, but also the implementation, is reutilized. Moreover, it is very difficult to establish what is really an “error”, when you don’t know all the intentions of the designer, and not even how most of the code works.
No that not how code works, code it constantly debugged and streamlined to attain better performance. Then we see the famous we don’t understand god stance, well gee that answers a lot. If everyone had that attitude we would never discover anything. Dark ages anyone?
Regarding the homologies in non coding DNA, now those are really interesting! We know that many parts of non-coding DNA are ultra-conserved. That is probably some difficulty for darwinists to explain, but luckily not for ID. Indeed, we have never thought that non-coding DNA is “junk”. We do believe it is code, and very important code indeed! And that can apply to any part of non coding DNA, including transposons of all kinds, until we understand how the living functions of regulation, differentiation, morphogenesis etc. are implemented. [RM comment: This post was written before more evidence fully showed that the ID predictions on Junk DNA were proven true and the Darwinian predictions falsified.]
Utter nonsense. Please point me to this peer reviewed paper, i cant wait to read it.
We should always remember that any fact observed by darwinists, from duplication of genes to all the similarities and differences between genetic code in various species, is by far best interpreted by design, while faces incredible improbabilities when interpreted as unguided common descent. This is the truth. That’s why there is no way to ultimately define research as darwinist or ID inspired. Research, although it may be inspired by specific ideas, is just research. It looks for facts. If it is done well, and with honesty, it usually finds them. And facts only support truth. So, if design is true (as I strongly believe), for me any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID reasearch every day, although the authors are rarely aware of that.
Here we see the fundamental problem, “any good research is a pro-ID research. I read pro-ID research every day,” research should be pro nothing. Research must be carried out BEFORE you draw the conclusion.
R
reggieM
Guest
Excellent question. The answer requires knowing the intention of the designer and what a “good design” would mean.
I think the question regarding whales, for example, is why would unintelligent evolutionary processes move fish out of the water and on to land and then move them back into the water again? How is it that whales made that kind of change after splitting from reptiles, while bats also split from reptiles and grew wings and lived in caves or trees, and developed sonar in an absurdly and radically different and complex manner – and yet the molecular evidence shows both whales and bats at the same molecular distance from comparison molecules reptiles?
The human eye is a miracle indeed, as are all eyes found in nature. Supposedly, eyes evolved independently from non-ancestors as many as 40 times. But no survival advantage can be shown for 5% of an eye (an eye does not function at all until it is fully assembled). How vision is processed by the brain and then captured in human consciousness (vision in memory or imagination) is not tied to any materialistic explanation, much less survival advantage.
I pointed out a number of problems with the idea that mutations actually caused the massive increase of information required to design one eye. Today, mutations in the eyes cause blindness or severely impared vision. At the same time, eyesight has not improved at all due to positive mutations during the history of the human race - even though there would be many survival advantages, and other organisms have better eyesight.
As for something you could design, the eye does not work alone. It must be attached to a neural network that processes and interprets the image. That requires invention of intelligence itself. How does an unintelligent, unconscious natural process create that? You cite your own intelligence in designing something like an eye, but you should show what unconscious physical laws produce.
For example, rocks come down the side of a mountain in an avalanche. If that produced structures as complex and functional as eyes, then you’d have a point. Instead, they produce piles of rocks. What we see in eyes, however, is a complex order and function that, by sheer common sense (which I’m glad you cited) appears designed and not the product of blind, physical laws acting on random occurences.
That’s actually a good point. One reason the designer would design is to make it appear to some people, under some circumstances, that materialistic-evolution was the mechanism and that God does not exist. Why would God create that illusion, when the truth is He created things? Again, you pointed to common sense, so I’ll mention it again. Richard Dawkins said himself, nature looks like it was designed for a purpose - overwhelmingly. By common sense, it does not look like Darwinian evolution did it.
K
kalt
Guest
That is your opinion. Where is the proof?
K
kalt
Guest
And so you aknowledge some kind of eternal.
K
kalt
Guest
Darwinism?
K
kalt
Guest
Because they evolved.
- Status