P
PickyPicky
Guest
Oh, bloomin Eck. But not today. OK?
- Status
B
buffalo
Guest
It’s 10 minutes well worth the time…
T
Techno2000
Guest
Right, they twist and extrapolate what they see now, and try and make it fit into what could’ve happen so-called billions of year ago.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Ok…
P
PickyPicky
Guest
Tomorrow, perhaps. Meanwhile, I’ve a meal to construct. And then prepare for some cricket to watch through the night. Good night all. Any Australians present: prepare to meet your doom.
E
edwest211
Guest
Truly illogical, irrational and not testable.
E
edwest211
Guest
The creature must eat enough calories to carry its weight, literally. And consistently.
T
Techno2000
Guest
Excellent thanks
R
rossum
Guest
False. Your sources are lying to you. The lactase persistence mutation results in an increase in function: adults can do what they previously were not able to do. That is an increase in function. Humans living at high altitudes have mutations which enable them to function better at high altitude with low oxygen pressure.
Why do you believe sources that so obviously lie to you?
rossum
B
buffalo
Guest
Adaptation does this by breaking or removing something to survive. Started with lactose tolernace and now has lactose intolerance
R
rossum
Guest
You are moving the goalposts. Your earlier post incorrectly referred to “changes always end up with loss of function”. I provided examples of an increase in function and you try to pretend that your sources did not lie to you by changing the subject to the cause of the increase in function.
Evolution can increase function. If you want to persist you can look at the various adaptations to living at altitude (there are more than one) and tell us what functions were ‘lost’ in the course of those adaptations.
Very obviously you are aware that function can increase. Why then do you persist in believing sources that tell you function cannot increase? Do you really expect to convince anyone with such obviously false information?
rossum
A
Aloysium
Guest
Through music, Beauty is revealed. As in nature, with its wonders above and below us, its sacred places and infinitely diverse expressions of existence, we find the glory of God. In contemplation of who we are, with our capacity to envision domes that separate the waters, turtles sitting on turtles all the way down, or Hubble pictures that represent otherwise unimaginable spaces and times - to shout this is AWESOME, doesn’t even come close. Maybe a whisper. And, lest we forget, how can we - the pain, nothing so real. Life’s losses and guilt, that which we cannot undo, so hopeless, become doors to transcendence. But, now we’ve come up with a theory about how this came about by itself, by means of laws that are just there, eternal, and grounded in the very smallest of things. Perhaps paying homage to the largest, but most definitely excluding what exists in between, that which is most complex and holds the entire universe as an image in the mind. Whose loving hands hold that mind?
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
This was my full post [Except the data does not show it. The changes always end up with loss of function. Additional useless wings on a fly does not help the case.]
With design we see gain of function. Adaptations can increase functions. My claim was macro-evolution does not show it.
With design we see gain of function. Adaptations can increase functions. My claim was macro-evolution does not show it.
R
rossum
Guest
False. Again. A designer can easily remove a function. The designers of steamships used to design them with large coal bunkers to carry the coal to fuel the engines. Modern ships are designed without coal bunkers, so they have lost the function of being able to carry coal.
Evolution can add or subtract functions. Design can add or subtract functions.
Why do you persist in making such easily refuted statements?
B
buffalo
Guest
My statement was not absolute. Of course, design can increase or decrease function. The issue is whether or not evolution can. You are purposely misrepresenting my posts and you should know better as we have long been posting. I do not accuse you sources of lying either. I expect the same courtesy from you.
We look at mostly the same data. Evolutionism and scientism is the worldview you are posting from “Evolution can do anything”. I think that is pure nonsense without evidence.
We look at mostly the same data. Evolutionism and scientism is the worldview you are posting from “Evolution can do anything”. I think that is pure nonsense without evidence.
Last edited:
B
buffalo
Guest
The first gene
More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control
“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…
Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.
“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection, but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.”
A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.
From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:
*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. -
Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.
idvolution.blogspot.com
More support for IDvolution! God “breathed” the super language of DNA into the “kinds” in the creative act.
The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control
“The First Gene: The Birth of Programming, Messaging and Formal Control” is a peer-reviewed anthology of papers that focuses, for the first time, entirely on the following difficult scientific questions:…
Abstract: Could a composome, chemoton, or RNA vesicular protocell come to life in the absence of formal instructions, controls and regulation? Redundant, low-informational selfordering is not organization. Organization must be programmed. Intertwined circular constraints (e.g. complex hypercylces), even with negative and positive feedback, do not steer physicochemical reactions toward formal function or metabolic success. Complex hypercycles quickly and selfishly exhaust sequence and other phase spaces of potential metabolic resources.
“Chance and necessity are completely inadequate to describe the most important elements of what we repeatedly observe in intra-cellular life, especially. Science must acknowledge the reality and validity not only of a very indirect, post facto natural selection, but of purposeful selection for potential function as a fundamental category of reality. To disallow purposeful selection renders the practice of mathematics and science impossible.”
A new technical book, The First Gene, edited by Gene Emergence Project director David L. Abel, …" Materialists will not like this book because its arguments are 100% scientific, devoid of religious, political, or cultural concerns, and most importantly, compelling.
From reading The First Gene, a number of minimal theoretical and material requirements for life emerge:
*High levels of prescriptive information -
*Programming -
*Symbol systems and language -
*Molecules which can carry this information and programming
*Highly unlikely sequences of functional information -
*Formal function -
*An “agent” capable of making “intentional choices of mind” which can “choose” between various options, select for future function, and instantiate these requirements for life. -
Anti-ID conspiracy theorists love to say that those pesky creationists are always changing their terminology to get around the First Amendment. ID’s intellectual pedigree refutes that charge, but The First Gene adds more reasons why that charge should not be taken seriously. The book offers highly technical, strictly scientific arguments about the nature of information, information processing, and biological functionality. Even a cursory read of this book shows that its contributors are just thinking about doing good science. And this science leads them to the conclusion that blind and unguided material causes cannot produce the complexity we observe in life. Some agent capable of making choices is required to produce the first life.
The First Gene
IDvolution - Where faith and reason intersect. - intelligent design Jim Serafin
idvolution.blogspot.com
D
dallas_r
Guest
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
R
rossum
Guest
Excellent, we agree.
It can. I have already given two examples: lactase persistence and the various adaptations to high-altitude where evolution has increased function. Any claim that evolution cannot increase functionality is obviously false.
Evolution cannot do “anything”; it can only work based on currently existing organisms, and must work within the nested hierarchy, while design does not have to do either. For example, a pegasus can be designed – humans designed it. However, a pegasus cannot evolve, since it combines two different branches of the nested hierarchy: avian wings with a mammalian body.
When mammals evolved wings, bats, their wings were very different from earlier bird wings and also from earlier pterosaur wings. Because the mammal branch did not have wings, and evolution cannot copy a working design from a different branch, then evolution had to develop a new type of wing, different from both birds and pterosaurs. That also explains why birds do not have pterosaur wings: birds are on a different branch from pterosaurs. There are two cases where evolution has reinvented the wheel/wing rather than copy an already existing successful design.
The fact that we do not see living pegasi is one piece of evidence in favour of evolution and against design. It is not just pegasi. We do not see any other animals that could have been designed but could not have evolved. Not one.
Either the designer is deliberately restricting herself to evolution-only possibilities or evolution within the nested hierarchy is the correct explanation.
rossum
Last edited:
E
edwest211
Guest
Intelligent Design is the only other possibility. And God is the designer.
- Status