A simple case for intelligent design

[Polymath257]

We see microevolution - the loss of genetic information.

We never see macroevolution - Macroevolution has to have the addition of new genetic information.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. They are going in opposite directions.

Simply false. We see duplication of genes and subsequent divergence. That is *addition* of information.

 

[Valjean]

The variations we see today are always a result of a loss of genetic information, never the addition of new genetic information. Even beneficial mutations are always caused by the loss of information. This is a serious problem for evolution. Major changes such as single cell to multi cell organisms absolutely must have new information.

What are you talking about? Loss of information? What does that mean? Where are you getting this nonsense?
Variation isn't loss, it's rearrangement or recombination. Don't you know how sexual reproduction works?
1. Genome size doesn't change significantly from generation to generation.
2. Genome size is not generally related to the complexity of an organism.
3. Genes get added, deleted, replicated and altered all the time. So what?

The ordinary amoebas you looked at under the microscope in biology class have 100 times the 'genetic information' of humans, and some other amoebas have much more.
I can take a pile of Leggos and build a cabin, then take it apart and build a tank or a dog. No new information needed, just some rearrangement.

The Bible says animals reproduce "after their own kind." We can see variation within a kind (loss of information) but never changes from one kind of animal to another.

1. What does the Bible have to do with this? It';s not a book on biology. It was written by people with no concept of biology.
2. You acknowledge change occurring, so how do the 'micro' changes know when to stop, to avoid becoming macro changes?

We see microevolution - the loss of genetic information.

We never see macroevolution - Macroevolution has to have the addition of new genetic information.

Evolution is not loss of information. Where are you getting this?
Macroevolution is just accumulated microevolution. There's no new 'information' needed.

The two really have nothing to do with each other. They are going in opposite directions.

Directions? When did evolution acquire a direction? Change is change.

Tell me which is superior, a wolf or a chiwawa? This change was caused by a loss of genetic information. Evolution is dependent on the spontaneous addition of new information or it cannot work. Animals reproduce after their own kind. There can be variation within a kind but these are still dogs and moths are still moths.

Superior? This is not a biological concept.

Wolves are better adapted to the tundra, chihuahuas to an apartment. Both are equally complex, biologically.

Genesis 1:25
[25]And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

You're doing it again.
Don't you ever quote the Quran? the The Silmarillion, or the Popol Vuh?

As for the antibiotics, mutated bacteria is also a result of a loss of genetic information. It is able to survive when antibiotics are present but when the antibiotics are gone it dies out and the normal bacteria survive. The mutated bacteria has only developed the ability to survive in a particular environment but in a normal environment it is still inferior to the original.

But this is ridiculous. Mutation isn't a loss of genetic information, nor do resistant bacteria die without antibiotics.
Seriously, I'd really like to know where you get all this misinformation.

 

[leroy]

"(1) The change in genetic composition of a population over successive generations, which may be caused by natural selection, inbreeding, hybridization, or mutation.

(2) The sequence of events depicting the development of a species or of a group of related organisms; phylogeny."

Evolution - Biology-Online Dictionary | Biology-Online Dictionary



Google Scholar

Google Scholar

Sure using that definition of evolution, it is obvious that evolution is true and better supported than gravity.

Not even crazy right wing creationists would deny what you call evolution

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure using that definition of evolution, it is obvious that evolution is true and better supported than gravity.

Not even crazy right wing creationists would deny what you call evolution

But that is evolution. That is evolution from single cell to man. Too bad that you did not understand it.

 

[ecco]

...why did these nucleotides organized themselves in the order required to produce self-replicating proteins?

Did it happen by chance? Or is there a natural mechanism that forces this order?

Natural mechanism. How many ways could two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms combine? If you think of two red balls and one blue ball in three dimensional space, the number of possible alignments if extremely high.

How many ways do two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms combine? One.

The sources that you provide do not even attempt to answer to this question
100 = the size of our hypothetical protein
1/4 ^100 is similar to 1 in 10^60 (which is the number that I provided)
This calculation only applies y you believe that it all happened by chance, so, do you believe it happened by chance?

What do you mean "happened by chance"?

Is it chance that a water molecule only results from the combination of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom?
Is it chance that a water molecule only results from the precise alignment of three atoms?

Granted, the question Is “who puts the nucleotides in the correct order?” chance? Some natural mechanism?

"Who"? Seriously? See above. If you don't understand it, that may be the problem.

ID is falsifiable, naturalism is not falsifiable

Are you arguing that Chemistry is not falsifiable?


When considering Intelligent Design, can you disprove that everything was created Last Thursday?

 

[ecco]

Many religious find no conflict, but why call evolution 'theistic'? We don't talk about theistic metallurgy or theistic bricklaying.
Where's the Theos come into the picture?

Nowhere in the bible does it say god is required to lay bricks.
Somewhere in the bible it says god is required to create humans.

If Marcion had his way, we wouldn't be having these silly discussions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Some people say a lot of ridiculous things. I don't find such to be interesting at all.

Given what we know of cosmology, we don't expect to find an 'edge' to the universe. In fact, that almost precisely what we *don't* expect to find.

Or... as I mentioned to a Christian friend earlier this morning, the skeptic's box is so small, they are okay with space expanding, but expanding into nothing/nowhere, and okay with eternal matter or matter that is not eternal, introduced here from a multiverse, but no, there's nothing "outside" the known universe, because any Christian gedanken like "waters outside the universe create a gravitational well that makes a young solar system/old universe" is impossible by definition, because Christians "don't think correctly".

THINK BIGGER, darling.

 

[Polymath257]

Or... as I mentioned to a Christian friend earlier this morning, the skeptic's box is so small, they are okay with space expanding, but expanding into nothing/nowhere, and okay with eternal matter or matter that is not eternal, introduced here from a multiverse, but no, there's nothing "outside" the known universe, because any Christian gedanken like "waters outside the universe create a gravitational well that makes a young solar system/old universe" is impossible by definition, because Christians "don't think correctly".

THINK BIGGER, darling.

I think larger than you might think. But your waters are simply ludicrous from a scientific viewpoint. Not even a starter.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What has the existence of an edge of the Universe anything to do with the absurdity of water before the first stars? The reason of the absurdity is much easier to see than that.

Ciao

- viole

It's never an absurdity to perform a gedanken:

1) The water was separated from the universe early (Genesis)
2) Water has many magnificent properties (science)
3) We can say in this universe that stars were made first, then elements and planets proceeded, but we don't know what happens "outside" the universe or in a multiverse (science, conjecture, gedanken, cosmology, the Bible)

You are disallowing for a creative alternative proposed by a physicist who happens to be a believer and said, "What does a large volume of water do to gravitational relativity here?"

You are likely okay with saying "There must be dark matter, which we cannot find, which is invisible--you know, like an invisible God--but there cannot be water or anything outside known time-space, even though we cannot see the extent of the universe and the size of the universe is a theoretical abstract."

THINK BIGGER, darling.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Some people make all sorts of idiotic claims. No one who knows anything of the sciences take them seriously. Your example is no different from @viole 's example of Swiss Cheese proving Jesus. Using a bad example to try to refute an argument that shows how bad examples do not work is an amazingly poor technique.

Please provide your proofs here that this space-time is all, there is no multiverse, and there is nowhere water outside this universe:

1) Proof A:

2) Proof B:

3) Proof C:

A Shakespeare quote comes to mind, regarding a certain Horatio...

DREAM BIGGER, darling, to paraphrase Tom Hardy in Inception.

PS. Only inquisitors kill a good apologist's gedanken.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I call BS.

See other response to you today.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't want to distract from the original question.

Are you saying you used the scientific method, including hypotheses, on the tests offered in the Holy Bible? I doubt that, since you didn't conclude anything using science.
​

I suppose you are trying to say that you used the scientific method to demonstrate that atheists "are merely closed-minded, biases, anti-scientific, anti-inquiry, dishonest". However:

• You presented no evidence that you challenged any atheists to pray to your god.
• You presented no evidence to anyone refused to pray.

What you have succeeded in doing, is demonstrate, once again, that you have no understanding of how science works. So, obviously, you could not have subjected to Bible to any kind of scientific analysis.

My friend,

An atheist is a person who will agree wholeheartedly that we should spend millions to shoot signals into space to contact non-proven alien entities (SETI), while simultaneously calling UFO believers superstitious nut jobs and at the same time, refusing to say a few basic words of prayer (for free, not millions of dollars) to contact a non-proven (to their satisfaction) entity, to inherit eternal life.

I used the scientific method (make a hypothesis, follow it as true) to get there, by the way.

THINK BIGGER, darling, to paraphrase Tom Hardy.

PS. Participate in my assertion, falsifying it, by PRAYING NOW.

 

[ecco]

Or... as I mentioned to a Christian friend earlier this morning, the skeptic's box is so small, they are okay with space expanding, but expanding into nothing/nowhere, and okay with eternal matter or matter that is not eternal, introduced here from a multiverse, but no, there's nothing "outside" the known universe, because any Christian gedanken like "waters outside the universe create a gravitational well that makes a young solar system/old universe" is impossible by definition, because Christians "don't think correctly".

Wow!. That was all one sentence.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And some people say that a DeLorean with a flux capacitor will do the same thing. "Some people" say all sorts of things, but if their 'hypotheses' aren't based on actual observations and known physics, they're all just speculation.
People have been generating explanatory folklore for thousands of years.
But people have been earnestly praying for evidence for millennia, and thus far, no consistent, measurable, reproducible evidence has emerged.
A strong, individual, emotional response is 'evidence' only to the individual.

Wow! Sounds like you didn't read the physicist who made this proposal, and further sounds like you just don't like thinking about gedanken, in general. Why are skeptics (like myself, a former skeptic) so darned closed-minded all the time?

PS. I pray for evidence sometimes as you wrote, for certain things, but I mostly pray for others' salvations, favor in life, cancer healing, etc. and I get my prayers ANSWERED.

Gedanken: I propose you think it's dandy that we spend millions on SETI (pay to shoot signals into space to contact presumed, unproved, alien entities) but wouldn't pray to God for free (presumed, unproved-to-your-satisfaction alien entity that billions of people pray to, believe in, and praise) to inherit eternal life.

Conclusion: Skeptics are extremely wasteful on resources--and to be logically consistent, must immediately call for SETI funds to be redistributed to combat poverty ON EARTH.

 

[viole]

It's never an absurdity to perform a gedanken:

1) The water was separated from the universe early (Genesis)
2) Water has many magnificent properties (science)
3) We can say in this universe that stars were made first, then elements and planets proceeded, but we don't know what happens "outside" the universe or in a multiverse (science, conjecture, gedanken, cosmology, the Bible)

You are disallowing for a creative alternative proposed by a physicist who happens to be a believer and said, "What does a large volume of water do to gravitational relativity here?"

You are likely okay with saying "There must be dark matter, which we cannot find, which is invisible--you know, like an invisible God--but there cannot be water or anything outside known time-space, even though we cannot see the extent of the universe and the size of the universe is a theoretical abstract."

THINK BIGGER, darling.

So, not only biology is bad.
Now also astrophysics is bad.
I suppose geology is also bad.
Wonder what you think of neurobiology and meteorology.

So, you just need to refute basically all of science, because, by a sheer accident of birth, you happen to believe in the divine origin of a book written by some unknown goat herders obviously without a clue.

So, what should I choose. Let me start bigger thinking. Mmh, hundreds of years of science and technology, or, ancient goat herders? Very difficult. I think I will go with the goat herders...

Well done. If that is what bigger thinking is, then i doubt that you will ever win a Nobel prize by using it. A prize you should claim, by having strong cases against basically all of science.

Ciao

- viole

 

[ecco]

My friend,

Why start with an absurdity? I am not your friend.

An atheist is a person who will agree wholeheartedly that we should spend millions to shoot signals into space to contact non-proven alien entities (SETI),

Another absurdity. The Seti program is supported by many Christians.

while simultaneously calling UFO believers superstitious nut jobs

I'm not surprised that you don't understand the difference between seeking out distant civilizations and believing they asked ancient Peruvians to scratch runway markers into the ground so they could land.

and at the same time, refusing to say a few basic words of prayer (for free, not millions of dollars) to contact a non-proven (to their satisfaction) entity, to inherit eternal life.

Do you pray to Shiva? Do you pray to Allah? Do you pray to Pinga? Do you pray to Psychic Snowflakes? Do you pray to The God Who Created Everything Last Thursday?

Why not? It's free.

I used the scientific method (make a hypothesis, follow it as true) to get there, by the way.

You say that, but you have given no evidence that you did anything. Your silly comments about prayer are just that, silly comments.

PS. Participate in my assertion, falsifying it, by PRAYING NOW.

Let's discuss that after you show why you don't pray to Psychic Snowflakes.

 

[leroy]

Natural mechanism. How many ways could two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms combine? If you think of two red balls and one blue ball in three dimensional space, the number of possible alignments if extremely high.

How many ways do two hydrogen and one oxygen atoms combine? One.

If you show that the relation between nucleotides and self replicating proteins is analogous to the relation between hydrogen-oxigen atoms and water molecules, then ID would be disproven (at least the ID when it relates to abiogenesis).......see ID is falsifiable


There is a natural law that “forces” oxygen to combine with hydrogen atoms in a ratio of 1 to 2, the laws of nature prevents other pattern. If you show that nucleotides necessarily organize themselves in to self replicating proteins, my argument would be falsified

Are you arguing that Chemistry is not falsifiable?

I am arguing that naturalism is not falsifiable, how can I falsify the idea that life had a natural origin?

When considering Intelligent Design, can you disprove that everything was created Last Thursday?

In any case naturalism would have the same problem. (maybe you are just a Boltzmann brain that was created 2 seconds ago)

But yes I do think we can falsify (with a high degree of confidence) the idea that we were created last Thursday, by appealing to “Reductio ad absurdum” this philosophical principle states that if an idea leads to an absurd conclusion, you most reject it

 

[leroy]

But that is evolution. That is evolution from single cell to man. Too bad that you did not understand it.

What you defined as evolution does not lead to “cell to man evolution”

 

[leroy]

By the way, we see "new information" all of the time. Every mutation that occurs is by definition "new information" . Are you trying to claim that mutations do not occur?

You are only embarrassing yourself.

It depends, what do you mean by “new information”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Please provide your proofs here that this space-time is all, there is no multiverse, and there is nowhere water outside this universe:

1) Proof A:

2) Proof B:

3) Proof C:

A Shakespeare quote comes to mind, regarding a certain Horatio...

DREAM BIGGER, darling, to paraphrase Tom Hardy in Inception.

PS. Only inquisitors kill a good apologist's gedanken.

You simply have no clue on how the sciences are done, or how to reason rationally. Of course rational thought would be the end of your beliefs. You cannot afford it.