Creationists: Here's your chance

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

I'm going to need you to explain what you mean by "information"... Otherwise I fear we will simply talk past one another.

Information comes in two ways; words and blueprints or pictures. That is what I mean by information

That would be a lot of pictures!

Ok, maybe show me the BEST transitional link you have then?

So what about creatures that look like they belong in more than one "kind"?

I will give a twofold answer to that.
Either “kind” is very broad. Or second, those animals that look like TWO kinds are not two kinds combined, but rather a THIRD kind separate from the other two kinds.

Polyploidy is a mutation... during normal cell division the chromosomes (which are made of two mirrored parts) are divided and one half goes to each new cell. The new cells then use their half to fill out their chromosomes.
In polyploidy the chromosome halves don't end up going to two cells but just one. The cell then acts like normal and copies the halves and ends up with double the number of chromosomes.
The extra chromosomes are then free to change without risk of harming the organism, they can also produce extra beneficial cellular products and provide extra resistance to disease.
This is actually very common in plants and new plant species develop quite quickly this way. Most human crops owe their high productivity to polyploidy mutations.
Ancestral wheat has two sets of chromosomes while many modern species have as many as six.

Ok, could you do something for me? Give me a metaphor that I can identify with that explains what you just said here. And then I will respond to what you’re saying.

 

[fantome profane]

I will give a twofold answer to that.
Either “kind” is very broad. Or second, those animals that look like TWO kinds are not two kinds combined, but rather a THIRD kind separate from the other two kinds.

That is not a “twofold” answer, it is two completely different and contradictory answers. Which is it? And how do we know? Are chimps and gorilla’s the same kind? Are chimps and humans the same kind”? And how do we know?

Ok, could you do something for me? Give me a metaphor that I can identify with that explains what you just said here. And then I will respond to what you’re saying.

Imagine this, we start with the word “ball”, then a mutation doubles that and we have “ball ball”. Now the way genetic “information” is (sometimes) read this is not new “information”, the duplication is not read, and because it is not read it is free to mutate.

ball
ball ball (not new information)
blal ball (still not new information)
blae ball (still not new information
blue ball (new information)

Now we have new information that we did not have before. This is in genetic terms accomplished through nothing more than random mutation and natural selection.

 

[Jollybear]

Fantome_profane

That is not a “twofold” answer, it is two completely different and contradictory answers. Which is it? And how do we know? Are chimps and gorilla’s the same kind? Are chimps and humans the same kind”? And how do we know?

I was just saying that there are two ways to answer it. It’s one of the two. Chimps and gorilla’s are the same kind. Chimps and humans are not the same kind. Since this issue would have to based on a case by case analysis, that is a study of each animal one by one, I cannot give a definite answer.

How do we know? The intelligent level and the body structure and the differences in the body functions.

Imagine this, we start with the word “ball”, then a mutation doubles that and we have “ball ball”. Now the way genetic “information” is (sometimes) read this is not new “information”, the duplication is not read, and because it is not read it is free to mutate.

I did not understand that, could you explain that better?

ball
ball ball (not new information)
blal ball (still not new information)
blae ball (still not new information
blue ball (new information)

Now we have new information that we did not have before. This is in genetic terms accomplished through nothing more than random mutation and natural selection.

Ok, we start off with the word “ball”, now how does the mutation DOUBLE this to be “ball ball”?

Also if the double “ball ball” is not new information and “blal ball” is not new information either and if “blae ball” is still not new information and if intelligence did not make “blue ball” (the new information) then how is “blue ball” new information, that is, how is it information at all?

 

[fantome profane]

I was just saying that there are two ways to answer it. It’s one of the two. Chimps and gorilla’s are the same kind. Chimps and humans are not the same kind. Since this issue would have to based on a case by case analysis, that is a study of each animal one by one, I cannot give a definite answer.

How do we know? The intelligent level and the body structure and the differences in the body functions.

Humans and chimps have more in common than chimps and gorillas physiologically and genetically. The body structure, the genetic structure, and even the neurological structure and behaviour of chimps is more like humans than it is like gorillas. So if you are going to base your answer on any of these you would have to conclude that if gorillas are the same “kind” as chimps then so must humans. To say that gorillas and chimps are the same “kind” and humans are not makes no sense if you look at the physiology, body structure, body functions or genetics. It would be like saying a dog and a cat are the same kind but a wolf is a different kind than a dog.

I did not understand that, could you explain that better?




Ok, we start off with the word “ball”, now how does the mutation DOUBLE this to be “ball ball”?

Also if the double “ball ball” is not new information and “blal ball” is not new information either and if “blae ball” is still not new information and if intelligence did not make “blue ball” (the new information) then how is “blue ball” new information, that is, how is it information at all?

Gene duplication is a very common occurrence, but I will let Painted Wolf explain the mechanics exactly how it happens. I am trying to give an explanation that a child could understand.

I tell you it is a ball, this is one simple point of information. Now if I tell you that it is a ball again that is not new information because you already knew that. Is that simple enough?

If I tell you it is a ball and then I tell you it is blal, you did not get any new information because blal makes no sense. Is that simple enough?

If I tell you it is a ball and then tell you it is blue now you have new information that you did not have to begin with, you know it is a ball and you know it is blue. That is new information. I really can’t make it any more simple than that.

ball
ball ball (not new information)
blal ball (still not new information)
blae ball (still not new information
blue ball (new information)


I think Painted Wolf asked you what your definition of “information” is. Would you please give us your definition of “information”? I think that would perhaps show why you can’t understand what I think is a very simple explanation.

 

[painted wolf]

Information comes in two ways; words and blueprints or pictures. That is what I mean by information

Well, in that case DNA has no information in it what so ever.
There are no words or pictures to be found in any genome.
If you think of it as a blueprint... and adding a new feature (new amino acids for example) to the blueprint increases it's "information" then. This happens quite a lot due to mutations.

Ok, maybe show me the BEST transitional link you have then?

that is still a lot of pictures... If you give me some time, I'll see about posting that in a new thread.

I will give a twofold answer to that.
Either “kind” is very broad. Or second, those animals that look like TWO kinds are not two kinds combined, but rather a THIRD kind separate from the other two kinds.

So... a "kind" is whatever you want it to be? It's purely speculative.
How can you ever know then how many kinds were created?
Genesis only mentions a few kinds... Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, whales, fish and fowl of the air.
So what is to say that both dogs and cats aren't part of the "beasts of the field" kind?

Ok, could you do something for me? Give me a metaphor that I can identify with that explains what you just said here. And then I will respond to what you’re saying.

Metaphors can be misleading... here is one better.

wa:do

 

[The_Evelyonian]

In the beginning of the thread you asked for “tangible” evidence. What did you mean by tangible?

real: capable of being perceived; capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"

Again, let me ask you. Do you believe gravity exists? If yes, on what bases do you believe it exists? What evidence is there for gravity?

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

Help me understand. If you deny there is a cycle of eternity, tell me how you know that? Or do you conveniently stick with the “I don’t know?”

I deny the cycle of eternity for the same reason I deny the pink unicorn. There's no evidence.

Is there scientific evidence for gravity? Is it tangible evidence for gravity?

Yes, general relativity.

What do you mean by scientific evidence, define that for me.

Something that can be tested and/or reproduced under specific conditions.

“NO, if you don’t answer the argument, you show my case to be strong and yours to be weak. Also by not addressing the argument you think this is PURELY a fact or science issue and it’s NOT! It’s a philosophical issue as well. We cannot prove any view 100% either way, I predict we never will, now that being said, the only way we can BEST figure out what view is most plausible, we need to go the philosophical path, which means, ADRESS THE ARGUMENT I MADE.”

Again, I'm not concerned with philosophy.

“I told you why God is IMMUNE! It’s because there has to be a FIRST CAUSE! Haha! Goodness gracious. And out of all the views on the table, he is the most PLAUSIBLE first cause.”

The argument from complexity forbids a complex first cause.

“There is no contradiction, I did not say ALL complex things are designed, if I said all things, THEN I would have contradicted myself. But I said, all complex things are designed ACCEPT God. Or everything that is complex accept God is designed. I did not contradict myself. If I said all things complex are designed, then said. God is complex but he is eternal. Well that would be a contradiction. But I did not say that. I said all complex things ACCEPT God are designed.”

No, you said "complexity is design" and I'm holding you to that. You can create a god shaped loophole and call it "first cause" if you wish but you've yet to give any good reason why such a loophole should exist. All you've done is say, "It must be this way."

Let me ask you a new question. Assuming for the moment that all 6 of these views are the only ones that exist, ONE of them is right. Let’s just assume that for the sake of argument for the moment. What one would you RATHER pick out of all of them IF you had to choose one of them?

If I had to choose? If there were no other alternative but to make a choice?

Well, let's see.

5. I don’t know why the universe is here or how it got here.

Now, if that one weren't on the table, I wouldn't pick any of them simply because I don't wish to commit myself to one without the evidence to support that decision.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

What do you mean when you say a first cause is unnecessary?

Define that please.

It's called the uncertainty principle

On a quantum level the rules we're used to, up and down, left and right, even before and after cease to exist. Quantum reality is so bizarre that it even led Richard Feynman, a noted physicist to state, "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you don't understand Quantum Theory."

Tumbleweed41 said it best a ways back

"You see, an actual cause must have a predictable action.
This is why Newton stated that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
However, at the Quantum level, we do not see this. The Heisenberg Principle is in direct contrast to Newtons Laws. Yet it is an observable phenomenon that you yourself have used as an example. Without predictability, cause is unnecessary.

When you hit a nail with a hammer, you have a predictable action. the nail is driven further into the wood. At the quantum level, the "nail" could go into the "wood", or the "nail" could move to a different spot in the "wood". Or the "nail" could disappear altogether, only to reappear days later embedded in the "hammers" head.
And at the quantum level, the "nail" may do all this without any action from the "hammer" at all.
Again, without predictability, one cannot posit a cause."

I am talking about which view out of all 5 views (excluding your’s the “I don’t know” position) which view out of the 5 is most plausible? I KNOW you think they are ALL non plausible, but if you had to choose which one is MOST plausible out of all 5, which one would you pick? And WHY?

The "I don't know" position is the only one I'm willing to take right now.

“Yes it does save it and I explained why, plus my view is most plausible philosophically.”

Also tell me how science does not use philosophy? The multiverse view is science using philosophy for example.

IF that is not philosophy, what the heck is it?

The multiverse theory is highly controversial because, as of right now, it isn't testable in any way, shape, or form. Until there is a way to test and see if there are universes beyond our own, then the multiverse theory may as well be philosophical, because it isn't scientific.

No, I am just saying that assuming God exists, it would be logical that he would be omniscient.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that god is omnipotent as well as omniscient?

IF I picked the wrong God, YES I would be screwed too. But I told you WHY my God is more plausible then all the other gods, to which that argument was not addressed by you nor anyone else.

No, you simply stated, "My god is infinite and all the other gods are finite." a 'by-fiat' declaration .

“Beautiful. On your death bed you’re not going to have “enough TANGIBLE evidence”. But, your still going to be taking a gamble. You even said it yourself that you don’t know if any of the 5 views are wrong. Your taking a gamble.

You know it.”

Your lack of concern is suicidal

To you, maybe.

You would tell God he did not give enough evidence? That is what you would tell him? What if he says he did give enough evidence on a philosophical level? What would you tell him then?

What evidence?

Ok, let me ask you a different question. If after you die you find yourself at God’s judgment and he tells you that you have to go to hell, will you be concerned THEN?

No.

And before you answer that, the torment in hell will be worse than the torment your mind put you through while you served God. Keep that in mind as you answer the question. IF you answer the question.

see above

Why should you? Did it ever dawn on you that God set it up in such a way to where he requires an element of faith?

See, this bit of theistic reasoning still dumbfounds me. Why would god care about faith? In what way is faith a virtue?

Also did it ever dawn on you that there IS evidence for God, just not TANGIBLE evidence? The evidence is of a philosophical nature. Did that ever dawn on you? Therefore assuming a God at judgment day for you, if you use the excuse there was not enough evidence, that WON’T CUT IT before his court room. You have no excuse.

Again you claim to know the mind of god?

It’s not FOUND to be in error, you just think it is, but I disagree with you on those lines. It’s NOT found to be in error. BUT, I say this to make a point, EVEN IF it were to be found to have an error, that does not mean one error = the whole book being in error.

If a book claims to be the infallible word of god and it's found to be in error that would certainly be grounds for at least questioning the validity of the rest of it.

 

[The_Evelyonian]

No, you are so obviously wrong here. If God told you how he made it, and then you see an APPEARANCE of age in nature, God then did not deceive you, because he TOLD YOU how he made it. If however he made it and it is young, but he did not TELL you that it was young, and then you found out the appearance of old age in nature, EVEN THAT would not be deception, in that case it would only be a SECRET. Now if God made it a young earth, but told you he made it very old, and you also found that out from nature that it looked old. THEN that would be deception since he would have downright LIED to you.

But this is not the case is it? So how can you say he used deception? That’s nonsense.

Also if you stumble over this and get lost for it, it IS YOUR FAULT, NOT God’s fault, don’t blame it on him, he TOLD you.

If I showed you a book and I told you that it was copyrighted last year and you opened the cover and it said "copyrighted 1885" you'd know I was lying.

Now, if the bible says the earth is young and we have mountains of evidence that show it is anything but young that means one of two things.

Either the bible is in error,

Or god did indeed create the universe just a few thousand years ago but made it look much, much older. In which case he's being intentionally deceptive.

You can try and defend it any way you like but it doesn't change anything.

If god did indeed make the world look billions of years older than it actually is and one person stumbles because of that then it's god's fault

So far I see two things working against you in God’s court room.
1 Your going to make up the excuse “not enough evidence” before him
2 Your going to call God a liar and deceiver
3 Your going to blame God and not take any responsibility yourself.

I hate to be you in his court room on that day. God opposes the proud, but gives grace to the humble.

Remember that in order to prepare for that day.

Careful, you're starting to preach.

Some of it I got from talk origins, some of it I got from intelligent design websites. Some of it I got from other evolutionist websites, I can’t remember them all. It’s been mountains of articles I have read over the span of probably about 3 years just about.

Also some of it I got from youtube, and some of it I got from listening to youtube debates from experts on both sides of the issue. Those were quite beneficial in listening to as well.

I wouldn't trust info on evolution that comes from an ID website bit that's just me.

Ok, that is fine. But remember, any person who believes in God, gods, goddesses can use intelligent design, NOT JUST a church person or bible believer.

No, I get that.

So natural selection is not intelligent or chance. Ok. Then what is it?

Something altogether unique.

Why would it be a joke?

Because a gene has no conscious awareness of what it needs to survive. A gene cannot engineer itself. Mutations within the gene can (and do) better adapt it for survival, but the idea that the gene can somehow "will" this to happen is ridiculous.

Difference is?

Natural selection is an unguided process that better adapts animals for survival.

Artificial selection is humans breeding plants and animals for traits that they find desirable.

Why is it beneficial and does it have ANY downside to it at all?

In the RNA experiment in question, the RNA molecule evolved during the experiment and became better able to survive. The mutations they underwent were beneficial. As far as, did they have ANY downside? I don't know but it doesn't appear so.

In my scenario the layman has done research. He just does not have access to science equipment like a scientist would. But he has read there articles.

Okay, but again, how does he know that the scientist he thinks is correct is not, in fact, wrong?

 

[The_Evelyonian]

Ok, thanks for that explanation and making it simple too. Now here is where my preposition comes in. Building on that analogy of the fish, could you tell me in again a simple way, using the same analogy of this same fish, how this fish could turn into something other than a fish? Actually I don’t want to get ahead, so I’ll ask it this way. After the survived fish passes on his genes to the offspring, and that offspring passes it on as well. Where does the fish changing into something else come into play and how does that happen? You mentioned natural selection, but so far in the analogy, that did not change the fish into something else, it only let survive the most fit or strongest fish. So how does the fish down the line of offspring change gradually into something else? And again, do what you did here, I like this, build on the analogy.

Okay, remember this because it's important: Macroevolution is just lots and lots of Microevolution added up over time.

Micro + Micro + Micro = Macro

Darwin put it like this in the Origin:

It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, the slightest variations; rejecting those that are bad, preserving and adding up all that are good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and whereever the opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.
We see nothing of these slow changes in progress, until the hand of time has marked the lapse of ages, and then so imperfect is our view into long past geological ages, that we see only that the forms of life are now different from what they formerly were.

Okay, to start out again with our fish, suppose something happens that makes it imperative for our fish to leave the water. It could be a climate shift, a new form of predator, whatever. The idea is simple: everybody out of the pool.
Now, this transition wouldn't happen overnight, nor would it happen in just one generation. Transitions like this take time, lots of it.
The first fish to make the tentative journey onto land would likely look no different than their water-loving parents. They would still have gills, fins, and the inability to breathe out of water, everything that makes a fish a fish. The genetic mutations would continue on as they always have but, now, mutations that allow the fish to spend greater amounts of time on land will be favored. The first thing our fish will need is an ability to breathe out of water. This could come about in any number of ways but I'll use the ones (that I know of) that have already happened.
One is an ability to take in air through the skin called "cutaneous air breathing" This is the process which modern Mudskippers use.
The other, my personal favorite, is lungs.
Now, neither of these adaptations will just pop into existence fully formed and ready to go. They will be the result of an onward progression of naturally selected mutations and variations. This part is the one that a lot of people have trouble with. The evolution of complex organs.
A lot of people think that organs like brains, hearts, lungs and whatnot couldn't evolve naturally and are "irreducibly complex". We have many, many examples to the contrary. Remember that the first lungs didn't have to be perfect, they just had to allow their owner to spend a little more time outside of the water than his/her competition, natural selection will take care of the rest by gradually improving the lung through the succeeding generations. Slow incremental changes like slight increase in the surface area of the lung would be favored and those fish would be more successful in their environment. Remember what I said earlier, those animals best equipped to survive, do survive. Their equipment doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the competition.
As our fish are able to spend greater amounts of time out of water, natural selection will likely start to favor those with greater mobility. The ability to move around land quickly will be vital for hunting, escaping predators, etc. The fishes fins will gradually become stronger as the soft tissue is slowly replaced with bone, cartilage, and muscle. Shoulder joints, elbow joint, ankles, etc. will slowly come into existence through the same gradual process of inherited mutation and variation combined with natural selection. Again, there are examples of these transitions taking place (see: Acanthostega, Tiktaalik, and Ichthyostega)
The fins of our fish will slowly, across many generations, transform into legs. The tail fins that powered our fishes journey through the water would no longer be needed on land. No longer vital for survival, they would fall into disuse and slowly disappear. The gills that our fish used to breathe in the water will also fall into disuse and vanish.
Over the generations, through a gradual process of slight variations building upon each other, our fish have evolved into something that could no longer be labeled a fish. They have "macroevolved" into land animals.

 

[Wotan]

I add to that scenario another important factor. Our fish that gets away from predators also finds on the land new sources of food. Little critters he could never reach before are now available to him. He has an immediate advantage over his fellow fish still in the water. He gets lunch easier and more often than his water bound fellows. He lives longer mates more often leaves more kids than the other fish still fighting a day to day battle to get lunch w/o being lunch. So in addition to what was noted above our "half-fish" critter will gradually become more and more common.

Remember POPULATIONS evolve NOT individuals. No single organism is EVER not the same species as his parents. Like begets like. But OVER TIME a given population will change. We can actually see this happening in some species now, e.g., moths, bacteria, virus, even mosquitoes.

ToE properly understood is actually a very simple powerful even beautiful idea. That something so simple could work such magic - just amazing when you understand it. I often wonder why theists don't cite it as evidence of an intelligence at work. But no they cling to a bronze age myth that is both contradictory and factually wrong while ignoring the really beautiful and compelling evidence right in front of them.

 

[Jose Fly]

1 If God created HIV ect that means he created the means for justice. In other words, remember when Adam eat the fruit? God said if you eat it, you will die. Also God said cursed be the ground because of what you did. That means God created a curse, a means of justice against sin. Why should we question God’s justice if we do wrong against him?

So this is, "Yes, God is a bioterrorist, but we deserved it". Nice.

2 There is a more pleasant variation to number 1, God set it up in such a way that if we sin, our own sins will create the curse and we thus curse ourselves. And that happens at times, if you live a dirty life, that can create disease. God set it up that way. In other words, one must understand how to USE their own design so as not to damage it.

That's still the same thing. At some point, the biochemical pathways and physiological structures that allow pathogens to cause disease had to come about via some means. You're arguing that evolution can't do it, which means your god intentionally created terrible, horrible diseases that has caused immense suffering of untold billions.

If that's the sort of "god" you find worthy of worship....

3 Your forgetting one thing, a Devil exists with his demons and they have been around for awhile and they know how to manipulate nature to create bad stuff.

So satan has the power of creation?

So, looks like God still looks like a great God. Looks like your point fails then unless you can refute what I said here.

Either your god is indeed a bioterrorist of unprecedented proportions, or you've elevated satan to a "god".

No, all organisms ARE designed. Why do you ask?

What if we see a new species evolve right before our eyes?

Ok, forget the human body then, for the sake of argument, how did a fully complex, functional, with tons of vital parts (who cares what we call the parts) come to be? And who cares what we call this body as well. Let’s call it the FIRST body (what a beautiful name huh? Better and more simple then the big huge mile long names scientists put on things).

The first question is: How do features/traits arise in living organisms? When we study life on earth, we can actually see new traits that weren't there before come about. Scientists from all over the world have been doing this for centuries.

And guess what? The only way we've ever seen a population acquire a new trait is through evolution. If you're interested, I can provide you some material that describes a bunch of these observations.

So when we ask, "How did traits evolve in the past", the logical conclusion is "they evolved", since that's all we've ever seen.

Ha ha! You thought you could trap me huh? Your arrow missed! No, there has never been a non-complex organism.

No, actually that's good. If all organisms are "complex", then whether or not complex organisms can evolve is a settled question. We know they can because we've seen it happen. IOW, the evolution of "complex organisms" is an observed fact.

 

[Jollybear]

Fantome_profane

Humans and chimps have more in common than chimps and gorillas physiologically and genetically. The body structure, the genetic structure, and even the neurological structure and behaviour of chimps is more like humans than it is like gorillas. So if you are going to base your answer on any of these you would have to conclude that if gorillas are the same “kind” as chimps then so must humans. To say that gorillas and chimps are the same “kind” and humans are not makes no sense if you look at the physiology, body structure, body functions or genetics. It would be like saying a dog and a cat are the same kind but a wolf is a different kind than a dog.

Who says we are that similar to chimps? The DNA is information. If the DNA is very similar in two species, that does not mean those two species are the same kind, a similar message in the DNA if it has a slight difference in the message, can make the message say something completely different.

For instance, I’ll say a sentence “I am going to win this debate, you wait and see” now I will say it again very similar, but it will have a drastically different message “I am going to lose this debate, you wait and see”

Now for someone who could not speak English, if they read that, they would say, hey this sounds very similar, perhaps both sentences share a common ancestor. No, the messages say something completely different.

Just one word changed the whole thing. Just because humans and chimps share similarities does not make us the same kind.

Also check this article out. It reveals that human and chimp DNA is NOT as similar as one thinks. http://www.icr.org/article/human-chimp-similarities-common-ancestry/

Gene duplication is a very common occurrence, but I will let Painted Wolf explain the mechanics exactly how it happens. I am trying to give an explanation that a child could understand.

I tell you it is a ball, this is one simple point of information. Now if I tell you that it is a ball again that is not new information because you already knew that. Is that simple enough?

If I tell you it is a ball and then I tell you it is blal, you did not get any new information because blal makes no sense. Is that simple enough?

Yes, I appreciate the simple explanations, that is helpful, but it just created another problem, allow me to point it out. Why would blal not be new information? Is ball information? IF nothing came from an intelligence, why is ball information then but blal is not?

If I tell you it is a ball and then tell you it is blue now you have new information that you did not have to begin with, you know it is a ball and you know it is blue. That is new information. I really can’t make it any more simple than that.

Ok, that’s good, you did a good job at keeping it simple, thanks for doing that. But now I have to respond to your point that I understand. How does the mutations create the information?

ball
ball ball (not new information)
blal ball (still not new information)
blae ball (still not new information
blue ball (new information)


I think Painted Wolf asked you what your definition of “information” is. Would you please give us your definition of “information”? I think that would perhaps show why you can’t understand what I think is a very simple explanation.

Information is a language; it comes from intelligence, a mind of some sort. As we are talking back and forth to each other, that is information we are both reading.

 

[Jollybear]

Painted_wolf

Well, in that case DNA has no information in it what so ever.
There are no words or pictures to be found in any genome.

Of course there is no human picture or English or earthly language, of course not. The language, or information is of a different kind, but it shows still intelligence. Why call it information if it’s not information? What’s the difference between information and….information?

If you think of it as a blueprint... and adding a new feature (new amino acids for example) to the blueprint increases it's "information" then. This happens quite a lot due to mutations.

A blueprint is information, it also shows intelligence. Blueprints do have that hallmark.

that is still a lot of pictures... If you give me some time, I'll see about posting that in a new thread.

Actually, better yet, forget the crab; give all the links of the human being transitions. That one is more interesting since I am a human after all.

So... a "kind" is whatever you want it to be? It's purely speculative.
How can you ever know then how many kinds were created?
Genesis only mentions a few kinds... Cattle, creeping things, beasts of the field, whales, fish and fowl of the air.
So what is to say that both dogs and cats aren't part of the "beasts of the field" kind?

Well they are both amongst the beasts of the field, yes, but Genesis says that God made the beasts of the field according to THERE VARIOUS KINDS. Beasts of the field is not just ONE kind. And humans are not amongst the beasts of the field in Genesis either; they were created on day six. But anyway a kind is not whatever we WANT it to be, of course not. And it’s not PURELY speculative either, and it’s not PURELY KNOWN either, but it’s based on one’s BEST EDUCATED guess. Keep in mind God DID create evolution, just not MACRO evolution. He set up boundaries were the kinds cannot CROSS over a limit. But he also set up evolution to help a species adapt and survive. God is a genius.

Metaphors can be misleading... here is one better.

Metaphors are only misleading if you’re trying to mislead, but you’re not trying to do that, are you? So give me a metaphor or analogy.

 

[Jollybear]

The_Evelyonian

real: capable of being perceived; capable of being treated as fact; "tangible evidence"

Is gravity capable of being perceived, capable of being treated as fact; is it tangible? And don’t tell me about the EFFECTS of gravity, I mean actual gravity, is it tangible?

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity.

This is just words, is there tangible evidence for gravity, if yes, where is it? And if no, then why do you believe that gravity exists? What because Einstein said so?

Do you believe things that have no TANGIBLE evidence for them? Like gravity?

I deny the cycle of eternity for the same reason I deny the pink unicorn. There's no evidence.

Why deny it if you don’t know it’s wrong? Something is eternal, and something has to be a first cause too. It’s just the way it is.

Yes, general relativity.

Ok, again that is just a word, where is the tangible evidence for gravity? Explain how gravity is tangible?

Something that can be tested and/or reproduced under specific conditions.

What conditions?

Again, I'm not concerned with philosophy.

Well you should be because science mixes philosophy and science all the time.

The argument from complexity forbids a complex first cause.

No it don’t. Something has to be eternal and something has to have a first cause.

No, you said "complexity is design" and I'm holding you to that. You can create a god shaped loophole and call it "first cause" if you wish but you've yet to give any good reason why such a loophole should exist. All you've done is say, "It must be this way."

I was saying all complexity APART from God is designed. I did not contradict myself. Now you may say that poses a problem, why would the universe be designed because of its complexity but God not designed because of his complexity? Well to answer that, SOMETHING has to be ETERNAL and SOMETHING has to have a FIRST CAUSE.

If I had to choose? If there were no other alternative but to make a choice?

Well, let's see.

5. I don’t know why the universe is here or how it got here.

How do you know you don’t know?

Now, if that one weren't on the table, I wouldn't pick any of them simply because I don't wish to commit myself to one without the evidence to support that decision.

I was not asking you what one you would COMMIT to following, I was asking you that out of all of them, if you had to choose which one you THINK is most plausible out of all of them that are on the table, which one would you choose? Choosing one is not meaning your committing to one, it just tells me which one you think is most plausible out of the ones on the table (apart from the “I don’t know position&#8221.

It's called the uncertainty principle

Uncertain means one does not know, but just because you don’t know, does not mean there is NO CAUSE.

On a quantum level the rules we're used to, up and down, left and right, even before and after cease to exist. Quantum reality is so bizarre that it even led Richard Feynman, a noted physicist to state, "If you think you understand Quantum Theory, you don't understand Quantum Theory."

Tumbleweed41 said it best a ways back

"You see, an actual cause must have a predictable action.
This is why Newton stated that every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
However, at the Quantum level, we do not see this. The Heisenberg Principle is in direct contrast to Newtons Laws. Yet it is an observable phenomenon that you yourself have used as an example. Without predictability, cause is unnecessary.

This is absolutely false, false, false, and more false. And to me it is so obvious why it’s false. To me this is like black and white easy to figure out kind of false. Just because you cannot predict something, does not mean it has no cause. Holy smokes. Sometimes I do stupid silly stuff to my wife that she would NEVER predict I would do. Does that mean the silly stuff I do to her has no cause for it? Of course not!

 

[Jollybear]

When you hit a nail with a hammer, you have a predictable action. the nail is driven further into the wood. At the quantum level, the "nail" could go into the "wood", or the "nail" could move to a different spot in the "wood". Or the "nail" could disappear altogether, only to reappear days later embedded in the "hammers" head.
And at the quantum level, the "nail" may do all this without any action from the "hammer" at all.
Again, without predictability, one cannot posit a cause."

Just because you cannot understand the quantum level, does not mean it has no reasons or causes for why it does it’s weird stuff!

This is one thing about materialistic science that ticks me off, anything they don’t understand, they fill the gap in with “cause is unnecessary” or “junk DNA” or “vestigial organs and structures”. When will that nonsense stop? If someone does not know something or understand something, they should not act like they know it already.

By saying they don’t understand the quantum level, then in the next breath say they understand that there is no way to understand it, that asserts to understand it. By saying they don’t know the cause, but then say in the next breath, no cause is necessary, that is a contradiction.

How do they know that no cause is necessary? They don’t know that, they just know that they don’t know what the cause is. But not knowing what that cause is, does not mean there is no cause.

The "I don't know" position is the only one I'm willing to take right now.

Either you’re not understanding my question or you’re unwilling to answer the question. I am not asking you to ADMIT that my view IS plausible, I am asking you which view out of all the views that are on the table besides the “I don’t know” is most plausible out of all of them? Saying which view out of all of them is more plausible then the rest is not an admittance that you think it is plausible in and of itself, it just means that your saying it is more plausible then this view or that view and this view. You get me?

The multiverse theory is highly controversial because, as of right now, it isn't testable in any way, shape, or form. Until there is a way to test and see if there are universes beyond our own, then the multiverse theory may as well be philosophical, because it isn't scientific.

Yes, we agree there, the multiverse THEORY is philosophical, but notice it is a THEORY. And some scientists resort to believing in the multiverse theory. Science mixes science and philosophy together many times.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that god is omnipotent as well as omniscient?

Yes, but it all depends on what you mean by it. Before you jump the gun on me, define for me what those words mean to you?

No, you simply stated, "My god is infinite and all the other gods are finite." a 'by-fiat' declaration.

I didn’t just make a statement or claim. I told why a God being infinite is greater or above a finite god or a finite being period. You did not address my reasons for saying this claim.

To you, maybe.

Yes to me it is suicidal in a different sense of the word. I don’t understand why it’s not suicidal to you though? You consider it wanting to KNOW FOR SURE BEFORE you COMMIT to anything. But it IS suicidal because if you NEVER come to know before you die and if I am right and you know I COULD VERY WELL BE RIGHT, therefore you are taking a gamble and this is suicidal.

What evidence?

And what if he gave you that philosophical level of evidence, what would you tell him then? Would you refuse to address those SAME arguments that you refuse to address to me?

Also what if he said “ok, here I am, God, you see me, you are talking to me and I with you, now you know, I am real, I exist, was there for eternity, do you accept the evidence in front of you right now?” what would you tell him then?

No.

Fascinating, if after you die you appear before God and he sends you to hell, you would then NOT be concerned?....... WHY?

See, this bit of theistic reasoning still dumbfounds me. Why would god care about faith? In what way is faith a virtue?

I am dumbfounded that you are dumbfounded, for real though. But to answer your question God cares about faith because he set up the universe in such a way to where we HAVE to have an ELEMENT of faith, not PURE faith, but an element of it, because it’s faith based on that which is MOST plausible out of all the views on the table. And God also cares about faith because faith is not just about making the right decision, but is also about having a TRUSTING relationship with God. After all, good relationships are based on trust (faith) right? Well anyway, faith also is a virtue because it exercises COURAGE. Here is what I mean by that, suppose someone does not WANT (volitional) to believe in God because they want to be their own boss, so they choose to believe that which is most comfortable to there WANT’S. That is not COURAGE if we base ANY belief on our desire or wants. So faith is a VIRTUE because it exercises courage to go against the grain of our selfish desires.

Again you claim to know the mind of god?

This does not answer or address what I said.

“Also did it ever dawn on you that there IS evidence for God, just not TANGIBLE evidence? The evidence is of a philosophical nature. Did that ever dawn on you? Therefore assuming a God at judgment day for you, if you use the excuse there was not enough evidence, that WON’T CUT IT before his court room. You have no excuse.”

That statement has nothing to do with me knowing the mind of God, I said ASSUMING that God exists and will judge, then the evidence for him is not tangible, but of a philosophical nature, therefore you have no excuse.

Also for the record, yes I do know the mind of God when he reveals it, but it’s NOT because I said the above statement. The above statement has nothing to do with me knowing the mind of God.

 

[Jollybear]

If a book claims to be the infallible word of god and it's found to be in error that would certainly be grounds for at least questioning the validity of the rest of it.

Ok, so if you say something in your whole life that is error, that is grounds for at least questioning the validity of everything else you said and did through your whole life?

You see how silly that is?

If I showed you a book and I told you that it was copyrighted last year and you opened the cover and it said "copyrighted 1885" you'd know I was lying.

Yes, unless the cover was lying.

Now, if the bible says the earth is young and we have mountains of evidence that show it is anything but young that means one of two things.

Either the bible is in error,

Or god did indeed create the universe just a few thousand years ago but made it look much, much older. In which case he's being intentionally deceptive.

Wrong, he would not be intentionally deceptive because he TOLD US HOW HE DID IT IN GENESIS. That is not being deceptive.

Watch this: &#8220;I am lying that I have brown eyes&#8221;. < did I just lie or did I tell the truth? Of course I told the truth and I was not deceptive at all, and you know I don&#8217;t have brown eyes based on the statement.

You can try and defend it any way you like but it doesn't change anything.

Really? How does it not change anything?

If god did indeed make the world look billions of years older than it actually is and one person stumbles because of that then it's god's fault

No, it&#8217;s their fault because they did not believe him when he said he did it in 6 days.

Based on your reasoning, God would have been deceptive just by creating Adam and Eve to have fully matured bodies when he created them. Because they APPEARED to look about 20 to 25 years old, but in fact they were only 1 day old. So God must have been INTENTIONALLY deceptive when he created their bodies because they APPEARED to be many years old, but in fact was only 1 day old.

You see, that is silly.

Plus again, you assume it appears billions of years old. We would have to get into all those dating methods.

Careful, you're starting to preach.

No I am not preaching, I am making a valid point and I am WONDERING why you won&#8217;t take responsibility IF I am right after you die. So far you have told me if I am right that you would tell God &#8220;not enough evidence&#8221; and that he is a deceiver and so you would take no responsibility for yourself. And to top it off, you also would STILL not have any concern.

And you wonder why I am baffled about that? I am extremely baffled.

I wouldn't trust info on evolution that comes from an ID website bit that's just me.

Well just listening to debates on youtube, one I thought was very good, by Stephen C meyer and Peter ward and it is 11 videos. And to be honest, just putting aside my own belief and listening with an open mind to both sides debate and discuss back and forth, I have to honestly say, Peter ward did a TERRIBLE JOB. But at the same time, I&#8217;m SURE he represented YOUR side quite well.

Something altogether unique.

Saying natural selection is not chance nor intelligent and then calling it unique does not say anything. Why is it unique from chance and intelligence?

Because a gene has no conscious awareness of what it needs to survive. A gene cannot engineer itself. Mutations within the gene can (and do) better adapt it for survival, but the idea that the gene can somehow "will" this to happen is ridiculous.

Biological machines, they would engineer the genes.

Natural selection is an unguided process that better adapts animals for survival.

Artificial selection is humans breeding plants and animals for traits that they find desirable.

How do you know natural selection is unguided?

In the RNA experiment in question, the RNA molecule evolved during the experiment and became better able to survive. The mutations they underwent were beneficial. As far as, did they have ANY downside? I don't know but it doesn't appear so.

It doesn&#8217;t appear so? I am skeptical about that.

Do you have a source that maps absolutely EVERYTHING about that experiment? I mean a source that offers no other references at the bottom because it is THEE source of sources for the experiment?

Okay, but again, how does he know that the scientist he thinks is correct is not, in fact, wrong?

He does not know 100% unless he became a scientist and did experiments himself in the lab and actually LOOKED at it himself. If he does not look at it himself, he has to take the scientists word that he is presenting everything honestly without any biases.

Okay, to start out again with our fish, suppose something happens that makes it imperative for our fish to leave the water. It could be a climate shift, a new form of predator, whatever. The idea is simple: everybody out of the pool.

Ok, this is good, I can build more questions and pry more answers so as to understand exactly where your coming from based on you elaborating on this hypothetical story.

Ok, give me a hypothetical example of a climate shift in the water to where all the fish would need to get out of the water?

Also if they don&#8217;t all get out of the water RIGHT AWAY, but it takes many generations, perhaps millions of years of transitional time to get out, why do they not ALL die off before they get out of this bad water change? The same would be for the predator, would not the predator eat them all before they get out, thus there is no more fish to get out. Thus, the end of evolution?

Now, this transition wouldn't happen overnight, nor would it happen in just one generation. Transitions like this take time, lots of it.
The first fish to make the tentative journey onto land would likely look no different than their water-loving parents. They would still have gills, fins, and the inability to breathe out of water, everything that makes a fish a fish.

Therefore, the fish would die, right? Thus the end of evolution, no, yes?

Watch this short animation video [youtube]aVHS36PEcXk[/youtube]
YouTube - Evolution is a joke You&#8217;ll love this.

 

[Jollybear]

The genetic mutations would continue on as they always have but, now, mutations that allow the fish to spend greater amounts of time on land will be favored.

Ok, in this hypothetical story, give me an example of a bad mutation the fish undergoes.

Next give me a hypothetical example of a GOOD mutation that the fish undergoes. Also keep it simple.

The first thing our fish will need is an ability to breathe out of water. This could come about in any number of ways but I'll use the ones (that I know of) that have already happened.
One is an ability to take in air through the skin called "cutaneous air breathing" This is the process which modern Mudskippers use.

Perhaps mudskippers were already designed that way from scratch.

But anyway, apart from that, HOW does the fish which from scratch DOES NOT have the ability to take in air through the skin, GET this ability? I still do not understand how a &#8220;GOOD&#8221; mutation can do this? Also from my question above, give me a hypothetical example in the story of a good mutation for the fish.

The other, my personal favorite, is lungs.
Now, neither of these adaptations will just pop into existence fully formed and ready to go. They will be the result of an onward progression of naturally selected mutations and variations.

Ok, for the moment I understand natural selection and variations of offspring, but mutations? I don&#8217;t quite get that one yet. I need the question about this answered above.

This part is the one that a lot of people have trouble with. The evolution of complex organs.
A lot of people think that organs like brains, hearts, lungs and whatnot couldn't evolve naturally and are "irreducibly complex". We have many, many examples to the contrary. Remember that the first lungs didn't have to be perfect, they just had to allow their owner to spend a little more time outside of the water than his/her competition, natural selection will take care of the rest by gradually improving the lung through the succeeding generations.

Before we start to talk about irreducibly complex organs and vital structures we need to get the mutation part down pat. I will come back to this part on how could evolution bring about complex structures and organs. I will ask it using the very first life organism.

Slow incremental changes like slight increase in the surface area of the lung would be favored and those fish would be more successful in their environment. Remember what I said earlier, those animals best equipped to survive, do survive. Their equipment doesn't have to be perfect, just better than the competition.

Right&#8230;..I understand that part, but I do not yet understand how &#8220;GOOD&#8221; mutations could get them there. Give me a hypothetical example in this fish story of a good mutation for this fish.

As our fish are able to spend greater amounts of time out of water, natural selection will likely start to favor those with greater mobility. The ability to move around land quickly will be vital for hunting, escaping predators, etc.

Very well said, you just explained again natural selection and survival of the fittest. I understand that part, but mutations?

The fishes fins will gradually become stronger as the soft tissue is slowly replaced with bone, cartilage, and muscle. Shoulder joints, elbow joint, ankles, etc. will slowly come into existence through the same gradual process of inherited mutation and variation combined with natural selection.

Mutations? &#8220;good&#8221; one&#8217;s? For the fish?

Again, there are examples of these transitions taking place (see: Acanthostega, Tiktaalik, and Ichthyostega)

Or maybe these examples are already designed that way from scratch.

The fins of our fish will slowly, across many generations, transform into legs. The tail fins that powered our fishes journey through the water would no longer be needed on land. No longer vital for survival, they would fall into disuse and slowly disappear. The gills that our fish used to breathe in the water will also fall into disuse and vanish.

O, why your at it answering my question about giving a hypothetical example of a good mutation for our fish here, here is a NEW question on top of that. Since these &#8220;GOOD&#8221; mutations are RARE, and most are bad per your own admittance this would mean the &#8220;good&#8221; mutations would need to go in both a male AND a female fish, in the SAME generation otherwise the offspring of the one mutated fish may receive more of the trait of the none mutated parent. And not only is that feat to be pulled off (which is crazy in itself) but these two fish need to MEET each other (talk about crazy off the wall coincidence!) then they have to mate and produce a kid and then that kid has to receive that good mutation and hopefully nothing goes wrong in that transfer. Then that kid has to find a mate who also has this good mutation. Talk about tons of crazy coincidences that have to happen. How do you explain that these feats could also be pulled off?

Over the generations, through a gradual process of slight variations building upon each other, our fish have evolved into something that could no longer be labeled a fish. They have "macroevolved" into land animals.

Don&#8217;t fish have slight gradual variations from their parents, but are STILL FISH? Down the line a million years, there will be a variation of all those offspring, but won&#8217;t they still be a fish? For them to change into something else, the information would have to increase in the DNA, or the information would have to CHANGE in the DNA. O, mutations? The good ones? I hope you give me one hypothetical example, so I can build a further response to it.

 

[Jollybear]

Wotan

I add to that scenario another important factor. Our fish that gets away from predators also finds on the land new sources of food. Little critters he could never reach before are now available to him. He has an immediate advantage over his fellow fish still in the water. He gets lunch easier and more often than his water bound fellows. He lives longer mates more often leaves more kids than the other fish still fighting a day to day battle to get lunch w/o being lunch.

Without being lunch? I would not go that far now. Two reasons he is just as prone to be lunch is 1: he is just beginning to be on land, thus is not fast as he probably should be, and therefore can easily become prey as he finds prey himself. Second reason is there could be others who are faster then he and find him easy prey.

So in addition to what was noted above our "half-fish" critter will gradually become more and more common.

Remember POPULATIONS evolve NOT individuals. No single organism is EVER not the same species as his parents. Like begets like. But OVER TIME a given population will change. We can actually see this happening in some species now, e.g., moths, bacteria, virus, even mosquitoes.

You&#8217;re not seeing it happen right NOW, all your seeing right now is &#8220;moths, bacteria, virus&#8217;s and mosquitoes&#8221;. You may see mutations, variations, but you&#8217;re not seeing macro evolution be performed before your very eyes, like it or not, you assume this.

ToE properly understood is actually a very simple powerful even beautiful idea. That something so simple could work such magic - just amazing when you understand it. I often wonder why theists don't cite it as evidence of an intelligence at work.

Glad you said that, I do cite it as evidence for intelligent design, but I don&#8217;t believe it. Lol, I know that did not make an ounce of sense to you, so let me explain that a little better. Even if macro evolution WERE to be true, it would STILL be evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer. Actually a famous Christian philosopher William lane Craig believes in macro evolution and still believes in the genesis story (although I don&#8217;t understand how he can twist some very clear things in genesis, but that&#8217;s beside the point right now) he cites macro evolution as evidence for the existence of God, and HE believes macro evolution to be true. I don&#8217;t believe it&#8217;s true because of Genesis and ALSO because I see an assumption that you make, that I don&#8217;t see clear enough proof for, if I saw that proof, I would either &#8220;twist&#8221; genesis or just stop believing in genesis. Also macro evolution does give evidence for the existence of God, but if YOU use it as evidence AGAINST the existence of God, then macro evolution in and of itself does NOT account for how or why the FIRST complex organism came to be.

That&#8217;s your dilemma.

Also it&#8217;s interesting that you would say &#8220;I often wonder why theists don&#8217;t cite it as evidence of an intelligence at work&#8221;, that statement in itself tells me that you DO see and understand why believers would see evidence for intelligent design. I like that admittance from you. You do see the evidence, you just resist it. I am glad you said this statement, you just fell into my hands. And from here on into the future, I am going to file that into my memory and use it for future discussions (although I won&#8217;t mention your name).

But no they cling to a bronze age myth that is both contradictory and factually wrong while ignoring the really beautiful and compelling evidence right in front of them.

First off, there is evidence of micro changes, actually, there is PROOF of micro changes. You may use that as EVIDENCE of macro evolution, but still, there is no PROOF of macro evolution. You must use micro changes and extrapolate backwards in time and ASSUME macro changes happened. This is where you theorize or have FAITH. But, here is where your downfall is, and yes, it is your downfall unless you can account for this WITHOUT using an intelligent designer, how could the first complex organism come about?

 

[Jollybear]

Jose_fly

So this is, "Yes, God is a bioterrorist, but we deserved it". Nice.

Absolutely, we deserved it. But, no, God is not a bioterrorist. Let me explain. God does not do justice out of the motivation to terrorize people, he does it because you broke his law and he is a God of discipline and justice. You MUST pay for your crime. He is not doing it to make you afraid, he is doing it to show you that you committed a crime against him (the source of all that is best in morality) and therefore you must pay.

Let me ask you this, why do you mock his justice?

That's still the same thing. At some point, the biochemical pathways and physiological structures that allow pathogens to cause disease had to come about via some means. You're arguing that evolution can't do it, which means your god intentionally created terrible, horrible diseases that has caused immense suffering of untold billions.

First off, no it&#8217;s NOT the same. God directly creating AND activating the curse is different than God setting it up to where if one commits a sin, that sin ACTIVATES the curse. Although the sin does not create the curse. There is a slight difference. But yea, either way God sets up this system of justice.

Also by you saying &#8220;your god intentionally created terrible, horrible diseases&#8221; that does nothing to dampen the character of God. People in prison think it&#8217;s terrible and horrible to be there, but they are there because they deserve it and it is justice to them. They must pay.

If that's the sort of "god" you find worthy of worship....

He is worthy of worship. On the contrary, a God who would not do justice and who would let people do anything they want, that kind of God is NOT worthy of worship.

So satan has the power of creation?

No, Satan has no power to create, he has power to manipulate that which is already created in order to INVENT something bad.

Either your god is indeed a bioterrorist of unprecedented proportions, or you've elevated satan to a "god".

It&#8217;s neither, I explained it above.

What if we see a new species evolve right before our eyes?

If I seen an organism macro evolve right before my eyes, I would believe it, and on top of it, I would call it magical that it happened. Unless God would have done it, then it would not have been magical.

The first question is: How do features/traits arise in living organisms? When we study life on earth, we can actually see new traits that weren't there before come about. Scientists from all over the world have been doing this for centuries.

No one has seen anything macro evolve before their eyes. Yes we see variations from the parents.

And guess what? The only way we've ever seen a population acquire a new trait is through evolution. If you're interested, I can provide you some material that describes a bunch of these observations.

Sure.

So when we ask, "How did traits evolve in the past", the logical conclusion is "they evolved", since that's all we've ever seen.

Wow, so in other words you cannot account for why vital complex systems came about?

Let me clarify my question. I am NOT asking you if macro evolution happens by natural selection and variations and mutations and adaptations over much periods of time. I am asking you how did vital complex organisms come to be in the first place?

Let me ask it this way, how did vitally complex organisms WHICH EVOLVE come to be in the first place?
Now do you understand my question?

If you say all the vital parts of the complex system just hit together or self assembled by itself without intelligence, just by chance, well, the odds of that happening are too way too low, near to zero. Do you believe in chance doing it?

No, actually that's good. If all organisms are "complex", then whether or not complex organisms can evolve is a settled question. We know they can because we've seen it happen. IOW, the evolution of "complex organisms" is an observed fact.

I am not asking whether PRESENT already EXISTENT complex organs and structures can adapt and evolve into BETTER or STRONGER organs and structures, I am asking, how did the actual complex system come about in the first place?

Chance? Or intelligence?

 

[painted wolf]

Of course there is no human picture or English or earthly language, of course not. The language, or information is of a different kind, but it shows still intelligence. Why call it information if it’s not information? What’s the difference between information and….information?

So... "GCA" is information

A blueprint is information, it also shows intelligence. Blueprints do have that hallmark.

Why is GCA becoming GCAGCC not adding information?

Actually, better yet, forget the crab; give all the links of the human being transitions. That one is more interesting since I am a human after all.

Like I said, if you will give me some time assemble this sort of thing. I'm getting ready to graduate and I don't have a lot of free time to put together such an involved post.

here is a quick image of some of the better known hominids:

Well they are both amongst the beasts of the field, yes, but Genesis says that God made the beasts of the field according to THERE VARIOUS KINDS. Beasts of the field is not just ONE kind. And humans are not amongst the beasts of the field in Genesis either; they were created on day six. But anyway a kind is not whatever we WANT it to be, of course not. And it’s not PURELY speculative either, and it’s not PURELY KNOWN either, but it’s based on one’s BEST EDUCATED guess. Keep in mind God DID create evolution, just not MACRO evolution. He set up boundaries were the kinds cannot CROSS over a limit. But he also set up evolution to help a species adapt and survive. God is a genius.

But how do you educate that guess? You don't accept morphology, taxonomy, genetics, paleontology... ?
What is this limit and how is it enforced? Is it genetic in basis?
I agree God is a genius... that is why I appreciate evolution so much.

Metaphors are only misleading if you’re trying to mislead, but you’re not trying to do that, are you? So give me a metaphor or analogy.

Why should I invent a metaphor when I showed you the real thing? We can totally avoid any mistakes in my story telling.
here, I'll show it again... no need for potentially misinterpretation of metaphors.

As you can see from this illustration, the number of chromosomes ends up doubled in the final offspring. From 6 to 12... doubling the amount of "information" in the genome.

wa:do