Elsewhere on the internet...

The League of Reason has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
 [ 91 posts ] 
ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.
Author Message
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Well, I am still waiting for that evidence that is positively indicative of creationism. Why not help us all "get it" by providing evidence for what you call science.


Rhed wrote:Having active and proofreading DNA repair process in our genome is evidence of a Designer/Creator because it shows purpose.

A biological machine called endonuclease runs along the backbone of the DNA strain looking for errors. When an error is found, it cuts the nucleotide and marks it. Another biological machine called the exonuclease removes it. Then another molecular machine, the polymerase, comes along and puts in the correct nucleotide. Finally, another machine called the ligase and "welds" it back together.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How amazing and complex, but how does any of that indicate creation? This appears to be a textbook example of a god of the gaps argument (i.e. I cannot explain this complex biological system, therefore GodDidIt). However, that would not be evidence indicative of creation, only, at most, pointing to a gap in our knowledge. Thus I must ask again, where is your evidence that this was caused by anything beyond what we already understand in biology?


Rhed wrote:The amazing and complex and with purpose indicate a Creator, pure and simple. Your "god of the gaps" mantra does nothing to help your materialistic naturalistic worldview. And you can stop asking for evidence because you will not accept it.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:You do realize that natural selection has a "purpose," right? That is producing an organism that can carry its genes into the future. Thus, pointing to complexity and purpose does not indicate a creator. You would need to demonstrate a way to distinguish between designed biological systems and adapted biological systems. Without this, your point about purpose and complexly is moot. Oh, and pointing out logical fallacies is not a mantra. Stop using them and I will stop pointing them out.


The mantra is what you will keep repeating over and over; that is, god of the gaps whenever your naturalistic worldview is shown to be utterly false. My argument is not a logical fallacy. It's called abductive reasoning. A dead man lying face down in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds and a knife in the back, you can rule out "natural death". Likewise, when you have molecular machines repairing DNA you can rule out "natural causes".

And you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about purpose. Natural Selection doesn't strive for a goal in mind; such as perfection or accuracy. However, the DNA repair system was designed to have a purpose. Actually, the sheer existence of a DNA repair kit in our genome is evidence against evolution. Why have it? That would be an impediment for mutations to evolve. Also, you are misrepresenting natural selection. It does not create; it conserves.

I demonstrated a design system to you but you refuse to see it. You need all of these biological machines work concurrently or it will not work, and life would not exist if endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, or ligase were missing. Each one must be accurate and precise, which show design and purpose.


Rhed wrote:Using the noggin God gave you, does this self repair system show evidence of blind random evolution with no purpose or directed non-random mechanism with purpose?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Neither. Sounds far more like natural selection acting on random mutations. Again, natural selection and mutations are an observable phenomenon. When have we ever observed the creation of a biological system, as you are suggesting?


Rhed wrote:The example I presented to you was one of millions of other orchestrated molecular machines in your genome, and far more complex such as the spliceosome. All life depends on these literally. Any evidence I give you, you will repeat the same mantra "GodDidit" or the "god of the gaps". You believe that the biological machines such as the endonuclease, exonnulcease, polymerase, and ligase came about via random mutations and natural selection rather than a Creator.

I'm not asking you what is possible. I'm asking you what is reasonable.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:What is reasonable is what is possible. We know natural selection, mutations, genetic drift, and gene flow happen. We have never seen a disembodied creator creating anything. Thus, what is reasonable is that what is already observed is far more likely to be behind any biological system you point out than a disembodied creator. Before you could even prepose this disembodied creator as a possible solution to any of your complex molecular problems, you would have to indicate that it exist. That means you need to provide evidence for it, which you keep failing to do.


It's possible that the man lying in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds with a knife in his back died by natural causes, but it isn't reasonable. There is a difference between possible and reasonable.

Why would you see God create something now? It's done. The many tool kits in our DNA have been already created and now can be observed. The crux of this whole conversion is showing you evidence of creation. The one piece of evidence I presented to you is purpose in our genome. Why would the endonuclease check for errors? How does it know it is an error? And then why would it mark it? How would it know that another molecular machine exonuclease is going to cut it? How would the polymerase know the correct base? And how on earth did the ligase evolve welding skills? These are all hallmarks of design. To believe this was a result from mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection is not faith, but blind faith.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Jan 04, 2016 8:28 am
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed, you keep claiming that people are making arguments for naturalism but you seem unwilling or unable to explain why evolution depends on naturalism in any way?

Anyway, your arguments are unsound for a variety of reasons.

First of all, you assert "design" and "purpose" with regard to DNA and molecular machinery. I suspect you think you understand what these terms mean but you have not defined them in any useful way. Under what definition of "designed" is DNA designed? How do you differentiate between something designed and something not-designed? Are all self-replicating molecules designed? What about other natural polymers?

Second, you assert that DNA could not have arisen naturally with no evidence beyond the fact that it looks (to you) like it has design and purpose, which relates to the first problem. Can you demonstrate that DNA could not have arisen naturally without relying on circular arguments?

Also, do you accept that your argument based on the difference between human and chimp DNA requiring too many beneficial mutations is unsound?

Finally, claiming a source is "biased" is meaningless unless you can show that the bias is relevant. Everyone is biased, including creationists. That's why real science requires critical peer-review to make sure that the work is not impacted by the biases of the subject.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Jan 04, 2016 3:27 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:The mantra is what you will keep repeating over and over; that is, god of the gaps whenever your naturalistic worldview is shown to be utterly false.


Where did I repeat “my mantra” in the post you replied to? Furthermore, when did you show that a naturalistic worldview was false? Thus far, all you have done is point to a complex biological system and claim it as evidence for a disembodied creator without first providing evidence that a disembodied creator exists in the first place. Thus far, all you have done is point to a gap in your knowledge and shove your deity into it.

Rhed wrote:My argument is not a logical fallacy. It's called abductive reasoning. A dead man lying face down in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds and a knife in the back, you can rule out "natural death". Likewise, when you have molecular machines repairing DNA you can rule out "natural causes".


Where is your evidence that this disembodied creator exists in the first place? In your analogy, we already know humans exist and we know that some of them are terrible and capable of doing that. To make your analogy similar to what you are arguing would be if we find this body stabbed to death and you start assuming a vampire (or any supernatural agent) did it. You cannot claim something is the cause behind anything without first indicating that said cause first exists. That is wherein your logical fallacy lies; your argument from ignorance.

Rhed wrote:And you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about purpose. Natural Selection doesn't strive for a goal in mind; such as perfection or accuracy. However, the DNA repair system was designed to have a purpose. Actually, the sheer existence of a DNA repair kit in our genome is evidence against evolution. Why have it? That would be an impediment for mutations to evolve.


You do realize that DNA repair is not perfect or accurate, right? If it were, cancer would not exist and we would not observe mutations. Beyond that, explain what is the purpose behind DNA repair besides keeping an organism with DNA alive long enough to pass its genes into the future? Furthermore, I already asked you for a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems. Until you provide this metric, your point is moot.

Rhed wrote:Also, you are misrepresenting natural selection. It does not create; it conserves.


I am not misrepresenting natural selection, because I never said it creates anything. I said natural selection acting on mutations could produce systems such as this. Please do not misrepresent me.

Rhed wrote:I demonstrated a design system to you but you refuse to see it. You need all of these biological machines work concurrently or it will not work, and life would not exist if endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, or ligase were missing. Each one must be accurate and precise, which show design and purpose.


Once again, until you are able to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems, your point is moot. I have no doubt that those were designed, I just do not see why we would assume a disembodied creator was behind said design when we already know of natural phenomenon that can also explain the design we see. Again, we are both looking at that dead body, I am concluding a human did it, you are looking at it, and believing vampires did it.

Rhed wrote:It's possible that the man lying in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds with a knife in his back died by natural causes, but it isn't reasonable. There is a difference between possible and reasonable.


It is unreasonable to assume that vampires murdered the man as well. Yet, that jump to a conclusion without first providing a shred of evidence for it is exactly what you are asking us to do right here with your disembodied creator. We know humans commit murders just as we know natural selection, mutations, gene flow, and genetic drift happen. You are now asking us to conclude that this murder was committed by a vampire for no apparent reason, just as you are claiming that DNA repair was created by a disembodied creator without any apparent reason in the first place.

Rhed wrote:Why would you see God create something now? It's done.


How would you know this? What evidence do you have to conclude this? Beyond that, without evidence that your disembodied creator can create, how are you able to conclude that it did create in the first place?

Rhed wrote:The many tool kits in our DNA have been already created and now can be observed. The crux of this whole conversion is showing you evidence of creation. The one piece of evidence I presented to you is purpose in our genome.


Once again, until you distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems, this point is moot. No one disagrees that DNA repair exist, that it is complex, and it has a purpose. You now need to show why your solution of a disembodied creator is a better solution than the observed phenomenon that exists in biology already.

Rhed wrote:Why would the endonuclease check for errors? How does it know it is an error? And then why would it mark it? How would it know that another molecular machine exonuclease is going to cut it? How would the polymerase know the correct base? And how on earth did the ligase evolve welding skills?


Honestly, I do not know the answer to any of these questions; however, would you like to research this together? We can start here, explore all their citations, and see where that leads us. I feel that would be a better solution than pointing at our ignorance and proclaiming because we do not know it would have to be our deity of choice.

Beyond that, do you not see the problem you have? Even if you were able to show that DNA repair could not evolve, negative evidence for evolution is not positive evidence for creation. You still need to provide evidence that DNA repair was created in the first place before you can claim it as evidence for your position.

Rhed wrote:These are all hallmarks of design. To believe this was a result from mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection is not faith, but blind faith.


Again, I do not doubt that these are designed; I am simply asking how you were able to determine that these were not adaptive biological systems. Furthermore, you must not know what blind faith is if you think accepting that observed phenomenon being behind a problem takes faith. Your faults are yours alone; please do not project them onto me.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Mon Jan 04, 2016 5:14 pm
YIM WWW
DustniteUser avatarPosts: 518Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:11 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Image
"But this is irrelevant because in either case, whether a god exists or not, whether your God (with a capital G) exists or not, it doesn't matter. We both are, in either case, evolved apes. " - Nesslig20
Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:19 pm
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 234Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Tue Jan 05, 2016 11:59 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

ldmitruk wrote:Thanks for the links. They look like they will be interesting reading.


And don't forget the links I gave you. If you want to disagree with Creation models, then disagree with it objectively. In other words, don't just read nobody-who-is-nobody (or whatever).
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:43 am
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:The mantra is what you will keep repeating over and over; that is, god of the gaps whenever your naturalistic worldview is shown to be utterly false.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Where did I repeat “my mantra” in the post you replied to? Furthermore, when did you show that a naturalistic worldview was false? Thus far, all you have done is point to a complex biological system and claim it as evidence for a disembodied creator without first providing evidence that a disembodied creator exists in the first place. Thus far, all you have done is point to a gap in your knowledge and shove your deity into it.


Basically, there are only two ways of the origin of complex biological systems occurred; i.e., naturalistically or supernaturalistically (or disembodied creator(s)). So either you shove naturalism into it or I shove my deity into it.

Rhed wrote:My argument is not a logical fallacy. It's called abductive reasoning. A dead man lying face down in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds and a knife in the back, you can rule out "natural death". Likewise, when you have molecular machines repairing DNA you can rule out "natural causes".


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Where is your evidence that this disembodied creator exists in the first place? In your analogy, we already know humans exist and we know that some of them are terrible and capable of doing that. To make your analogy similar to what you are arguing would be if we find this body stabbed to death and you start assuming a vampire (or any supernatural agent) did it. You cannot claim something is the cause behind anything without first indicating that said cause first exists. That is wherein your logical fallacy lies; your argument from ignorance.


I have a Biblical worldview. I see evidence of a Creator in everything. Including disease and death because it corroborates with the Bible. And in my analogy, even the vampire is more plausible compared to natural causes. The point was distinguishing between the natural causes and intelligence.

Rhed wrote:And you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about purpose. Natural Selection doesn't strive for a goal in mind; such as perfection or accuracy. However, the DNA repair system was designed to have a purpose. Actually, the sheer existence of a DNA repair kit in our genome is evidence against evolution. Why have it? That would be an impediment for mutations to evolve.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:You do realize that DNA repair is not perfect or accurate, right? If it were, cancer would not exist and we would not observe mutations. Beyond that, explain what is the purpose behind DNA repair besides keeping an organism with DNA alive long enough to pass its genes into the future? Furthermore, I already asked you for a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems. Until you provide this metric, your point is moot.


According to me worldview, of course the DNA repair kit isn't 100% perfect or 100% accurate, but it sure is darn close. You have about trillions of cells working 24 hours, 7 days of the week...every nanosecond...working in concert together so you don't get cancer. It's a miracle in its self that we don't get cancer as soon as we pop into existence.

And you raised this question, "[is there] a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems". My simple response would be anything capable of being adaptive clearly resembles design.

Adaptation in computer science with the software capable of interacting with the end-user involve an impressive process created by software engineers. Having the ability of writing software to adapt to the outside world is quite the accomplishment.

The code in our DNA, and the repair kit, is an impressive program that keeps you and me alive.

Rhed wrote:Also, you are misrepresenting natural selection. It does not create; it conserves.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am not misrepresenting natural selection, because I never said it creates anything. I said natural selection acting on mutations could produce systems such as this. Please do not misrepresent me.


Natural Selection as you may know are not in dispute. But mutations in a naturalistic worldview are not direct mutations, but only random mutations. According to that worldview, you have to believe that endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, and ligase randomly mutated all at the same time. If it did not, life would not exist.

Rhed wrote:I demonstrated a design system to you but you refuse to see it. You need all of these biological machines work concurrently or it will not work, and life would not exist if endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, or ligase were missing. Each one must be accurate and precise, which show design and purpose.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have no doubt that those were designed, I just do not see why we would assume a disembodied creator was behind said design when we already know of natural phenomenon that can also explain the design we see. Again, we are both looking at that dead body, I am concluding a human did it, you are looking at it, and believing vampires did it.


What do you mean that "those were designed"? Do you mean random mutations and natural selection designed the repair kit, or do you mean some other intelligence designed it? And the dead body analogy, you are concluding he died by natural causes, and I am concluding that an "intelligent" being was the cause of death.

Rhed wrote:Why would you see God create something now? It's done.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How would you know this? What evidence do you have to conclude this? Beyond that, without evidence that your disembodied creator can create, how are you able to conclude that it did create in the first place?


Because our Creator says so in the Bible.




Rhed wrote:Why would the endonuclease check for errors? How does it know it is an error? And then why would it mark it? How would it know that another molecular machine exonuclease is going to cut it? How would the polymerase know the correct base? And how on earth did the ligase evolve welding skills?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, I do not know the answer to any of these questions; however, would you like to research this together? We can start here, explore all their citations, and see where that leads us. I feel that would be a better solution than pointing at our ignorance and proclaiming because we do not know it would have to be our deity of choice.


Yes, I would like to research this together with you. Since we could take the path to the dark side...I mean...wikipedia, we can also look at http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Beyond that, do you not see the problem you have? Even if you were able to show that DNA repair could not evolve, negative evidence for evolution is not positive evidence for creation. You still need to provide evidence that DNA repair was created in the first place before you can claim it as evidence for your position.


If they didn't evolve, than what solutions are there?

Rhed wrote:These are all hallmarks of design. To believe this was a result from mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection is not faith, but blind faith.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Again, I do not doubt that these are designed; I am simply asking how you were able to determine that these were not adaptive biological systems. Furthermore, you must not know what blind faith is if you think accepting that observed phenomenon being behind a problem takes faith. Your faults are yours alone; please do not project them onto me.


Adaptive biological systems are also hallmarks of design, and a very impressive one at that.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:17 am
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2956Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Greetings,

There's a problem with your reliance on the bible and "our Creator says so in the bible" position.

As I pointed out to Bernhard.visscher, here, here, here, and particularly here, Yahweh wasn't God, he was a god - the son of El and Asherah, one of seventy children, gods and goddesses all.

As such, he can't be - and is not - the Creator.

Therefore, your claims are without foundation.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Thu Jan 07, 2016 12:02 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed,

As noted, your claims that scientific sources are unfounded. However, I did look at your creationist claims.

The first paper, "Using Taxonomically Restricted Essential Genes to Determine Whether Two Organisms Can Belong to the Same Family Tree", makes the following claim as one of its premises:

Change Laura Tan wrote:No novel genes have been observed to emerge.


This claim is untrue. If you look the detail, it claims that the E. Coli experiment didn't really produce novel genes because these were a result of duplication and mutation and therefore don't count as novel. It is clearly misrepresenting evolutionary claims to pretend that they are false and therefore its conclusions are worthless.

Can't even pass peer review from unqualified people on the internet.

The second paper, "A Baraminic Study of the Blood Flukes of Family Schistosomatidae" is novel in that it at least seems to imply that Noah brought blood flukes on the Ark. I admit I am unwilling to dive into the details about that "quantitative baraminology" is supposed to do in order to fully parse this paper, though.

The third paper, "An Initial Estimation of the Numbers and Identification of Extant Non-Snake/Non-Amphisbaenian Lizard Kinds: Order Squamata" is just nonsense. It makes claims about how God would do things (seems presumptuous to me) and then just declares a bunch of things to be "kinds" without defining the term or justifying their categorization or justifying the claim that none of these species could have had a common ancestor.
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Last edited by SpecialFrog on Thu Jan 07, 2016 6:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:03 pm
he_who_is_nobodyBloggerUser avatarPosts: 3335Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 1:36 amLocation: Albuquerque, New Mexico Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:The mantra is what you will keep repeating over and over; that is, god of the gaps whenever your naturalistic worldview is shown to be utterly false.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Where did I repeat “my mantra” in the post you replied to? Furthermore, when did you show that a naturalistic worldview was false? Thus far, all you have done is point to a complex biological system and claim it as evidence for a disembodied creator without first providing evidence that a disembodied creator exists in the first place. Thus far, all you have done is point to a gap in your knowledge and shove your deity into it.


Basically, there are only two ways of the origin of complex biological systems occurred; i.e., naturalistically or supernaturalistically (or disembodied creator(s)). So either you shove naturalism into it or I shove my deity into it.


Incorrect. As of right now, we know of only one-way, and that way is through evolutionary processes. Thus far, no one has been able to show another way for it to happen. That means I am not shoving anything anywhere, I am simply following the evidence where it leads. You still have not demonstrated the supernatural exist, that the supernatural can affect the natural world, or that the supernatural can affect the natural world in such a way to create anything. You are holding an empty bag.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:My argument is not a logical fallacy. It's called abductive reasoning. A dead man lying face down in a pool of blood with multiple stab wounds and a knife in the back, you can rule out "natural death". Likewise, when you have molecular machines repairing DNA you can rule out "natural causes".


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Where is your evidence that this disembodied creator exists in the first place? In your analogy, we already know humans exist and we know that some of them are terrible and capable of doing that. To make your analogy similar to what you are arguing would be if we find this body stabbed to death and you start assuming a vampire (or any supernatural agent) did it. You cannot claim something is the cause behind anything without first indicating that said cause first exists. That is wherein your logical fallacy lies; your argument from ignorance.


I have a Biblical worldview. I see evidence of a Creator in everything. Including disease and death because it corroborates with the Bible. And in my analogy, even the vampire is more plausible compared to natural causes. The point was distinguishing between the natural causes and intelligence.


If the point of your analogy was to distinguish between natural causes and intelligence in biological systems, than it failed spectacularly. Do you even know how we are able to tell if intelligence is behind artifacts that we find? Your first mistake is assuming your disembodied intelligence is anything like a human, you have not justified that claim once. Again, much like evolutionary processes, we know humans can and do commit murders and can and do use knives in some cases. Where is the equivalent for your disembodied intelligence? When have we ever seen a disembodied intelligence do anything, let alone create a biological system and, without this first observation, how are you able to claim it as a solution to a problem that appears to already have a solution?

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:And you're misunderstanding what I'm saying about purpose. Natural Selection doesn't strive for a goal in mind; such as perfection or accuracy. However, the DNA repair system was designed to have a purpose. Actually, the sheer existence of a DNA repair kit in our genome is evidence against evolution. Why have it? That would be an impediment for mutations to evolve.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:You do realize that DNA repair is not perfect or accurate, right? If it were, cancer would not exist and we would not observe mutations. Beyond that, explain what is the purpose behind DNA repair besides keeping an organism with DNA alive long enough to pass its genes into the future? Furthermore, I already asked you for a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems. Until you provide this metric, your point is moot.


According to me worldview, of course the DNA repair kit isn't 100% perfect or 100% accurate, but it sure is darn close. You have about trillions of cells working 24 hours, 7 days of the week...every nanosecond...working in concert together so you don't get cancer. It's a miracle in its self that we don't get cancer as soon as we pop into existence.


If that is the case, then why did you claim that DNA repair is evidence of design since design has goals such as perfection and accuracy? You just admitted that it is not perfect or accurate.

Rhed wrote:And you raised this question, "[is there] a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems". My simple response would be anything capable of being adaptive clearly resembles design.

Adaptation in computer science with the software capable of interacting with the end-user involve an impressive process created by software engineers. Having the ability of writing software to adapt to the outside world is quite the accomplishment.

The code in our DNA, and the repair kit, is an impressive program that keeps you and me alive.


Thus, you are unable to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems. Thus, any point you have about any biological system is moot because it is just as likely (if not more so) that it is adapted and not designed. Do you not see how you being unable to distinguish between an adapted system and a designed system is a huge problem for your argument? Even if your disembodied intelligence created the “program” that allows for adaptations to happen, you being unable to distinguish between the two leaves you unable to claim any biological system is designed.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:Also, you are misrepresenting natural selection. It does not create; it conserves.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I am not misrepresenting natural selection, because I never said it creates anything. I said natural selection acting on mutations could produce systems such as this. Please do not misrepresent me.


Natural Selection as you may know are not in dispute. But mutations in a naturalistic worldview are not direct mutations, but only random mutations. According to that worldview, you have to believe that endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, and ligase randomly mutated all at the same time. If it did not, life would not exist.


Incorrect once again and a straw man of evolutionary theory. It appears you are trying to argue that this system is irreducibly complex. I will grant you that this system is irreducibly complex, now your problem is that we have observed irreducibly complex systems evolve in a lab before. Why would this system be special when we already know that evolutionary processes can account for a system like this?

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:I demonstrated a design system to you but you refuse to see it. You need all of these biological machines work concurrently or it will not work, and life would not exist if endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, or ligase were missing. Each one must be accurate and precise, which show design and purpose.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:I have no doubt that those were designed, I just do not see why we would assume a disembodied creator was behind said design when we already know of natural phenomenon that can also explain the design we see. Again, we are both looking at that dead body, I am concluding a human did it, you are looking at it, and believing vampires did it.


What do you mean that "those were designed"? Do you mean random mutations and natural selection designed the repair kit, or do you mean some other intelligence designed it? And the dead body analogy, you are concluding he died by natural causes, and I am concluding that an "intelligent" being was the cause of death.


In short, yes. Natural selection and mutation designed those systems, as I have been saying from the beginning. We already agree both of those things happen. We have evidence of biological systems evolving in a lab. When have we ever seen a biological system created by any other means? Furthermore, your analogy failed if that was the point you were trying to make. Again, we both agree humans and knives exist, just like we both agree about the evolutionary processes. You are claiming something outside of our knowledge base is behind the murder and biological system without first demonstrating that said entity exist.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:Why would you see God create something now? It's done.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:How would you know this? What evidence do you have to conclude this? Beyond that, without evidence that your disembodied creator can create, how are you able to conclude that it did create in the first place?


Because our Creator says so in the Bible.


:lol:

The Bible? Beyond what Dragan Glas has already pointed out, why should we believe the Bible is accurate when it tells us that? We know of it being incorrect on many other issues (e.g. the worldwide flood).

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:Why would the endonuclease check for errors? How does it know it is an error? And then why would it mark it? How would it know that another molecular machine exonuclease is going to cut it? How would the polymerase know the correct base? And how on earth did the ligase evolve welding skills?


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Honestly, I do not know the answer to any of these questions; however, would you like to research this together? We can start here, explore all their citations, and see where that leads us. I feel that would be a better solution than pointing at our ignorance and proclaiming because we do not know it would have to be our deity of choice.


Yes, I would like to research this together with you. Since we could take the path to the dark side...I mean...wikipedia, we can also look at http://creation.com/DNA-repair-enzyme


:facepalm:

Yeah, no. As SpecialFrog demonstrated, creationist “sources” are always less than reliable when it comes to scientific information, probably because they care more about defending their faith instead of understanding the natural world. We will only consult peer-reviewed evidence. Sorry, your source does not cut it. Now, what do you think of P. J. O’Brien’s (2006) Catalytic promiscuity and the divergent evolution of DNA repair enzymes?

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:Beyond that, do you not see the problem you have? Even if you were able to show that DNA repair could not evolve, negative evidence for evolution is not positive evidence for creation. You still need to provide evidence that DNA repair was created in the first place before you can claim it as evidence for your position.


If they didn't evolve, than what solutions are there?


As of right now, none. That is what you are supposed to be providing. We are still waiting for that creation model. You can start by explaining how a disembodied supernatural entity can influence anything.

Rhed wrote:
Rhed wrote:These are all hallmarks of design. To believe this was a result from mutations, genetic drift, and natural selection is not faith, but blind faith.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Again, I do not doubt that these are designed; I am simply asking how you were able to determine that these were not adaptive biological systems. Furthermore, you must not know what blind faith is if you think accepting that observed phenomenon being behind a problem takes faith. Your faults are yours alone; please do not project them onto me.


Adaptive biological systems are also hallmarks of design, and a very impressive one at that.


I agree on both accounts. However, that does mean that you agree that intelligence is not needed for the design we see in biological systems. Thus far, evolutionary processes are all that is needed to account for them. I am glad we can agree on that. However, that does beg the question of what are you arguing for if you already agree that evolutionary processes can account for these systems.
_BONES AND FOSSILS = LOVE_
(_'--------------------'_)
(_.--------------------._)
Thu Jan 07, 2016 5:42 pm
YIM WWW
ldmitrukUser avatarPosts: 234Joined: Thu Sep 26, 2013 2:47 pmLocation: Edmonton, Alberta Gender: Cake

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
ldmitruk wrote:Thanks for the links. They look like they will be interesting reading.


And don't forget the links I gave you. If you want to disagree with Creation models, then disagree with it objectively. In other words, don't just read nobody-who-is-nobody (or whatever).


I didn't forget them. However given the admission criteria for ARJ articles
Is the paper’s topic important to the development of the Creation and Flood model?
Does the paper’s topic provide an original contribution to the Creation and Flood model?
Is this paper formulated within a young-earth, young-universe framework?
If the paper discusses claimed evidence for an old earth and/or universe, does this paper offer a very constructively [sic] positive criticism and provide a possible young-earth, young-universe alternative?
If the paper is polemical in nature, does it deal with a topic rarely discussed within the origins debate?
Does this paper provide evidence of faithfulness to the grammatical-historical/normative interpretation of Scripture?


It's easy to see how biased the articles are.
Thu Jan 07, 2016 8:00 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:Basically, there are only two ways of the origin of complex biological systems occurred; i.e., naturalistically or supernaturalistically (or disembodied creator(s)). So either you shove naturalism into it or I shove my deity into it.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Incorrect. As of right now, we know of only one-way, and that way is through evolutionary processes. Thus far, no one has been able to show another way for it to happen. That means I am not shoving anything anywhere, I am simply following the evidence where it leads. You still have not demonstrated the supernatural exist, that the supernatural can affect the natural world, or that the supernatural can affect the natural world in such a way to create anything. You are holding an empty bag.



No, there isn’t one way, but since you have a naturalistic worldview, you only presuppose …tah dah…naturalism. And yes, you are shoving naturalism into everything. Not just life, but morals as well. And I cannot PROVE to you that the supernatural was responsible for our origin (as if I’m going to summon the Creator and show you personally how he creates stuff); likewise, you cannot PROVE that the naturalism is responsible for our origin (scientific laws are against it). This is why we have scientists and laypersons that oppose each other and debate about this since the beginning of time. Until you realize that there is another “side” to this debate, then there is no hope for you. You are stuck in your naturalistic worldview. And I have demonstrated to you that the DNA repair system is obviously designed. Naturalism doesn’t know what design is. It’s funny though how in evolution, they do experiments on mutations of bacteria, which we all know they mutate in a spectacular way to survive. Bacteria are designed that way, whereas they rearrange and mix their own DNA and even transfer the DNA. (HGT). Until evolutionists grasp that this type of change has more support for the Creation model, they will continue with the straw-man arguments.

Rhed wrote:I have a Biblical worldview. I see evidence of a Creator in everything. Including disease and death because it corroborates with the Bible. And in my analogy, even the vampire is more plausible compared to natural causes. The point was distinguishing between the natural causes and intelligence.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:If the point of your analogy was to distinguish between natural causes and intelligence in biological systems, than it failed spectacularly. Do you even know how we are able to tell if intelligence is behind artifacts that we find? Your first mistake is assuming your disembodied intelligence is anything like a human, you have not justified that claim once. Again, much like evolutionary processes, we know humans can and do commit murders and can and do use knives in some cases. Where is the equivalent for your disembodied intelligence? When have we ever seen a disembodied intelligence do anything, let alone create a biological system and, without this first observation, how are you able to claim it as a solution to a problem that appears to already have a solution?


My analogy fits well this topic, but you refuse to understand that design supports an intelligent agent rather than nature. My evidence of a “disembodied” intelligence is the program of life (DNA code), and specifically the DNA repair kit. Any written code is always traced back to an intelligent agent or mind. A knife in the back will point to an intelligent agent or mind. The proof you are asking for is ridiculous…as if you want to me to summon God and show you personally that He is responsible for life. Well, for obvious reasons, that won’t happen.

Rhed wrote:According to me worldview, of course the DNA repair kit isn't 100% perfect or 100% accurate, but it sure is darn close. You have about trillions of cells working 24 hours, 7 days of the week...every nanosecond...working in concert together so you don't get cancer. It's a miracle in its self that we don't get cancer as soon as we pop into existence.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:If that is the case, then why did you claim that DNA repair is evidence of design since design has goals such as perfection and accuracy? You just admitted that it is not perfect or accurate.


Apparently you missed the “According to my worldview, of course the DNA repair kit isn't 100% perfect or 100% accurate”. You refuse to read and understand the Creation model except through naturalistic worldview websites. You also don’t realize (because of your worldview) that specific arrangements in our genome are crucial to life. If most if not all pathways lead to life, then naturalism would be plausible. This is surely not the case.

Rhed wrote:And you raised this question, "[is there] a way to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems". My simple response would be anything capable of being adaptive clearly resembles design.

Adaptation in computer science with the software capable of interacting with the end-user involve an impressive process created by software engineers. Having the ability of writing software to adapt to the outside world is quite the accomplishment.

The code in our DNA, and the repair kit, is an impressive program that keeps you and me alive.



he_who_is_nobody wrote:Thus, you are unable to distinguish between adaptive biological systems and designed biological systems. Thus, any point you have about any biological system is moot because it is just as likely (if not more so) that it is adapted and not designed. Do you not see how you being unable to distinguish between an adapted system and a designed system is a huge problem for your argument? Even if your disembodied intelligence created the “program” that allows for adaptations to happen, you being unable to distinguish between the two leaves you unable to claim any biological system is designed.


:facepalm:
You won’t get it or understand it, and you chose not to. Being able to adapt IS designed. Solar lights are designed, and they light up when the sun goes down. When the sun comes up, they turn off. When the solar lights don’t light up in the dark, it is what we call broken. Our eyes adjust between the light and the dark. If life didn’t adapt, evolutionists would be pointing out the flaws of the Designer. Like I said, being able to adapt supports design rather than nature alone.

I don’t expect you to understand this.

Rhed wrote:Natural Selection as you may know are not in dispute. But mutations in a naturalistic worldview are not direct mutations, but only random mutations. According to that worldview, you have to believe that endonuclease, exonuclease, polymerase, and ligase randomly mutated all at the same time. If it did not, life would not exist.


he_who_is_nobody wrote:Incorrect once again and a straw man of evolutionary theory. It appears you are trying to argue that this system is irreducibly complex. I will grant you that this system is irreducibly complex, now your problem is that we have observed irreducibly complex systems evolve in a lab before. Why would this system be special when we already know that evolutionary processes can account for a system like this?


This amazing capability for bacteria is evidence for design, not random mutations. This experiment clearly demonstrates that evolutionists don’t understand the Creation model, so this is a straw-man. Creationists already know what bacteria can and cannot do. Yes, the e. coli “evolved” a new function. It was the same protein coded gene duplicated, and was influenced by another existing promoter to turn it on. I’ll give you a hint of what the Creation model is looking for; that is, an increase in number of coding genes. Creationists are not asking for a once silence gene to be active again. We are not looking for novel function, but novel protein-coding genes.
Until you understand the Creation model, we will talk.

I have to go. I'll come back later.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Sun Jan 10, 2016 7:56 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1174Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
he_who_is_nobody wrote:[Can you give an example of evidence that is used by both "naturalistic evolution" and supernatural design that leads to different conclusions?


Sure. Ape and Human Evolution: evolutionary adaptations via natural selection and beneficial mutations.

Using observational science, neo-Darwinism was tested in a lab with RNA viruses (organisms that can quickly react to mutations). Link:
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/43/15376.full

Basically, what they found is that evolution can have beneficial mutations but no more than two at a time. Now this is a problem for human-ape evolution.

This article absolutely says no such thing, it is not implied by the authors and the results can not be used to support such a conclusion.

It's an article we have discussed before, it's about experiments using site-directed mutagenesis to probe the effect of epistasis. Double-mutants were deliberately induced and then tested for their effect on fitness, nowhere in the paper is it stated, implied or tested whether "evolution can have no more than two at a time".
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:01 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rumraket wrote:It's an article we have discussed before, it's about experiments using site-directed mutagenesis to probe the effect of epistasis. Double-mutants were deliberately induced and then tested for their effect on fitness, nowhere in the paper is it stated, implied or tested whether "evolution can have no more than two at a time".


How many beneficial mutation can become fixed at a time? Are there any real live tests on this.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Jan 11, 2016 12:57 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1174Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rumraket wrote:It's an article we have discussed before, it's about experiments using site-directed mutagenesis to probe the effect of epistasis. Double-mutants were deliberately induced and then tested for their effect on fitness, nowhere in the paper is it stated, implied or tested whether "evolution can have no more than two at a time".


How many beneficial mutation can become fixed at a time? Are there any real live tests on this.

It's a sort of weird question and I'm not sure how to answer that. You ask about fixation, which I understand means "become prevalent in all or the vast majority of individuals in the population".

So you're basically asking how many beneficial mutations can (simultaneously?) become prevalent in all of the individuals that make up a population?

On the one hand, at least theoretically there is no upper limit, since you could imagine that by some unfathomable miracle of luck, every single base-pair in every single individual, simultaneously mutates into the same beneficial mutation. Totally unrealistic of course, and I don't think anyone ever believed something like this is required to happen for evolution to be possible.

Rather than these kinds of absolutist questions about hard limits, population geneticists work with trying to establish general trends. When it comes to the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations, they work with:

1. The relative number of beneficial to netrual or deleterious mutations.
2. The population size (in larger populations natural selection is more efficient).
3. Fecundity of individuals.
4. The actual fitness values of the mutations (the degree to which they are beneficial or deleterious).
5. The average mutation rate.

If you want hard numbers you should talk to a population geneticist, I don't have the require training to do the calculations. I'm not a population geneticisit by any stretch.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Jan 11, 2016 1:45 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rumraket wrote:Rather than these kinds of absolutist questions about hard limits, population geneticists work with trying to establish general trends. When it comes to the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations, they work with:

1. The relative number of beneficial to netrual or deleterious mutations.
2. The population size (in larger populations natural selection is more efficient).
3. Fecundity of individuals.
4. The actual fitness values of the mutations (the degree to which they are beneficial or deleterious).
5. The average mutation rate.

If you want hard numbers you should talk to a population geneticist, I don't have the require training to do the calculations. I'm not a population geneticisit by any stretch.


Below is what I asked a couple of weeks ago:
The lineage between humans and apes started about 10,000,000 years ago. Each generation is about 20yrs. That works out to be 500,000 generations. Humans have about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our genome. Chimps and humans differ by 5% (150,000,000 mutations). But chimps were also evolving from that point so I'll half it, which is 75,000,000 mutations.

That means you need 150 fixed mutations for every generation.


Is this possible with the 5 bullet points you provided?
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:07 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1174Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Rather than these kinds of absolutist questions about hard limits, population geneticists work with trying to establish general trends. When it comes to the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations, they work with:

1. The relative number of beneficial to netrual or deleterious mutations.
2. The population size (in larger populations natural selection is more efficient).
3. Fecundity of individuals.
4. The actual fitness values of the mutations (the degree to which they are beneficial or deleterious).
5. The average mutation rate.

If you want hard numbers you should talk to a population geneticist, I don't have the require training to do the calculations. I'm not a population geneticisit by any stretch.


Below is what I asked a couple of weeks ago:
The lineage between humans and apes started about 10,000,000 years ago. Each generation is about 20yrs. That works out to be 500,000 generations. Humans have about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our genome. Chimps and humans differ by 5% (150,000,000 mutations). But chimps were also evolving from that point so I'll half it, which is 75,000,000 mutations.

That means you need 150 fixed mutations for every generation.


Is this possible with the 5 bullet points you provided?

Your numbers are a bit off (but not that far), anyway yes:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.dk/2015/04/human-mutation-rates-whats-right-number.html
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:14 pm
RumraketUser avatarPosts: 1174Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:49 am Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Anyway, I can't help but share this one by Felsenstein:
Joe Felsenstein Monday, January 11, 2016 8:21:00 AM
With regard to the "myth" of beneficial mutations, the following line of reasoning seems relevant: Imagine a sequence that is functional. Presumably creationists admit that it is possible for a mutation to arise that makes it less functional, say replacing an A by a G at site 139.

Now imagine that nonfunctional sequence. Is there some cosmic principle that there cannot be a mutation of a G to an A at site 139 ?

Waiting to hear what that principle is. Something about entropy or information theory, I suppose.
"Nullius in verba" - Take nobody's word for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullius_in_verba
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Mon Jan 11, 2016 2:49 pm
SpecialFrogUser avatarPosts: 827Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:13 pmLocation: Great White North Gender: Tree

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

Rhed wrote:
Rumraket wrote:Rather than these kinds of absolutist questions about hard limits, population geneticists work with trying to establish general trends. When it comes to the rate of fixation of beneficial mutations, they work with:

1. The relative number of beneficial to netrual or deleterious mutations.
2. The population size (in larger populations natural selection is more efficient).
3. Fecundity of individuals.
4. The actual fitness values of the mutations (the degree to which they are beneficial or deleterious).
5. The average mutation rate.

If you want hard numbers you should talk to a population geneticist, I don't have the require training to do the calculations. I'm not a population geneticisit by any stretch.

Below is what I asked a couple of weeks ago:
The lineage between humans and apes started about 10,000,000 years ago. Each generation is about 20yrs. That works out to be 500,000 generations. Humans have about 3,000,000,000 base pairs in our genome. Chimps and humans differ by 5% (150,000,000 mutations). But chimps were also evolving from that point so I'll half it, which is 75,000,000 mutations.

That means you need 150 fixed mutations for every generation.

Is this possible with the 5 bullet points you provided?

You have changed your tune. A few pages ago you were insisting that 150 fixed beneficial mutations were needed. Are you conceding that this was nonsense? If so, in what manner does the article I linked (which you appeared to indicate that you had read) fail to address this alleged problem?
"Life is nothing but an electron looking for a place to rest" -- Albert Szent-Gyrgyi
Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:05 pm
RhedUser avatarPosts: 260Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2015 7:01 amLocation: Currently on the sofa Gender: Male

Post Re: ICR has new projects coming up!...well, they hoped.

SpecialFrog wrote:You have changed your tune. A few pages ago you were insisting that 150 fixed beneficial mutations were needed. Are you conceding that this was nonsense? If so, in what manner does the article I linked (which you appeared to indicate that you had read) fail to address this alleged problem?


No, I haven't changed my tune. I just want more resources that deals with the problem unlike the link you posted. Your article deals with genes not nucleotide mutations.
If evolution was in the newspaper, it would be in the funnies
Mon Jan 11, 2016 3:19 pm
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 4 of 5
 [ 91 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests
cron