Human Evolution

[danielwoods]

That article says nothing specific about the article I quoted

Surely you see that this is PRESUMING that there IS an "origin" and therefore it is a circular argument.  It presumes intelligent design from the beginning, that there pre-exists "complex specified information necessary to generate new body plans" which then are incorporated into the system.

 

The entire point of Darwinian evolution is that such plans do NOT exist- the "goal" of evolution is to come up specifically with a way to show evolution WITHOUT such "plans" existing.  THAT is the "axe to grind" which science brings into the picture, and that is why intelligent design is NOT "scientific" from the beginning.

 

"Let's make a theory of the origin of species which does not presume that there is a plan made by God" says the scientist.

 

"OK then" says the advocate of intelligent design, "but then you are not accounting for the existence of a plan, so your argument is defeated!"

 

Huh? 

 

Of course they are harmful sometimes, but they can also be beneficial.  We are talking about hundreds of thousands of mutations which happen in nature- not a few which are forced in the laboratory.  None of the harmful mutations in nature survive- that is the entire point!  So again the presumption is in favor of intelligent design.

This is a horrible argument.  Of course they are expressed in a living animal and of course they are not the "source of genetic information" - AGAIN HE IS PRESUMING THAT THERE IS genetic information in the first place- a plan.

 

Again, begging the question that there IS such a thing!!  Unbelievable!

 

Probabilities of what?  Of having a certain outcome?  The entire point is that there IS no certain outcome!

The probabilities of a human evolving with a blue nose with green speckles are quite remote, but that's not the point!  The proability of SOME change which may or may not be beneficial are quite high!  Again, begging the question that there IS a plan- a known outcome.  We are not talking abut an infinite number of monkeys with typewriters writing Romeo and Juliet- we are talking about they writing anything!

The low probability of success for a specific outcome that is!  Presuming that there ARE "functional" protein sequences- PRESUMES THAT PROTEIN SEQUENCES HAVE A FUNCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE.  that is the wrong presumption, IF WE TAKE ON SCIENTIFIC ASSUMPTIONS.

- See more at: http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/09/hox_genes_to_th076231.html#sthash.O0K177U4.dpuf

 

Oh gosh, do I have to say it again?  The "origin of genetic information" presumes there IS an "origin" and that it IS "information", when in fact, we are looking back at millions of years of random processes and calling that "information".

 

Now let me make it clear that I am just making the point here that Meyer's argument is a poor one.

 

I don't know or care if evolution is "true" or not- it doesn't matter to me if God made the world in 6 days or 16 trillion years, or if it blinked into existence 6 minutes ago with our memories intact of things which are not "real"

 

My life will not change one iota based on scientific discoveries unless they cure aging and make everyone live to be 145.

 

But a bad argument is a bad argument, pure and simple.

 

Thanks for interacting with the article. I think that we are more similar that it might appear. I too don't care one way or another how God did it, either. The search for truth in all areas of life is interesting however. 

 

You think he's making a poor argument because, in your view, there is no actual information in DNA that therefore needs an origin, did I get that right? 

 

I find this an interesting argument coming from you, of all people. Why? Because the very definition of a language or code is to use or communicate information, that isn't the thing itself. DNA/RNA does this to a "T". Mutations occur when this system of communication is disrupted somehow. There are even redundancies in the system to check to make sure the right information was communicated in the right way, in the right sequence. And you think there's no actual information in the DNA? 

 

The argument in the article you quoted was that the Hox gene could be turned on or off at any time allowing for more legs (in their example) or less. It very much relies on probabilities and wishful thinking. And not on actual observation. Meyer's argument is based on the observation that in reality, these mutations are almost always not helpful. And even given that they could be turned on, they still won't generate new and different legs (using their example) which is what would be needed if something was to evolve a new type of leg. In essence, the question is where does new stuff come from?

 

Evolution claims they just appear as a result of copy mistakes and isolation, in essence out of the chemicals alone (something that isn't ever observed directly). 

 

The problem with intelligent design is that it doesn't understand that science is based on theories which must be observable- that is the presumption of science in the first place.

 

I actually believe that this world and everything in it was planned by God, but at least I know that that is NOT science.  We call that "faith" because it CANNOT be proven through observation.

 

Evolution has gone so far away from what it can observe it makes claims that are unjustified in my opinion. ID claims to infer an intelligent source based on the observations that match other things we know have intelligent sources. 

[mfbukowski]

Dawkins is Meyer's evil twin- one's yin for the other's yang, but they both have the same problem-neither of them understand that science does not explain everything important in life.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for interacting with the article. I think that we are more similar that it might appear. I too don't care one way or another how God did it, either. The search for truth in all areas of life is interesting however. 

 

You think he's making a poor argument because, in your view, there is no actual information in DNA that therefore needs an origin, did I get that right? 

 

I find this an interesting argument coming from you, of all people. Why? Because the very definition of a language or code is to use or communicate information, that isn't the thing itself. DNA/RNA does this to a "T". Mutations occur when this system of communication is disrupted somehow. There are even redundancies in the system to check to make sure the right information was communicated in the right way, in the right sequence. And you think there's no actual information in the DNA? 

 

The argument in the article you quoted was that the Hox gene could be turned on or off at any time allowing for more legs (in their example) or less. It very much relies on probabilities and wishful thinking. And not on actual observation. Meyer's argument is based on the observation that in reality, these mutations are almost always not helpful. And even given that they could be turned on, they still won't generate new and different legs (using their example) which is what would be needed if something was to evolve a new type of leg. In essence, the question is where does new stuff come from?

 

Evolution claims they just appear as a result of copy mistakes and isolation, in essence out of the chemicals alone (something that isn't ever observed directly). 

 

 

Evolution has gone so far away from what it can observe it makes claims that are unjustified in my opinion. ID claims to infer an intelligent source based on the observations that match other things we know have intelligent sources. 

No time right now- I'll get back to you

 

The quick answer is that "information" is what WE define it to be.  It's not "information" until we see it as such, just like a tree is not a "tree" until we name it.  You can't even say WHAT it is, without language and language defines everything

 

Everything we talk about that is 

where does new stuff come from

 

It depends on what we call "new stuff". 

Edited September 26, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

OK, but this is a terminology thing.  They are still bunnies, with relatively minor changes.  They did not evolve with wings, or opposible thumbs.

 

I may be simple, but I'm not stupid.

Terminology thing? Of course it is a terminology thing as to when one thing become sufficiently different to be considered something else.

[thesometimesaint]

That is a bummer.

 

Agreed. I wish there was but there isn't.

[thesometimesaint]

If you understand the comment, it is exactly ON topic.  The point is macro evolution.  Where is the "macro" jump where we went from Pilgrims to President Obama?

 

Th point is, there wasn't one. 

Both are a "kind"" of person.

[thesometimesaint]

Even dog breeders talk about the higher percentage of problems with these breeds. 

 

I'm not saying that evolution is "about creating the perfect creature" rather, my point was that it appears to me that the net result of evolution is less adaptability not more, as time goes on more losses occur. 

 

That is because ignorant humans either deliberately or innocently selected for those traits. Say a dog has a recessive gene for hip displasia(That wouldn't showup in that individual dog). It is mated with another dog with the recessive gene for hip dispasia(That also wouldn't show up in the individual dog). The offspring of that mating wlll have a larger possibility for hip displasia than either one of it parent dogs. The same applies for a positive trait say a faster running dog.

[thesometimesaint]

Danielwoods:

 

I too don't give a flying fig how God did it. In that it won't effect my Salvation one bit either way.

 

But you are asking how a scientist explains evolution.

 

"Evolution claims they just appear as a result of copy mistakes and isolation, in essence out of the chemicals alone (something that isn't ever observed directly)"

 

There are countless combinations, recombinations, additions, deletions, transpositions, and a host of things that effect the genes of every living creature. What isolation does is magnify those things.

 

See

[danielwoods]

This is getting a bit tiring. Problems with specific breads has nothing to do with evolution. They have problems because of intelligent design: people interfering with the natural selection process and preventing biodiversity. Breeders create animals with specific physical appearances to win shows and have no concern for the actual health and long term survival of the animals. You have absolutely no evidence that we are seeing led adaptability. Live is constantly changing an adapting. It is perpetual. Consider these comments from   Scientific America:

There is such a wealth of information available to you to read but you simply refuse to read it. Your arguments fall apart because you refuse to understand want evolution is. Your argument is based on a false premise.

 

Which started out as just an answer to a question. What do I think? Well, it's simply my opinion, that a loss of ability or the depth of DNA is devolution. If you or others want to see it as a part of evolution, who am I to say otherwise? 

Edited September 26, 2013 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

Evolution is in both directions. But it does tend towards greater information. IE; Whales and horses have a common ancestor.

[danielwoods]

No time right now- I'll get back to you

 

The quick answer is that "information" is what WE define it to be.  It's not "information" until we see it as such, just like a tree is not a "tree" until we name it.  You can't even say WHAT it is, without language and language defines everything

 

Everything we talk about that is 

It depends on what we call "new stuff". 

 

Right. And if set of symbols "ABCD" are used and set up in a certain pattern where another can "decode" them, then no matter what you call it, it is operating as a language or code. The use of language or codes as symbols always represent information behind the symbols. 

 

As you said. The letters, "TREE" Or "EERT" only have meaning or convey information if they are encoded and decoded correctly and in sequence. We see this with the DNA/RNA sequencing. 

[Vance]

We call that "faith" because it CANNOT be proven through observation.

Kind of like evolution.

[Stone holm]

Kind of like evolution.

 

No.

[Vance]

No.

So, Evolution (from pond scum to human) has been observed?  Who knew?

[ERayR]

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief.

 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending?

[Freedom]

So, Evolution (from pond scum to human) has been observed?  Who knew?

We have established that evolution has been observed irrefutably. I suggest you read the posts and the many videos that have been attached. Nobody, not even the creationists, reject evolution. In order to accept that Noah had all the animals on the arc one has to accept that going from some 10,000 species to the now 2,000,000 species requires evolution of a dramatic scale.

[Freedom]

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief.

 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending?

Faith is a religious term and refers to something that cannot be seen. Scientific theory is based on something that can be seen. A huge difference. Religious faith requires the absence of empirical data. Scientific theory requires the presence of empirical data.

[Freedom]

Which started out as just an answer to a question. What do I think? Well, it's simply my opinion, that a loss of ability or the depth of DNA is devolution. If you or others want to see it as a part of evolution, who am I to say otherwise? 

It matters because you are inventing your own definitions to justify a believe that has no support in science or religion. Devolution is returning back to an earlier stage. You would have to prove that people are returning back to being pro-humans. If you are going to use a term, you have to used the accepted definition of the term otherwise you are just moving the goalpost to suite your fancy. I can say that creationism means a space alien from Pluto killed God, who was actually a giant brainless space ameba, and took over the planet. If you or others want to see it as something different who am I so say otherwise. Once you change definitions to suite your own baseless paradigm, discussion becomes impossible.  Your examples are not devolution, they are examples of intentional selective breading to intentionally include bad traits in order to preserve marketable traits that earn prizes at dog shows. Another term is inbreeding.

[ERayR]

Faith is a religious term and refers to something that cannot be seen. Scientific theory is based on something that can be seen. A huge difference. Religious faith requires the absence of empirical data. Scientific theory requires the presence of empirical data.

 

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief.

 

Faith is not just a religious view.  Faith is  confidence or trust in a person or thing.  One can have faith in ones own ability or faith in someone else's abilities or conclusions.  True it is a concept used in a religious setting but the term itself can be used in many more settings. 

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending?

[Rob Osborn]

"Faith", "belief", "idea"....words that an evolutionists absolutely will not use in discussing their "theory".

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, thing, deity, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion or view (e.g. having strong political faith). The word faith is often used as a synonym for hope, trust or belief.

 

Faith is not just a religious view.  Faith is  confidence or trust in a person or thing.  One can have faith in ones own ability or faith in someone else's abilities or conclusions.  True it is a concept used in a religious setting but the term itself can be used in many more settings. 

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending?

I have no problem to admitting to a large element of faith.  The problem is that it is of a fundamentally different kind of faith than religious faith.  It is a philosophical faith that we are actually living in a real world, with real observable things.  It's a faith that we didn't "blink into existence 6 minutes ago with our memories intact of things which are not 'real'." It's a faith that God gave us brains to use and try and figure out the world around us.  The same faith I have in the existence of Atoms.  

 

It is not a religious like faith. A faith as described in Hebrews of "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." or as Alma puts it " "if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Quite the opposite in fact.  It is a trust in things which are seen. 

[ERayR]

It is not a religious like faith. A faith as described in Hebrews of "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." or as Alma puts it " "if ye have faith ye hope for things which are not seen, which are true." Quite the opposite in fact.  It is a trust in things which are seen. 

 

Faith is Faith no matter what arena it is in.  Have you seen an evolutionary species change with your own eyes?  But you have faith that the Micro-evolutionary changes you have observed results in that change.

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending without trying to redefine the terms. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Faith is Faith no matter what arena it is in.  Have you seen an evolutionary species change with your own eyes?  But you have faith that the Micro-evolutionary changes you have observed results in that change.

 

The question again is: 

Why is it so hard for macro-evolutionists to admit to an element of faith?  Don't you all have any faith in the interpretation of the data you are defending without trying to redefine the terms. 

So do you disagree with how Paul and Alma define faith? You say faith is confidence in a thing. They say faith is hope for things which aren't seen but are true? Which definition do you want me to use? I have confidence in evolution. I have confidence that smoking causes cancer. I have confidence that germs cause disease. I have confidence that when I flip a switch, the lights will turn out. I have confidence that the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen approximately 93 million miles from earth.

 

I have an entirely different confidence that God lives.  This confidence comes not from outward senses but from inward experiences.  To me it is a category mistake to conflate the two.  The reason that creationists wish to do so is that they want to put a literal reading of Genesis on equal footing with the theory of evolution and say both take faith, so both are equally valid...

[ERayR]

So do you disagree with how Paul and Alma define faith? You say faith is confidence in a thing. They say faith is hope for things which aren't seen but are true? Which definition do you want me to use? I have confidence in evolution. I have confidence that smoking causes cancer. I have confidence that germs cause disease. I have confidence that when I flip a switch, the lights will turn out. I have confidence that the sun is a big ball of mostly hydrogen approximately 93 million miles from earth.

 

I have an entirely different confidence that God lives.  This confidence comes not from outward senses but from inward experiences.  To me it is a category mistake to conflate the two.  The reason that creationists wish to do so is that they want to put a literal reading of Genesis on equal footing with the theory of evolution and say both take faith, so both are equally valid...

 

Nope I would say Paul is correct.  In the macro-evolution realm it is the substance of the hope that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution and it is the evidence of the unobserved macro-evolution event.

 

I believe I have told you before that I do not believe in a young earth scenario and I believe that Genesis is but an outline and gives no timeline only a sequence.

Edited September 26, 2013 by ERayR

[SeekingUnderstanding]

Nope I would say Paul is correct.  In the macro-evolution realm it is the substance of the hope that micro-evolution leads to macro-evolution and it is the evidence of the unobserved macro-evolution event.

 

I believe I have told you before that I do not believe in a young earth scenario and I believe that Genesis is but an outline and gives no timeline only a sequence.

You might have a point if micro evolution was all we observed.  However we directly observe micro-evolution.  We observe the geographic distribution of species. We observe vestigial traits. We observe DNA. We observe small differences in essential proteins that branch according the evolutionary tree of life.  We observe fossilized genes in our DNA exactly as predicted by evolution (no feather genes for us). We observe the fossil record complete with transitional organisms. We observe large changes in small periods with artificial selection. We observe that oceanic islands have native species of mammals, reptiles and amphibians (with limited exceptions) while continental islands do have these animals. We observe similarities in embryonic development. We observe cases of bad design. We observe atavisms. We observe all these things and they all point to macro evolution. 

 

All of these things have the potential to fossilize the theory. All we have to do is find fossilized humans next to fossilized dinosaur bones. We could have had cytochrome c protein that is used in birds (with absolutely no detrement), instead ours is identical to chimpanzees.  There are so many places where evolution could have been proven wrong.  Countless places.  Instead day after day, month after month, year after year the evidence keeps on accumulating and lining up in a manner that shows evolution really happened.