Almost 160 years ago, Charles Darwin thought life’s diversity could be explained through variation filtered by natural selection. Even though it has changed some over the years as I show later, I think the Darwinian idea is quite dead.
Why do I think that? Well, I think it for many reasons, a little less than 40,000,000,000,000 of those reasons have to do with you. I’m talking about the approximate number of cells in your body (1). Cells seem to give us countless reasons to cast doubt on Darwinism. Since I can’t give countless reasons here, let’s focus on one area.
Running you, in every single cell in your body, are many, many, many tiny machines. I hope you are not assuming I’m using the word “machine” as an analogy, I’m not. When I say your cells contain machines, I mean real machines. These are mechanisms that are made up of parts that use power to do specific tasks.
We have a great diversity of machines within our cells. Some think there are around 20,000 various types of these tiny world machines found within cells (2)! More commonly known examples have some funny names like myosin, kinesin, ATP synthase and dynein.
Our main experiences with machines are the big world type, our technology. If I would ask where these machine designs come from, you would give the only observable process: one or more engineers conceptualized, planned and designed them to be manufactured.
While there are a small number of small world machines that were human engineered, the far majority of them, the ones found in the cell, were not designed by us. Structures like DNA supply the plans for these machines, and these plans get passed on through the generations. If we could travel back to the first life, the obvious question that would arise is where did these plans come from?
Obviously, not from a human engineer, things don’t make themselves. Some say Darwinian evolution caused them. When I say Darwinian evolution, I mean the updated idea that all life arose through a universal common ancestor via genetic mutation and natural selection. But that has some big problems.
In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes. Last time I checked, mistakes don’t make complex, functional and meaningful text, plans, recipes and designs.
Darwin and others were influenced by the idea that “the present is the key to the past”. So, let’s hijack that for the fun of it. What is the present source for new machine design and information creation?
You know as much as I do that it always arises from intelligent beings. This means that Darwinian evolution does not work because it is not an intelligent mind! Since we know it can’t be human intelligence, the only other option I can think of is a non-human intelligent being!
Paul, in Romans, says that nature points to God. I do agree with Paul, and I think molecular machines also point to God. To think that the origin of life and life’s diversity came about by naturalistic mechanisms, like mutations, seems quite like fiction. That’s why it takes more faith to believe that than to think that God was the creator of all life on earth. It seems to me that the Biblical account of a Designer designing designs in nature is true, and that Darwinism is dead.
The apostle Peter taught us to have answers for our faith, which is what I try to do here. I would love for you to follow iApologia to get the latest updates to your inbox. Plus, I will send you my Free Quick Guide why that gives 8 reasons science points to God.
Please tell us your thoughts below!
Sources:
(1) Rose Eveleth, “There are 37.2 Trillion Cells in Your Body.”
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/there-are-372-trillion-cells-in-your-body-4941473/
(2) “Biophysicist Ken Dill: Protein Machines Are ‘Real Machines. That’s Not a Metaphor’” https://evolutionnews.org/2018/06/biophysicist-ken-dill-protein-machines-are-real-machines-thats-not-a-metaphor/
“Last time I checked, mistakes don’t make complex, functional and meaningful text, plans, recipes and designs.” Because you don’t understand evolution…
Thanks Steve, feel free to fill me in and tell me about evolution.
“Last time I checked, mistakes don’t make complex, functional and meaningful text, plans, recipes and designs.”
Perhaps you should explain what this has to do with evolution. How do ‘meaningful texts’ apply to it?
As the post indicated (and as I noted to you below), the cell’s DNA contains information, much like the above mentioned texts.
“As the post indicated (and as I noted to you below), the cell’s DNA contains information, much like the above mentioned texts.”
The word ‘information’ has many meanings and there is no reason to assume it must point to an intelligent source.
Steve, Darwinian evolution consists, to this DAY, of
1. Random mutation, followed by
2. “Selection” (a tautology, i.e. if it’s better, it survives and if it survives, it’s better)
There is no need to go into all the buzz words that delight you. This two-step *process* is all that Darwinists have to this day. Mutation, selection. Mutation, selection. Every attempt to “evolve” new bacteria has failed. We’re not talking about trivial adaptations, we’re talking about a major change in KIND. Fruit flies have been irradiated and they grew four wings. They’re freaks of nature. They can’t even survive outside the lab. No new animals, just freaks that die on their own, after tens of thousands of generations of “evolutionary” attempts.
For most scientists, that would be conclusive that it doesn’t work.
“The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that’s all we know about it.” (Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)
Typo in the sixth paragraph: “…where not designed” and in the last paragraph: “…to believe that then”. I would share this article, but I feel like typos like this take away from the credibility.
Matt, thanks for pointing this out. Feel free to follow this site and give feedback if you see typos…
First off, this is absolutely nothing more than the tired old “irreducible complexity” argument, which has been satisfactorily debunked multiple times by scientists who know a lot more about physiology than you do.
Apart from that, you know how I can prove that humans and modern apes evolved from a common ancestor?
Certain viruses cause genetic scarring in our DNA. These genetic scars are hereditary.
Humans share the same pattern of genetic scarring as our two closest cousins, Chimpanzees and Orangutans- proving, irrefutably, that both humans and at least two species of modern apes share a direct common genetic ancestor.
I’d love to see how you try to “reconcile” that little tidbit.
Thanks Andrew for your thoughts. I’m sure many other scientists know more about physiology than I do. However, it does not seem that you know what “irreducible complexity” even is, because I’m not arguing that here. But besides that point, I don’t think the irreducible complexity argument has been debunked. If you think it has, feel free to tell me why.
Concerning your second and third paragraphs, I guess I did not argue in this article that there was no ape/human common ancestor. I talked about a universal common ancestor (or LUCA), but that is not referring to some past ape like ancestor.
However, to your viruses scarring issue, you did not provide irrefutable proof for this view. First, by its very nature, science can’t prove things to be true like this. So philosophically, you are starting off on the wrong foot. Second, there are other explanations, have you tried to think of some? If there is another satisfactory explanation, an argument is for sure not irrefutable.
First, the obvious one is that it could be a designer reused designs. One may think this is ad hoc, but it’s not. We, as designers, do that all the time. This is normal protocol. Second, location specific horizontal gene transfer in multiple species could be an explanation.
This is indeed an irreducible complexity argument. You talk about different cells having different functions, regardless of whether or not you start from design or chance. Your argument is than any physiological machine had to be planned and designed, this is no different than saying that “a complex organ like the eye is cannot have evolved but, because it serves a specific purpose, must have been designed”. Irreducible complexity does not end with larger and more complex structures like the eye, and as has been demonstrated in the experiments surrounding L.U.C.A. it has also been demonstrated that given enough time and the correct circumstances, i.e. heat, pressure, and a medium full of organic nuclei, that simple organic compounds can form at random. The simplest functional and self-replicating organic compounds in our DNA are not that hard to turn up when you have these conditions and a long enough time frame.
I guess it depends on how much of the Bible you must take literally as a believer in the Christian faith, and which parts you are willing to write off as fantasy. For example Adam and Eve cannot be true if evolution is true. And if the story of Adam and Eve is fiction, one must question everything fundamental about the Christian faith that follows- original sin, etc.
DNA scarring in the case of viral infections is, as I stated, hereditary. It is permanent damage passed down through each subsequent generation. Therefore Occam’s razor states that the most likely cause of identical genetic scarring among multiple species is a direct mutual genetic ancestor. This does not require the evocation of mysticism. I have never read any convincing philosophical argument against the practice of rationalism, examining evidence, or our ability to interpret that evidence in a peer-reviewed self-correcting system such as the scientific method.
Your “obvious conclusion” is nothing more than the NEED to assign a divine agency to something that can otherwise be explained without the need of such agency. In the last 2000+ years of rational scientific inquiry, neither magic nor the supernatural have ever once been the answer.
Also, philosophically speaking, why would the designer intentionally plants the seeds of doubt in his creation when he (in his infinite modesty) demands belief and worship? Especially when it’s so often claimed that the designer himself is omnipotent, and should know full well that this type of “shoddy craftsmanship” would eventually sow the seeds of doubt.
So, since you must invoke divine intervention, or risk cognitive dissonance, perhaps you could explain where this magnificent designer came from? Why is it that the universe in all its complexity must have a designer, but something that must be, by it’s very definition, more complex than the universe does not in turn need to be created?
Behe’s definition of irreducible complexity is something like “a single system which is composed of several interacting parts, and where the removal of any one of the parts causes the system to cease functioning.” Even though I do support Behe’s argument, I’m not making that case here.
Also, time is not on your side, just to get a few positive mutations would take much to long. Heat, pressure and having all the nucleotides in the world in a vat will not help you out here. It is like saying “with heat, pressure and bricks in a big pile, if given enough time, you would get a building.” That is pure foolishness.
I’m not totally sure what your argument about Adam and Eve and evolution has to do with the post, feel free to explain.
Also, I guess I did not have an “evocation of mysticism”, rather it seems to me that I supplied two real options that were valid explanations. Plus, your philosophical fallacy was also addressed, so no, science can’t prove things to be true of such nature.
I’m not sure where I took issue with being rational, desiring evidence and the peer-reviewed system. Nor have I taken issue with any of these, rather I support them all. Each one is quite compatible with Christianity, and the fact is that these things are Christian assumptions. You may want to read Rodney Stark’s book “The Victory of Reason” for a scholars review of this issue.
Concerning your point on the need to assign a divine agency, I’m just following the evidence here. What item in my above post is not a rational explanation?
To your points on shoddy craftsmanship and seeds of doubt? I just made a clear case for a designer in this post. Your comment does not totally make sense.
It is not a “must” issue to invoke divine intervention, rather the evidences shows that. And, concerning a designer designing designer to infinity past issue that you bring up, actually is a straw-man argument. First, it is quite irrational to think that. Second, it’s not the Christian view.
The Christian view is that since God is outside of space-time, he is not subject to it. He always existed. Nor is he physical, because as far as we know, the only things physical that exists is what is found in the universe. God can’t be part of the universe because things don’t cause themselves to come into existence. Nor is it the Christian view that God is complex, made of parts. He’s not. So again, that is a straw-man argument. I don’t think you have to be more complex to make complex things. All you have to be is capable and vary intelligent to do it. God is both.
You’re dodging my most pertinent questions.
Is hereditary inheritance the simplest explanation for the DNA scarring across multiple genetically-related species, or not?
That is a simple, direct, logical conclusion, based the evidence. Your hypothesis of re-using faulty DNA in a creation process requires the evocation of an entity for which (as you describe yourself) is beyond time and space and therefore conveniently unverifiable by any sort of rational materialistic inquiry due to a complete lack of evidence for it’s existence.
Your philosophical argument is against materialism as a basis for inquiry. Conveniently, as I said, because your god is not supported by any form of materialism.
To quote Arthur Conan Doyle: “It’s a capital mistake to theorize before one has evidence, insensibly one twists facts to suit theories instead of twisting theories to support the facts.”
Someone raised outside a system of a religious indoctrination is able to examine all evidence, for all areas of investigation and choose which conclusion seems most satisfactory without the need to force the evidence to match a worldview that more often than not fails to be substantiated by the evidence at hand.
God is the ultimate example of this logical fallacy. It is a foregone conclusion that you, as a Christian, were indoctrinated with. In your worldview everything MUST point back to god. For you there is simply no acceptable alternative explanation.
We are talking about a hypothesis (not a theory) that was imagined in a time before any sort of rational, scientific, evidence-based inquiry could be made. Or to put it another way “religion was created when man became smart enough to start asking the big questions but when he was not yet smart enough to start answering them.”
This trouble with debating Christians is that there are so many different sects of Christianity, so many interpretations at odds with each other, and so many levels or practice, from the unquestioningly literal fundamentalist interpretation, to those who attempt to reconcile god with reality. So I’ll repeat my other pertinent question, where do you fall on this spectrum? What do you define as your beliefs for the origin of life on Earth? The Biblical account of Genesis?
When you used the term “DNA scarring” I’m assuming you meaning ERVs?
Are you say there is a complete lack of evidence for God’s existence? Or you just saying that there is no materialistic evidence? What evidence would you find compelling?
You said “someone raised outside a system of a religious indoctrination is able to examine all evidence, for all areas of investigation and choose which conclusion seems most satisfactory without the need to force the evidence to match a worldview that more often than not fails to be substantiated by the evidence at hand.” This claim is quite radical, and it seems to require quite radical evidence! What evidence do you have for this? Are you saying that one who does not believe in God is more more unbiased than one who does believe in God? Are you saying that the atheists is better able to look at the evidence?
And “God is the ultimate example of this logical fallacy.” What logical fallacy? Plus, this claim needs also to be substantiated.
Then you claim closed mindedness on my part is a little humorous. It seems to me that the materialist is much more closed minded, only accepting materialistic causes. However, the theists is open to both laws of nature and intelligence. So, how am I more closed minded?
Then you say this “We are talking about a hypothesis (not a theory) that was imagined in a time before any sort of rational, scientific, evidence-based inquiry could be made. Or to put it another way ‘religion was created when man became smart enough to start asking the big questions but when he was not yet smart enough to start answering them.’” Again, quite a claim. This also needs evidence!
Also, I raised some objections and questions previously, do you have answers to those?
Again, dodging the questions.
ERVs are one form of genetic scarring, i.e. permanent DNA damage that is inherited by all subsequent ancestors. So, is hereditary inheritance the most simple and logical conclusion for the evidence at hand or not?
“Concerning your point on the need to assign a divine agency, I’m just following the evidence here. What item in my above post is not a rational explanation?”
Let’s make this an analogy. There’s a dead body with multiple fatal wounds and a bloody weapon in close proximity. There are one of two conclusions we can draw based on this evidence. Either the person killed themselves or they were killed by someone else. These are the logical, rational conclusions informed by the evidence.
Now if I claim that he was killed by a ghost, does that sound reasonable or not?
Of course not, before I could prove that a ghost had killed him I would first need to demonstrate evidence that A. Proves that ghosts exist, and B. eliminates the first two logical conclusions as possible answers.
How is my claim that a ghost is responsible for the event any different than your claim that god is responsible for the event?
You demand me to provide evidence for every statement and yet you are completely non-forthcoming with evidence that A. proves that god exists, and B. eliminates the possibility of the other rational explanations, and to take it a step further, C. prove that it was YOUR god which is responsible, i.e. eliminate the possibility that it was Odin, or Zeus, or Enki or Ra, or Allah or one of the thousands of other deities.
No, my claim that those who have not been indoctrinated are capable of being more objective when analyzing evidence and forming conclusions is NOT radical, nor does it require radical evidence. Your claim for the existence of god requires radical evidence.
What I am saying is that I have seen no compelling evidence for the existence of god, radical or otherwise. Apologetics is the practice of trying to retroactively modify a foregone conclusion in order that make it fit with new evidence, rather than forming a new conclusion when evidence points to a different outcome. My claim that you are close minded is based on the religious idea that there MUST be a god behind everything, no matter how large or small.
If I see compelling evidence for a god, beyond philosophical musings or metaphysics, which I view as little more than mental gymnastics attempting to support conclusions in lieu of actual evidence, then I would be happy to admit that I was wrong, and that yes, god is indeed the most logical conclusion. Until then I am absolutely skeptical about the idea.
To briefly expand on my point about indoctrination being counter-intuitive in terms of rationality, let me give two simple examples.
The ancient Aztecs and Mayans had a religious belief system in which it was necessary for them to perform human sacrifices in order to keep the sun rising on a regular basis. To them, this was “rational”. Now imagine the fate of anyone who tried to explain to them how this is far from rational, how this is far from being even close to true. Do you think they would be able to objectively consider any alternative explanation given their indoctrination into this belief system?
Now let’s fast-forward to modern times. Put you in a room with a Muslim fundamentalist. Inside that room is a bowl of fruit, two apples, and two oranges. Under normal rational circumstances, you can probably both agree that 2+2=4, i.e. there are four fruits in this bowl. You can probably agree that there are 2 apples and 2 oranges. All of these facts are directly observable rational truths.
Now, I have seen a number of philosophical arguments that claim that 2+2=3 or 2+2=5. So let’s substitute these two different philosophical arguments in place of your diametrically opposed indoctrinated worldviews, let’s say these arguments are at the very center of your belief systems.
Can you ever hope to reach any consensus? Does it matter if a third party enters the rooms and says, no, 2+2=4? Do the philosophical arguments claiming that 2+2=3 or 2+2=5 have any tangible, practical value in the directly observable material world?
Andrew, I’m sorry, but this argument assumes right out of the gate that my view is wrong and yours is right. Nor does it take into account that we can look at reality at match it with our ideas, that is called the correspondence theory of truth. Plus you assume that you don’t have a worldview and biases.
In addition, this argument actually points in the direction that I advocate. The materialistic worldview will not allow an intelligence for the origin of life and the rise of information within the cell. However, the materialistic worldview can’t explain either one of them. Thus, it is like saying “what is 2+2, and the answer can’t be 4”! Actually, if you would follow the evidence, the answer is 4. However, that worldview, answer 4 is “outlawed”. Thus, the supernatural worldview is much more open minded and willing to follow the evidence, more so than the materialistic worldview.
I was quite confused with your term “genetic scars” because it’s not a term we often use in biology. Are you talking about ERVs or mutations? Both need to be answered differently. There are answers to the ERV issue, which I already touched on (no I did not dodge the question). To the mutation issue, it raises many questions like the type of mutation, are they verifiable mutations, do they have zero purpose, etc. Or is it like the “junk DNA” diabolical, junk DNA is not junk! So just to say “genetic scars” and “permanent DNA damage” is not enough.
If it is ERVs, I gave two possibilities other than what you presented. Both would fit quite well within the ID framework. And the fact of the matter is, even a common ancestor world fit quite well within the ID framework too. So I’m not quite sure your point. However, common descent does seem to have problems.
To present something as such as absolute proof does not make sense. First science can’t do that (more on this later) and second I gave some other options. Options that fit quite well with the data. So no, there is not absolute proof for such thing.
If you want the simplest method for ERVs, then I’d give you the one that a designer placed them there in the beginning. It is a very real possibility that ERVs don’t come from the outside to the inside (infection via a virus), but rather come from the inside to the outside as a virus. Viruses, in bacterial populations, do spread genes from one bacteria to another. This is how some bacteria can share antibiotic genes. If this happens in eukaryotes as well, it looks like it could be a very elegant design future to transfer new traits between species.
In addition, if you want common descent, you have to ask how likely did we arise from an ape like creature? What what percentage difference is our DNA compared to chimps? How far back did this split happen? How many genes are totally novel in humans or chimps from the other? How fast could these novel genes form over the time span since the split?
To all of these, if you take the statistics, the genetic difference, the novel genes and the time span into consideration. To my knowledge, there is too big of difference in the genomes and not enough time to have such divergence. So if you can demonstrate that this can happen statistically, great. But besides a nice story, I’ve not seen good evidence that this could even happen, unless you know of something I don’t.
Concerning your dead body and ghost analogy, it breaks down quite rapidly and actually points in my direction. All three possibilities are agent causation.
Now if you would you would have said “what is a better explanation for the dead body, a ghost picking up a rock and hitting the guy on the head or a rock off the cliff?” That would be closer. But even then we could have another explanation of another person hitting the other with the rock. Also, we would need to look at the surrounding area. Is it near a mountain where a rock could fall down and hit someone? Are there footprints of a person? Are there other evidence of human causation (such as another’s DNA on the rock)? However, for a ghost causation, it would be pretty hard to falsify…unless you could show that it was impossible for a human or natural cause situation (falling rock).
But this is still different from the topic at hand. We are not talking about something as simple as “rocks falling off of cliffs” here, we are talking about real machines being found in the cell! We are talking about the ultimate origins of these machines, origins that have no logical naturalistic origin. Nor can we claim human design to these machines. These are necessary for our physical existence (so some human causing it is out of the question). And then we are talking about ultimate origins of the massive information content within the cell. What accounts for these things? Natural cause? None known? Natural causes don’t do those types of things, at least from universal common experience. Rather, it always these types of things always come about through intelligence.
Also, I need to address the proof issue again. It is pretty hard to “prove” anything in the world to be true, especially in science. So if you want “proof”, I can’t give you that. If you want robust evidence, I can and I have given that to you. I answered two of your questions (both in the article and in my answer to you). For “A”, I’ve shown that an intelligent being exists because of the evidence of the massive amounts of genetic information found within life. And for “B”, no naturalistic mechanism has ever been shown to create such of things like this, only an intelligence (or some sort of god like being). Thus, questions “A” and “B” are answered. Item “C” seems to be irrelevant until we first get the others acknowledged.
I will certainly agree that your cliff and rock example is a better that my murder mystery example, but it doesn’t change the burden of producing radical evidence for a radical claim. The existence and actions of a designer are radical claims and they require radical evidence.
My analogy is not meant to substitute a simple situation for a complex situation, i.e. the machine nature of micro-structures within cells. It is only meant to address the issue of a lack of radical evidence for a radical claim. i.e. that god exists and that god had a hand in the “design” of these structures. I cannot hope to convince anyone of my claim that a ghost killed a victim without first proving that ghosts exist.
I notice you conveniently skipped over my Mayan / Aztec indoctrination example. As well as the method of proving that YOUR god is the one making these designs. Care to explain why the Christian god is more “legitimate” than any other modern god, or for that matter every god of every now-extinct belief system?
Andrew, I did give you “radical evidence”. So do you take issue with my evidence? If so, in what way? You can’t just keep claiming I am not giving evidence, when I do. How about this, what other mechanism do you know that can do what we are talking about: the origin of information in life and the origin of life itself?
Concerning question “C”, do you agree with my view on questions “A” and “B”? If not, then I think “C” may be quite hopeless. Please, answer those questions for me first before asking more.
No, what you’ve done, repeatedly, is claim that anything and everything is evidence for god. That’s the problem with speculating the existence of something beyond time and space, for which there is no direct observable evidence. You can claim anything you want to be evidence of such a thing, even when that evidence supports a simpler explanation. You are forcing evidence to fit a foregone conclusion rather than changing the conclusion based on evidence. Or rather, you are forcing one particular interpretation of the evidence because your indoctrination forces you to support that conclusion.
That’s not how science works.
I am not claiming to be free of bias. I see evolution as the best conclusion from the evidence available. Does that make me biased? Perhaps. What I claim is that I am unconvinced that any of the evidence you’ve provided only points in the direction of intelligent design. Saying something is magic is a “simple” solution, but that doesn’t make it true.
But, go ahead. I’m listening, tell me what makes Christianity (or your particular interpretation of your particular sect, in which you in particular happened to be raised) any different and more legitimate from any other religious belief system.
So what is a better explanation for the origin of information and the origin of life? Please provide robust evidence. Please, no magical explainations like Darwinianism or “we don’t know yet” or some just so story, those don’t work.
Again, how did life come to be?
Where did the massive amounts of information come from found within life?
So, you’re the only one who is allowed to make “magical” explanations?
Invoking a supernatural intelligent entity beyond time and space for which there is no direct observable evidence is a magical explanation. That is the VERY DEFINITION of “magical thinking”.
“We don’t know yet” is the rallying cry of all scientific investigation since the dawn of the enlightenment. If we remained satisfied with the “magical thinking” of “poof, god did it” then we certainly wouldn’t have advanced much in the last 1500 years.
“God did it” is your catch all solution. When an earthquake happens, or a volcano erupts, we now know that it’s a result of plate tectonics or a massive buildup of pressure in magma. What was the point of hundreds of years of scientific inquiry, if our only assumption remains “god did it”. No further questions or answers needed. The evidence all points to god.
God has been crammed into ever-shrinking gaps in our scientific knowledge. There are few places left for god to hide. because we don’t yet full understand things like abiogenesis does not mean the only possible answer is god. Whether you or I live to see it or not, science will probably have answers to most if not all of these questions in time.
Again, your claim of the origin of god is a “just so” story. How can you sit there and constantly shift the burden of proof, while at the same time claiming that every scientific explanation based on direct observable evidence is “magical thinking”, when every single claim you have made is every bit if not more an example of that type of thinking?
If you want to believe in magical explanations, you don’t need my permission. I’m just not convinced by them nor do I have enough faith to believe them.
Concerning “Magical thinking”, it could be fairly defined as a belief that something happens as a result of another without any causal link. This is the old causation/correlation error. Or better yet, the “Post hoc ergo propter hoc” fallacy. And that’s my point against Darwinism, there does not seem to be a correlation between mutations and the rise for the massive amounts of information found within living beings. Rather all the evidence points to a different cause.
The “I don’t know so it must be true” reasoning is the an appeal to ignorance fallacy, “you can’t prove me wrong, so I must be right.” Obviously I can’t prove you wrong that some day the will find some sort of naturalistic mechanism for the rise of information, however that does not show that is true. Plus, all the evidence points to an intelligent source, not naturalism.
In the same vein, the “futuristic” assertion “there is going to be a naturalistic mechanism proved someday” is actually called the wishful thinking fallacy. So I’d be careful to use it if it was me.
The “cry” in science has actually been, “how does it work, here is my hypotheses, let’s do an experiment and see the results”. In other words, the scientific method and follow the evidence.
So what’s the evidence here? A non-answer, an unknown cause? A mystical explanation without evidence? Mutational mistakes causing the creation of complex, meaningfully, functional information? Really? I’d have to apply blind faith on my part to believe that, since all he evidence points to intelligence. Blind faith is opposed in the Christian worldview, so it would go against my ethos.
And to the point that we need “direct observable evidence”, I’m curious, do you think the laws of logic exist? Morel laws? Natural laws? Laws of mathematics? The scientific method? Thoughts? Dreams? Memories? Do these all exist, even though none are observable and tangible?
And to the “god of the gaps”, I’m quite concerned it is being used as a straw-man fallacy against me, because I’m not saying that.
God of the gaps – “I don’t know how this works, so it must be god”. I’m not making this claim.
Naturalism of the gaps – “I don’t know how this works, so it must have a naturalistic cause”. You are making this claim.
Evidence of intelligent cause – “Where does the evidence lead? Ah, information always comes from intelligence, it’s imposable and illogical to think we caused it plus all the evidence points to an intelligent Creator.” I’m making this argument.
Evidence of natural cause – “Where does the evidence lead? Ah, the evidence shows that it was windy last night and that is why we see the garbage can blown over.” You are not making this argument.
Interesting enough, this “gap” we are talking about is getting larger, not smaller. Fine tuned universe? Origin of life? Origin of information? Fine tuned life? Anthropic principle of life? Molecular machines in life? Origin of the universe? Consciousness? These things point to an intelligent designer, not away. Also, the evidence for God is getting more, not less. Stronger, not weaker. More robust, not frailer.
It also humors me that the founder’s of the scientific enterprise were Christians, and formed the scientific enterprise from the Christian worldview. The assumptions that ground the scientific enterprise stem from a Christin worldview! So, no, Christianity and science are not opposed each other.
You say “How can you sit there and constantly shift the burden of proof, while at the same time claiming that every scientific explanation based on direct observable evidence is ‘magical thinking’”…This is called a straw-man argument. I don’t claim that “every scientific explanation is magical thinking”. I’m pro science, but I’m not pro naturalism. I’m saying that a naturalistic explanation on this issue is magical thinking.
While you are still thinking about the last two questions from my other entry, let me ask another. This question assumes you are a reasonable person who is willing to follow the evidence. So here goes: if I could show you “absolute proof” that the God of the Bible exists, and is who he says he is, would you fall down and worship him?
“God has been crammed into ever-shrinking gaps in our scientific knowledge.”
Actually, quite the opposite.
1) Darwin in his day knew nothing about the complexity of the cell, knew nothing about irreducible complexity, did not have access to an electron microscope through which we now know that a cell is more complicated then a city
2) We have millions of more fossils today then Darwin did, and the supposed missing links have not been found. In fact, we less undisputed transitional fossils today than Darwin did, because several of the supposed transitions have turned out to be a species already existing or an outright hoax.
3) Darwin did not know about the fine-tuning of the universe and it’s parameters and fundamental forces such as the ratio of protons to electrons, ratio of Electromagnetic Force to Gravity, Expansion Rate of the universe, Density Mass of the universe to name a few. Nor did he know the fine tuning of our galaxy, solar system and planet.
4) Darwin did not know about molecular genetics, DNA, orphan genes, genetic redundancy, ENCODE project, chance of a single functional protein from homochiral amino acids, or that Homologous organs are actually produced by different gene complexes in the different species.
5) Darwin didn’t know that the early atmosphere was not reducing, did not realize there was no evidence for a primordial soup, and did not know there were no self-replicating molecules found naturally-occuring in nature.
6) Darwin didn’t know the universe had a beginning through overwhelming evidence such as General Relativity, Hawking/Penrose Theorems, Hubble Constant, BGV theorems
7) Darwin didn’t have the resources to search space for life and what have we learned so far?
If you are trying to make the point that there are so many religions, how can we know which religion is really the truth? I would point out that Christianity is the only religion where it’s Founder rose from the dead. There is plenty of prima facie evidence: the Jews, Christians, and Romans agree the tomb was empty, Romans were expert at execution, location of the tomb was known since it was a prominent council member, large stone, no motive to steal or move the body, guard posted, folded clothes, cowardly disciples who had fled at Jesus arrest becoming bold enough to die for their belief of seeing Him in person post-Resurrection.
If you want to know which religious book is the truth, the answer is the Bible based on prophetic prophecy coming true of people, places and events, short time elapsing between the events and the writings (we have a small portion from the Book of John that dates 125 AD, a mere 25 or so years after the apostle’s death who was an eye witness of Jesus, and we have 60% of the New Testament by 200 AD, only 1 century after the last eyewitness), Manuscript evidence (25,000 manuscripts – compare that to other ancient works of antiquity), Textual Criticism (only 40 or so lines are disputed and most “mistakes” are spelling, grammatical, or juxtaposition), quotes from scripture from church fathers (we have writings from contempories of John the Apostle), Unity (40 authors, 66 books, over a period of 1500 years, in 3 languages on 3 different continents, from different professions), Preservation (if God wrote through those chosen then He would make sure it was protected), Accessibility (at least 1 book of the bible is translated in 2000 languages and the bible is the best selling book of all time), Archaelogy (not one single discovery has proved the bible inaccurate).
Prima Facie evidence for a Creator, for the Resurrection, for the Bible is there if you truly seek it.
“I was quite confused with your term “genetic scars” because it’s not a term we often use in biology. Are you talking about ERVs or mutations?”
I’m confused as well. If Andrew is talking about mutations then I would point out that genetic entropy (genetic degradation) is actually prima facie evidence for creation. Mutations systematically erode the information that encodes life’s many essential functions. More and more mutations have been introduced into the population over time, but if you trace that back, you come to a point in time where there were no mutations. If God created all things “good” then that certainly lines up with the biblical account.
Genesis 1:12, “And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:21, “So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
Genesis 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.”
I would point out that He created “according to its kind” (species are distinct not evolved), but that is a topic for another day.
“Are you say there is a complete lack of evidence for God’s existence?”
There is evidence for God’s existence and evindence against. Evidence can point in both ways.
The question is how much evidence is gathered pro and con.
Exactly Ed. Is there Prima Facie evidence – enough evidence in a court of law to make a decision. Most of the evidence for evolution is Hasty Generalizations and Appeal to Possibility. Hasty Generalizations such as knowing that hydrogen and oxygen form water therefore nature can make molecules to man. Or Appeal to Possiblity – if there is a chance, no matter how remote, that abiogenesis could happen, or that one species can become another, then it DID happen. No.
Evidence for creation:
Law of Casuality – whatever begins to exist has a Cause. The universe began to exist therefore it has a Cause. Since there was no matter, energy, laws, space or time, that Cause must exist outside of matter, energy, laws, space or time.
Law of Biogenesis – life only comes from other life. We have no evidence to the contrary from the past, and no evidence of it today. The Law has never been broken. Since Life only comes from Life, there must be an eternal Lifegiver.
Fine-tuning of the universe – simply put, life should not exist due to Probability Theory of Applied Mathematics. We exist, therefore there is a Cause.
DNA – The blueprint for every single creature is found in the instructions of DNA. Instructions is information, and where there is information there is Intelligence.
“You’re dodging my most pertinent questions.
Is hereditary inheritance the simplest explanation for the DNA scarring across multiple genetically-related species, or not?”
It is you that has not answered the most basic question regarding DNA. Before you can use any supposed process involving DNA, you must first answer how could DNA arise in the first place through materialistic processes? You must answer both the information question of how the instructions in DNA to make proteins arose (instructions are information, information is intangible, materialism deals with the physical), and also the probability question since there is no known chemical or physical law that dictates the order of nucleotides (even the simplest life form has over a hundred thousand nucleotides).
————
Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”
Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
2 Corinthians 5:21, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
“it has also been demonstrated that given enough time and the correct circumstances, i.e. heat, given enough time and the correct circumstances, i.e. heat, pressure, and a medium full of organic nuclei, that simple organic compounds can form at random.”
Hasty Generalization Fallacy – basing a conclusion based on a few observations extrapolating to the point of storytelling. Observation = A few carbon based molecules are found in a soup…Conclusion = therefore molecules can become man. Please provide all the transitional steps from soup to man.
If abiogenesis is so easily observable, then why don’t we leave corpses out in the sun so they come back to life. Or maybe help a little by putting corpses in vats of amino acids and proteins, put them under the sun and zap them with electricity and then they stand on their feet! Oh wait….ok, we will make it easier – give an example of a cell that is dead coming back to life. Just a single cell.
————-
Romans 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made”
Romans 3:23, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”
2 Corinthians 5:21, “For He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, that we might become the righteousness of God in Him.”
“First off, this is absolutely nothing more than the tired old “irreducible complexity” argument…”
This is an Argument from Verbosity. You claiming vast amounts of evidence against the argument without detailing that evidence. You then are able to wave your hand and made the irreducible complexity argument go away with a single sentence.
Now, please provide evidence for the evolutionary molecular transitions of the above mentioned cellular machines myosin, kinesin, ATP synthase and dynein. Also, please provide evidence for molecular transitions for Ribosomes, Mitochrondria, and cell wall.
In a “Dissecting Darwinism” article, there are some important points to discuss:
“Two specific strengths of Darwinian evolution are generally agreed upon:
1.Species adapt to a change in environment (bird beak changes, bacterial resistance, fruit fly experiments). This is called microevolution.
2.There is similarity in the DNA across species (called homology).
During the Texas State Board of Education testimony, weaknesses were raised about three issues:
1.Limitations of the chemical origin of life data to explain the origin of DNA
2.Limitations of mutation and natural selection theories to address the irreducible complexity of the cell
3.Limitations of transitional species data to account for the multitude of changes involved in the transition”
Darwinians like to state some agreed upon things, however, there is just not enough evidence to completely support their ideas. Lastly, in my opinion, microevolution does not exclude the idea of a higher being, nor does similar DNA. Stating these ideas simplifies the immensely proportionate process that occur miraculously inside of our DNA. DNA alone is proof of God’s miracle of something created on purpose and not by accident.
The link to this article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3246854/
Hi Ann, thanks for your thoughts. If you would like, feel free to check out this article and tell me what you think.
http://iapologia.com/dont-ever-say-you-dont-believe-in-evolution/
“Species adapt to a change in environment (bird beak changes, bacterial resistance, fruit fly experiments). This is called microevolution.”
Yes Ann. No doubt there is microevolution. But, microevolution is simply variation within kind due to potential traits from gene pool through recombination of already existing genetic code.
Variation within the dog and cat kind, but no dogs turning into sheep.
“In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes.”
Describe information.
The type of information within the genome (and many other cellular information carrying structures) is the same type of information that can be found in computer code, a recipe book and music score. It is information that is functional, specified, meaningful and complex. In addition, we are not talking about small quantities of this information. We are talking really large quantities, like around a gig and a half for one human cell! And to add insult to injury, DNA can carry multiple layers of such information. In addition to that, DNA is just one of the many information carriers within the cell. We also have to remember this is just human DNA, we also have a massive number of various organisms that have their own types of DNA.
My question was to describe the word ‘information’. Can you give a definition?
I did that above.
I do not think you did, but that is not so important. Your post on its own is clear.
As you will have noticed, the scientific community in majority does not hold to the opinion that the type of information in the DNA can only have been designed by some intelligence. If you are puzzled by the fact that so many highly intelligent people are not impressed by your reasoning, I can clarify: an analogy is never the thing itself. The existence of similarities between DNA information and computer code are no more than that.
What ethos within the scientific enterprise dictates truth lies at the feet of the majority’s options? Also, if so, how could science ever advance?
Again, information within DNA is not an analogy, rather it fits the description and definition of information. We know of only one source for such information.
You might say that truth dictates in science. If a theory is good, it is accepted. Bad theories are rejected. Theories also can be improved. That is how science advances.
And again, your analogy is no more than an analogy.
So it’s an analogy if it has the same description and definition?
It is by definition an analogy as it is not the same thing.
Really? Why is it not the same thing?
Because it is an analogy.
Thanks.
“In the Darwinian sense, information is created by genetic mutations, and mutations are mistakes.”
The mistakes is intriguing. Why should mutations be mistakes? They are not bad at all. On the contrary: we may be very glad that they exist because some part of them are beneficial.
Suppose that the DNA replication were perfect. Life would be in big troubles then because there would be no way for species to adapt to new circumstances.
Mutations drive change and let us be happy for it.
It seems you compare DNA with a book or computer program, so that any mistake would lead to a faulty program or an unreadable book. It shows that such analogies are not justified.
Would you disagree with this definition of mutation, random alteration of genetic material?
If I would apply random alteration of the text of your message, would that typically help or hurt your message’s meaning?
BTW, I’m not using information as an analogy here, rather I’m saying it’s the exact same description and definition.
Certainly random alterations would typically hurt the meaning of a piece of text.
But as I said: such an analogy is not justified.
A mutation in the DNA will result in different proteines being produced. Most times that has no influence at all. Sometimes it will lead to disease and natural selecion will generally weed those results out. Sometimes, it will make a creature better fit under the circumstances.
Just a random alteration in both English text and DNA code usually are neutral, they don’t really influence things negatively or positively. Think of a word mispelled by one letter, most of the time you can understand what I’m saying (as I misspelled “mispelled”). We can read it fine. However, it’s still a degeneration of the information. Now, between negative and positiveness mutations, negative way outweigh the positive.
BTW, you know what’s the main diseases, cancer and death? How about all the genetic diseases we see? Ya, individuals with mutations. Mutations don’t really help much, as the accumulate they make things worse.
And even in the population sense, natural selection can’t be cranked up high enough to weed them out ultimately. This can be seen in smaller populations, there is genetic meltdown. This is probably what happened to the mammoths. This can also be seen real time in viral populations.
“Just a random alteration in both English text and DNA code usually are neutral, they don’t really influence things negatively or positively. Think of a word mispelled by one letter, most of the time you can understand what I’m saying (as I misspelled “mispelled”). We can read it fine. However, it’s still a degeneration of the information.”
If such mispellings go on, the book will become unreadable in the end. That is how things go with texts. But texts are not DNA. A change in DNA will change the creature. The succes of that creature (passing its DNA to offspring) depends on the circumstances.
“Now, between negative and positiveness mutations, negative way outweigh the positive. BTW, you know what’s the main diseases, cancer and death? How about all the genetic diseases we see? Ya, individuals with mutations. Mutations don’t really help much, as the accumulate they make things worse. And even in the population sense, natural selection can’t be cranked up high enough to weed them out ultimately.”
Claiming things is not the same as proving them.
Mutations change DNA. What comes from that depends on the circumstances.
But you may have some scientific paper, accepted by the majority of the scientific community, that tells us that mutations ‘make things worse’?
To your first point, yes, that’s my point, it degrades the information. Concerning the changing the creature, yes, it does change the creature…yes, mutations degrade the information and yes, that’s how we ultimately die (unless you die of another cause, like falling off a mountain or crashing).
Concerning a paper? Ummm….read a college bio 101 book…that point is not controversial….
Can you quantify ‘information’ and tell why a mutation ‘degrades’ it?
I already defined what I mean by information. Mutations are random alterations of such code.
No, you did not define ‘information’ at all. I wrote that before. The only thing you did was decribe a specific type of information. I let that pass because it was not so important then, but the fact remains. You cannot describe information.
Hope this helps. Enjoy.
Google:
noun: information
1.
facts provided or learned about something or someone.
“a vital piece of information”
synonyms: details, particulars, facts, figures, statistics, data; knowledge, intelligence; instruction, advice, guidance, direction, counsel, enlightenment; news, word; hot tip; informalinfo, lowdown, dope, dirt, inside story, scoop, poop
“we’ll give you the latest information”
LAW
a formal criminal charge lodged with a court or magistrate by a prosecutor without the aid of a grand jury.
plural noun: informations
“the tenant may lay an information against his landlord”
2.
what is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
“genetically transmitted information”
COMPUTING
data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
(in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, etc., as contrasted with that of alternative sequences.
Merriam-Webster
information
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : intelligence, news (3) : facts, data
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (such as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (such as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (such as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct
d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3 : the act of informing against a person
4 : a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
Oxford
Facts provided or learned about something or someone.
‘a vital piece of information’
More example sentences
‘There are some pieces of information that I will provide here that I believe are worth reading.’
‘Police stressed the man was not a suspect or under arrest but hoped he could provide vital information that could lead them to the killer.’
‘They will also be consulted on plans for future developments and receive regular information about the hospital.’
‘But now the regular information they received from police has ground to a halt.’
‘The trial had heard that a vital piece of information was missing.’
‘The unit will provide information and advice to members of the public on their rights and entitlements.’
‘Yes, but I have to say it is still unusual for one person to receive three pieces of information from three separate sources.’
‘He had missed the midday news broadcast that had announced this vital piece of information.’
‘Your letter provides no facts, details or information that in anyway contradict the article.’
‘He said another new witness had been found who could provide vital information regarding an identification issue.’
‘The charity provides advice and information on topics such as access to benefits and services.’
‘You, sir, for what ever reason, work hard to provide solid information on a regular basis that I can use.’
‘Drug treatment, counselling services, and advice and information may be provided from a primary service.’
‘This is a national helpline that can provide sound advice and information on giving up smoking.’
‘Disputes often arise about what information was in fact provided in a given case.’
‘Women who are Rhesus negative will receive information and counselling about the treatment.’
‘Facts provide information which is free from the contamination of a subjective viewpoint.’
‘The information service can provide you with information and advice on all your rights and entitlements.’
‘The Murray family believe one person has a vital piece of information that could lead to a breakthrough in the case.’
‘He’s always there to provide those pieces of information that are forgotten by the others.’
Synonyms
details, particulars, facts, figures, statistics, data
View synonyms
1.1Law count noun A charge lodged with a magistrates’ court.
‘the tenant may lay an information against his landlord’
More example sentences
‘The rule developed during a period of extreme formality and technicality in the preferring of indictments and laying of informations.’
‘However, the duty of the court is to hear informations which are properly before it.’
‘The Local Court Magistrate quashed and declared void the informations.’
‘When the justices purported to commit the appellant on these informations, they were doing something which in law they had no power to do.’
‘These private informations came before the Justice of the Peace for the pre-hearing required under Section 507.1 of the Criminal Code.’
2What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things.
‘genetically transmitted information’
More example sentences
‘He doesn’t ever answer why the system’s price conveys the correct global information.’
‘The central characteristic of the genre is accuracy in conveying information about cities and ancient buildings.’
‘The price information was then conveyed back to Europe or other relevant locations.’
‘Topic Maps are useful because they convey more information we can use.’
‘Money is supposed to convey information about the economic value of a product or service.’
‘We need to look outside of the ‘normal channels’ used to convey security information.’
‘I love maps, especially maps that convey information about our world in a novel way.’
‘In general, information about sport was conveyed by newspapers or by word-of-mouth.’
‘Even so, we may still be forced to contemplate changes in the way information is conveyed.’
‘The choice of axioms in a logical system can represent content specific information.’
‘Another official at the agency said its staff tried to convey relevant information quickly this time.’
‘The forms in which information was conveyed were often not transparent or intuitive.’
‘It must sit on something, it must be able to convey its information to somewhere; it must be able to be reset.’
‘Nine times out of ten these calls convey information that no one needs to know.’
‘The bandwidth constraints of the internet force us to find more concise ways to represent information.’
‘The practitioner, in turn, may consciously or unconsciously convey this information to the patient.’
‘Then the scientists measured how much information the songs could convey.’
‘Nearly half are sensory which convey information to the brain; the rest are motor which transmit orders from the brain.’
‘They are physically expressive and convey emotional information through touch.’
‘They convey useful information about the perceived scarcity of the resource.’
2.1Computing Data as processed, stored, or transmitted by a computer.
Example sentences
‘In most computer systems, the information is carried by wires and electronic parts.’
‘Hibernation is when the system stores all the information it has in its memory onto the hard disk, then shuts down.’
‘There is also provision to change the information stored on the battery-operated boards.’
‘All the cards contain a computer chip which stores information, such as what type of meal has been purchased by the pupil.’
‘A desktop machine built three years ago would be enough to store all the information needed.’
‘Bios information is stored inside a chip housed on the computer’s motherboard.’
‘The computer can record how accurately information is processed and how quickly.’
‘MPO lets processors store information locally so it is there when they need it, without those latencies.’
‘Although the hardware is still at a very basic stage, the theory of how quantum computers process information is well advanced.’
‘The client software can then be used to keep the information on the handset synchronized with the information stored on the server.’
‘Where does all of this electronic information get stored and how do children process it?’
‘They had to programme their robot by using a computer and downloading the information into the robot via a Lego brick.’
‘You can use a laptop computer to download information about the performance of the machine.’
‘Your computer accesses the information a little at a time, just ahead of what you’re listening to.’
‘This takes snapshots of a system’s hard disk content and stores the information in a compressed form on a server.’
‘At that price, he reasoned, it would finally be cheaper to store information on computer than it is on paper.’
‘Staff at the Revenue have wide access to computers, which store information on up to 60m people.’
‘Codes act as tags that are placed on data about people to allow the information to be processed by the computer.’
‘All the information was stored by the digital camera when the picture was taken.’
‘They have revealed fears that the information stored on blank discs is vulnerable to being lost within a decade.’
2.2 (in information theory) a mathematical quantity expressing the probability of occurrence of a particular sequence of symbols, impulses, etc., as against that of alternative sequences.
I’d love for you to focus your attention on item 2. in both the Google definition and the Oxford definition.
Copy/paste does not show you understand what it is.
…ummm…did you want the definition or not? I gave it to you and even pointed out “exhibit A” for you.
Yes, we are talking about information, and as it said, genetic information was the first example.
How else can I help you?
Now you are just making Ad Hominems
Appealing to Definition – a straw man that allows you to sidestep the bigger issue and make a point against something easier to defend.
Do mutations cause harm in the long term to a population
-OR-
Do they create new species? (no Hasty Generalizations – drawing a conclusion from a few observations extrapolating to the point of storytelling).
The diversity of life is great (I’ve read there are 1.3 million species named and catalogued specifically but as many as over 8 million might exst), therefore there should be overwhelming evidence for beneficial mutations. I won’t go into the time required for even 5 beneficial related mutations to manifest at the same time to produce anything close to what evolution requires to change one species into another). Without using Hasty Generalizations or Appealing to Possibility, please name 20 undisputed beneficial mutations. And then, if you can name 20, show how those mutations helped one species change into another.
No. Adaption is due to variation within kind due to the gene pool through recombination of potential traits passed on by the male and female from already existed genetic code. Mutations are almost always harmful, or neutral, and even supposed “beneficial” mutations are harmful in the long term (e.g. mutation of blood cells that provides protection against sickle cell anemia, and yet 25% of the population dies due to the mutation itself). Scientific experiments on millions of generations of fruit flies and moths have demonstrated that only harmful mutations exist.
If beneficial mutations were possible we all would be hearing from the parents in the delivery room of a newborn baby, “I hope our baby has a good mutation!”, or we would all be getting sunburns from being out in the sun on purpose to get a good mutation, or we would be lining up at the hospital to get xrays for that good mutation, or sticking our hands in microwaves to get that beneficial mutation. How about ask what happened to those exposed to the radiation from Hiroshima, or Nagasaki?
And, by the way, genetic entropy through mutations leads back to a point at which there was no mutations – Adam and Eve?
As evolution theory is far from dead according to the scientific community, the question is raised who is to decide what a sound scientific theory is.
I’m saying that Darwinian evolution can’t account for the information within living organisms. It is technically impossible, unless you know of how it can do it.
It would be nice if all questions could be answered, yet that is not necessary for a scientific theory to be accepted. How DNA come into existence is such an unanswered question.
Claiming that it is ‘technically impossible’ lays the burden of proof at your feet. You must be able to formulate all possible pathways that could potentially have led to the formation of DNA and then prove that every single one of them is impossible. Clearly, we are not that far.
I’m saying it’s technically impossible for a naturalistic mechanism like Darwinian evolution to account for it. I’m not saying it’s impossible altogether. There’s only one mechanism known that can give rise to information, that’s an intelligent being. If one disagrees, the burden of proof lies at his or her feet since minds are the only known mechanisms.
Information need not have an intelligent source at all. Footprints in the sand may inform us that a creature passed some time ago.
Information is a word that can mean many things.
Sure, but the information type we are talking about always comes from minds…unless you know of another source….
It is you who has to prove that the information type you speak of comes from a mind.
Ah, so it’s not a person I’m talking with here…it’s a non-mind?
So again, do you know of another source? I sure don’t. Like I said, computer code, the English language, CNC code, CAD drawings, house plans, music score, etc. all come from minds. All of these type of information are the same type that is within the genome….again, maybe some don’t like that, but it’s just reality. So again, do you know of another source?
Again: It is you who has to prove that the information type you speak of comes from a mind.
You have not done that.
Ed, I’m sorry to say this, but scientifically speaking, I could never prove that information type that I speak of comes from a mind. The only thing I can do is give a robust reasons why it does (which I have). Feel free to give a counter example.
“The only thing I can do is give a robust reasons why it does (which I have).”
What is so ‘robust’ about these reasons?
Hummm, I’m not sure what to say man. Feel free to tell me.
Daniel has presented prima facie evidence. Ed, you are moving the goalposts…he has presented evidence more and more specific evidence in every post, but none of it is enough, nor ever will be because of your circular reasoning. You start every post affirming what you already believe and are not open to the possbility of a Creator.
I Cor 2:14, “But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Rom 1:20, “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and [a]Godhead…”
Ask God Ed to reveal the truth to you. He loves you…so much he knows the number of hairs on your head, so much He provided a way to Him through the life, death and resurrection of His Son. All you need to do is put your trust in Him to save you.
No. Prima Facie evidence is enough. DNA is a storage system that stores instructions to create proteins that in turn create cells, tissues, organs. There is no known molecular transition to DNA. There is no known information storage unit except for DNA an RNA. There is no known naturally occuring system that has elements of storage, translation and transcription, and repair. Prima Facie evidence of Intelligence comes from the discovery of a means of the storage, translation, transcription, and repair of instructions.
One possible pathway is that the formation of DNA was created. If you want to be logical about it, then you need to spend as much time researching the creation avenue as you do any other avenue without circular reasoning.
Have you?
Dear Daniel,
I am not an expert in science, but I can very well judge your position as well as the isolation in which you are living without knowing.
The problem you have with evolution theory is that it tells you that Adam&Eve never existed and that the accounts in Genesis could never have happened if taken literally. It is a religious objection and not a scientific one.
Had your name been Gerardus Bouw, a Christian who has a Ph.D. in astronomy, you would have believed that the earth does not revolve around the sun. Why? Well, because the Bible says so…
For more than 150 years evolution theory has, in triumphant words, been declared to be on the edge of demise by religious people like you. Yet, for this stretch of time it has always been supported by the scientific community. So your these declarations seem to mean nothing at all to hundreds of thousands of people who know how to use their brain and are specialist in the relevant disciplines. In fact your and your likes have nothing else to tell to them than that they know next to nothing.
So your posts here, in your private kingdom, will never shake the foundations of the scientific world. They will remain locked in this small, petty universe that you created, to be applauded by people here that share your specific interpretation of the Bible. Or occasionally to be checked by people like me, people that soon find out what could be expected in advance: that you try to defend an position into which you were never reasoned into in the first place. You try to present yourself as a reasonable person, yet you never want to learn anything about science, let alone the ways that sound discussions go.
I would like to call you back to the light. But that is futile. Whatever made you live in the illusion that a whole universe revolves around your interpretation of the Bible and that all people should see that, it has a firm hold on your mind.
In illusion you will die.
Ed
Wow. Okay. Thanks man. I wish the best for you too!
Why do you think that, though evolution theory has been declared dead by certain religious people (like you) during the last 150 years, this theory has always been overwhelmingly accepted by science?
What do you do wrong that scientistst in general do not listen to you?
You talking about the standard definition that we agreed upon on the other page, or are you talking about evolution in the Darwinian sense?
We are talking about evolution theory, which tells us that present species evolved from earlier species, that human beings belong to the group of apes and that the Biblical Adam&Eve never existed.
“So your these declarations seem to mean nothing at all to hundreds of thousands of people who know how to use their brain”
That is an Argument ad populum – you are making an appeal to widespread belief that because a majority believes something then it MUST be true. That is a logical fallacy.
“and are specialist in the relevant disciplines”
Almost 1000 PHD’s and MD’s have signed the Dissent from Darwinism. https://dissentfromdarwin.org/
From the homepage: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutations and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
“For more than 150 years evolution theory has, in triumphant words, been declared to be on the edge of demise by religious people like you.”
For more than 2000 years people have attacked Christianity and bible and yet it is going strong.
“They will remain locked in this small, petty universe that you created”
Appeal to ridicule…you have taken his prima facie evidence he has presented and waved your hand to dismiss it by attacking him. Stick to defending your position.
“You try to present yourself as a reasonable person, yet you never want to learn anything about science, let alone the ways that sound discussions go.”
No true Scotsman fallacy. You are assuming falsely that anyone that believes in science cannot possibly believe in a Creator. That is logically fallacious. I’ve already linked a site where nearly a 1000 scientists and doctors disagree with you.
“I would like to call you back to the light. But that is futile.”
Funny you should say that. Acts 26:18″ to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified[d] by faith in Me.” John 12:35, “Then Jesus said to them, “A little while longer the light is with you. Walk while you have the light, lest darkness overtake you; he who walks in darkness does not know where he is going.”
Ed, “experts” in science disagree on a very wide range of issues. They always have, and they always will. The problem you have with science is that you don’t know enough about it to make reasonable assessments. Any time I present scientific evidence contradicting Darwinism, the response is always the same:
1. Bible thumping by Darwinists, when I never mentioned the Bible,
2. Condescension, that I don’t know what I’m talking about. No specifics, just the pretense that they are so much smarter than I am and,
3. Everything I say has “already been discredited.” Again, no references, no specifics, just meaningless generalities. That’s unscientific and unintelligent, but it’s standard fare for followers of Charles Darwin.
http://TheEvolutionFraud.wordpress.com
“3. Everything I say has “already been discredited.” Again, no references, no specifics, just meaningless generalities. That’s unscientific and unintelligent, but it’s standard fare for followers of Charles Darwin.”
Well, the overwhelming majority of scientists think that evolution theory holds water and that Charles Darwin was quite right about a few important things. In this respect, “experts” in science do not disagree.
Tengo un libro en Twitter que me gustaría compartir con ustedes. Se titula: El fin de la teoría de Darwin. Está escrito en español y su enfoque está basado en lingüística computacional.
Saludos
Do you have a link to share? I don’t read Spanish, is there an English version?
¿Tienes un enlace para compartir? No leo español, ¿hay una versión en inglés?
I think those of this view are trying to treat science in the same way they treat their Bibles – literalistically, without any room for nuance of meaning. God is better than that and science is better than that. I go for God and I go for Darwin’s scientific nudges in the direction of creatures that are resourceful, adapting and evolving as their environmental context changes. That this happens is no dishour to the Creator of all things who is at the heart of our faith. Indeed to reject the science does more dishonour to God than to Darwin.
Except for the fact that Darwinism doesn’t work…not logical, not mathematically and not scientifically.
If things are as absolutely so (not logical, not mathematically and scientifically) as you say then one would wonder why it is that Darwin’s work is so generally respected, accepted and has come to form the basis of our modern understandings of life on this planet. Have four generations of scientific enquiry been totally deluded into accepting what cannot stand up in the courts of logic?
One of the first tasks of science is to weed out those things that do not stand up logically, so not just one person has failed here. The whole lot have – if we are to accept your premise. While Darwin and Wallace got the ball started, others have taken their beginnings and moved on from that start. This is how science works.
Newton’s Physics was upstaged by Einstein and people are now challenging Einstein’s theories. That’s how science works.
Tell me, where did the massive amounts of complex, specified, useful, meaningful and functional information come from that is found is life?
Where do you think it comes from?
Information is meaningful to sentient beings only – since we deal with complex ideas based on information. The information we have today is the accumulated wisdom of millions of years of human life and it was born out of the curiosity and capacity for analysis that humans have. It was not created, nor did it pre-exist. It is the product of human consideration – trying to make sense of things that are new. People in different parts of the world have differing information that they base their lives on. In recent centuries we have increased our capacity to share knowledge and thus information globally.
No mater what you call it, information, recipes, code, etc. we are talking about the instructions found within living organisms to make the trillions and trillions of different molecular machines. I’ll punt the question back to you, from our universal common experience, where does this type of information always come from (instructions for machine manufacturing)?
“We are fearfully and wonderfully made.” And for me, that includes the capacity for the whole creation to change and adapt. The code was not locked in stone. Things change. The environment changes and so the creatures change. That this happens does no discredit to the idea of the CReator of all things.
No one denies change. However, I’m not the type to believe something less than rational, such as non- intelligentence being the cause of the massive information content in life. I just don’t have that type of blind faith to believe such irrational beliefs.
If you call the truth a lie for long enough then you will believe the lie is the truth.
The science behind evolution does not deny anything about the coded information in cells and creatures. Science, all science, is grounded in rational thinking. That random things happen is not an indicator of the irrational. You and I, in our everyday lives, are faced with random happenings all the time – some are beneficial, some are detrimental, and some have no consequence at all. This is how things are.
Your assertion right at the beginning of this thread, that caught my attention, was that Darwinism doesn’t work. In more than a century of scientific endeavour since then no-one has effectively challenged the basic principles he put forward as the best logical (rational) explanation of the origins of diversity among creatures. Some have finessed his original ideas and made them more convincing – answered some of the gaps in the system that his original work dod not cover. But no-one has convincingly discredited his propositions – because, for the moment, they still give us the best explanation of how things are.
The problem you seem to be stuck with, and maybe I am wrong, is that somewhere you have tried to make science fit in with your theological assumptions about Creation. Many Christians approach Creation with a view that unless they accept the idea that everything that is was created as it is by the God they worship then they are discrediting their God. This assumption then creates difficulties for them regarding the age of the earth and cosmos and with the various taxonomies of creatures and plants that show a gradual development from simple to complex.
The geological dating of the earth is no less complicated than the science gravity and Einstein’s theories of relativity, or the laws of thermodynamics. If you want to reject Darwinism because it lacks logic or does not recognise the embedded intelligence in cells, then you will need to wonder if all the other scientists have done the same.
There is no need for our theological beliefs to make a scientific worldview anti-God or anti-Creation. Scientists are nothing more than curious people observing the world we live in and seeking to explain how things are the way they are. That does not take God out of the equation. In fact, it should make us even more amazed at the wonder of God’s act of Creation.
//If you call the truth a lie for long enough then you will believe the lie is the truth.// Correct.
//The science behind evolution does not deny anything about the coded information in cells and creatures.// Yep.
//Science, all science, is grounded in rational thinking.// Since science is based upon the Christian worldview, yes, It’s supposed to be.
//That random things happen is not an indicator of the irrational. You and I, in our everyday lives, are faced with random happenings all the time – some are beneficial, some are detrimental, and some have no consequence at all. This is how things are.// I’m not necessarily sure if I disagree, but we’ll go with it.
//Your assertion right at the beginning of this thread, that caught my attention, was that Darwinism doesn’t work.// The components of Darwinism don’t always work, some do. Mutation works. Same with natural selection. But that does not mean that the Neo-Darwinian process works as you think it does. We don’t see all of life on earth coming from a universal common ancestor. That’s a totally different thing, it’s an assumption that doesn’t have robust evidence. Mutations don’t have the power to create all the diverse information found in the multitude of life.
//In more than a century of scientific endeavour since then no-one has effectively challenged the basic principles he put forward as the best logical (rational) explanation of the origins of diversity among creatures.// Ummmmm, no. Scientists for years have been raising issues with the Neo-Darwinian idea.
//Some have finessed his original ideas and made them more convincing – answered some of the gaps in the system that his original work dod not cover. But no-one has convincingly discredited his propositions – because, for the moment, they still give us the best explanation of how things are.// No they don’t. Again, you have yet to explain the massive amounts of information within living organisms. The mechanisms of Neo-Darwinism don’t cut it. If you would assume so, you would be arguing in a circle. There is no known naturalistic process that causes the rise in massive amounts of specified, usable, meaningful and function information. That’s what you need. Thus far, you have spilled much text that shows that information only comes from a mind (yours) but have not given a real naturalistic process that can explain it. In other words, just by responding you demonstrate my point.
//The problem you seem to be stuck with, and maybe I am wrong, is that somewhere you have tried to make science fit in with your theological assumptions about Creation.// The problem is that most don’t under that it was Christians, based in a Christian culture based upon Christian worldview that gave rise to the scientific enterprise. Science wouldn’t work without the Christian theological assumptions about creation.
//Many Christians approach Creation with a view that unless they accept the idea that everything that is was created as it is by the God they worship then they are discrediting their God.// Who says this?
//This assumption then creates difficulties for them regarding the age of the earth and cosmos and with the various taxonomies of creatures and plants that show a gradual development from simple to complex.// First, I never talked about the age of the earth and the universe, that’s an issue that really don’t mean much for this conversation. The issue at hand is that you think, as you note above, that simple can gradually develop into complex. It all depends what you mean. What do you mean by complex? Like a “life” complex or a “junk yard” complex? If junkyard complex, sure. But life is complex, you definitely need to give a better argument than you have already because we don’t see massive amounts of complex, specified, functional and meaningful information arise from the simple via naturalistic mechanisms. The only known mechanisms that we know that do such things are intelligent causes. You have every right to believe in irrational fiction, but that is not scientific. It’s just fiction.
//The geological dating of the earth is no less complicated than the science gravity and Einstein’s theories of relativity, or the laws of thermodynamics.// No one here is addressing the dating of the earth. If you want to have a discussion about that, it’s not here. I don’t get into that here nor do I really care about that.
//If you want to reject Darwinism because it lacks logic or does not recognize the embedded intelligence in cells, then you will need to wonder if all the other scientists have done the same.// Yes, other scientists have said the same besides me. While the basic definition of evolution is t definitely true (change in allele frequency in a population over time), the Neo-Darwinian evolution is dead.
//There is no need for our theological beliefs to make a scientific worldview anti-God or anti-Creation. Scientists are nothing more than curious people observing the world we live in and seeking to explain how things are the way they are. That does not take God out of the equation. In fact, it should make us even more amazed at the wonder of God’s act of Creation.// We stand amazed at the wonders of God’s creation, that’s why we study it. That was why the scientific enterprise was started. Again, theological beliefs ground the scientific enterprise. You have to have Christian assumptions to even do science. Sure, one can do science without being a Christian, but every scientist has to stand within the Christian framework to participate in their scientific endeavors.