Originally posted by DigiMark007
And you didn't stipulate that I do sh*t. I'm going to show up at the school, eat some cafeteria food, punch a lunch lady in the face, then demand my 50K.😐
You shouldn't be so mean to the lunch lady..."you should be kissing her feet and kissing her mole", no doubt. If you don't, the robots will clearly evolve and steal our internets. 😐
Originally posted by dadudemon
You shouldn't be so mean to the lunch lady..."you should be kissing her feet and kissing her mole", no doubt. If you don't, the robots will clearly evolve and steal our internets. 😐
lunch ladies dont really have ne moles ne more. its not a movie from the 80's. in LA its either an A: ultra pissed off fat black lady or B: some pissy(usually fat) mexican lady
DigiMark007-
Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.
ur clearly blind/dislexic. digi and dawkins stated the reason he was angry is because he usually does not argue with id theorists because they ask rediculus answers. luskin tricked him into an interview which made him angry. macroevolution is there otherwise speciation would not occur. it is not clear as of now because evolution is a gradual process.
Originally posted by chickenlover98
ur clearly blind/dislexic. digi and dawkins stated the reason he was angry is because he usually does not argue with id theorists because they ask rediculus answers. luskin tricked him into an interview which made him angry. macroevolution is there otherwise speciation would not occur. it is not clear as of now because evolution is a gradual process
How and why Dawkins felt the way he did is irrelevent. And for the record, "speciation" is the product of microevolution, not macroevolution. In any case, don't you understand how important the question is that the creationists proposed during the interview?
Originally posted by ushomefree
DigiMark007-Why must you claim that I am utilizing this thread to spread ID propaganda, and why must you amplify the situation regarding Dawkins and Luskin? Richard Dawkins has written much about evolution, and I think--for Dawkins to provide an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome--was a critical and fair question. At some point in time, for macroevolution to be true, new information must be introduced into the genome, by whatever evolutionary process; and if macroevolution were true, examples would be readily available in nature, much like we see for microevolution, but Dawkins could not provide an example. Dawkins' anger has absolutely nothing to do with the creationists themselves; Dawkins was angry because he was put in the spotlight. Dawkins must have felt a host of feelings during the session, not to mention embarrassed. Is it really a mystery that he would say (or do something) to protect his name? Dawkins would have had the same response if an evolutionist asked him the question--only Dawkins would have claimed that he/she was an embarrassment to evolutionary theory. Macroevolution only exists in text books and internet articles, not in nature. Dawkins confirmed that; and that is why Dawkins was angry. Despite all his credentials, he looked like a fool.
He looked like a fool because the creationists doctored the footage to make it seem like he couldn't answer the question. His "response" to the question was actually an answer to a different question, played in the video to make it seem like he was trying to dodge it.
Anyway, both Dawkins and myself answered the questions thoroughly. And you debunked none of it. If you want to maintain any credibility, I'd start there.
Part-One
Originally posted by DigiMark007
In September, 2007, I posted a link to a YouTube video where Richard Dawkins was asked to explain the origin of genetic information, according to Darwinism. I also posted a link to Dawkins’ rebuttal to the video, where he purports to explain the origin of genetic information according to Darwinian evolution.Which is false. Dawkins explicitly says he didn’t respond to the question because the answer could not fit into a sound bite but required an extended period of time. Thus his article. Luskin claiming that he posted Dawkins answer is nothing more than an attempt to undermine him, since he did no such thing on video.
This is a separate issue.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Dawkins writes, “In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.” Dawkins’ highly emotional response calls into question whether he is capable of addressing this issue objectively.Dawkins has been lied to and is being demanded to answer questions. Yet, to his credit, he finished the interview because he did agree to it. So he did not back down from his word, despite being lied to. Dawkins is on record as saying he will not debate ID advocates, so his quandary in the duplicitous interview is evident. I’m actually surprised he had the composure to continue. So this is yet another sad attempt by Luskin to knock his opponent’s credibility, not his intellectual position.
Before continuing, it should be noted that Luskin is on the payroll of The Discovery Institute, a group whose job it is to uphold ID. His very credentials make the argument suspect, since scientists have no stake in taking sides…objectivity is their profession, not a particular agenda. So it is in their best interests to report the facts as they see them. Their findings may promote one viewpoint over another, but they are not being paid to say one or the other, simply to report the facts. The same cannot be said for Luskin.
Again, this is a separate issue; but it must be true if you made the claim.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I shall skip the first section of the article to get to what I believe to be the heart of the matter. In the first section, of both articles actually, they define ‘information’ to suit their particular needs. Semantics, really, even for Dawkins, since one can find a definition for it that suits opposite opinions quite easily. Neither seems more right than the other unless it can be backed by science.
The first section is relevant to Luskin’s rebuttal, and it reads:
Dawkins writes, “First you first have to explain the technical meaning of ‘information’.” While that sounds reasonable, Dawkins pulls a bait-and-switch and defines information as “Shannon information”—a formulation of “information” that applies to signal transmission and does not account for the type of specified complexity found in biology.
It is common for Darwinists to define information as “Shannon information,” which is related to calculating the mere unlikelihood of a sequence of events. Under their definition, a functionless stretch of genetic junk might have the same amount “information” as a fully functional gene of the same sequence-length. ID-proponents don’t see this as a useful way of measuring biological information. ID-proponents define information as complex and specified information—DNA which is finely-tuned to do something. Stephen C. Meyer writes that ID-theorists use “(CSI) as a synonym for ‘specified complexity’ to help distinguish functional biological information from mere Shannon information--that is, specified complexity from mere complexity.” As the ISCID encyclopedia explains, “Unlike specified complexity, Shannon information is solely concerned with the improbability or complexity of a string of characters rather than its patterning or significance.”
The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not.
I shall attempt to paraphrase the main argument of Dawkins before posting Luskin’s rebuttal: Gene duplication accounts for increase in genome information. Genes can and do duplicate themselves. The majority of genetic information is vast amounts of duplicated material, commonly referred to as “junk” DNA (more on this later). Even Luskin doesn’t argue that they duplicate. But that leaves us with nothing but copies of the same gene. This is where random mutation comes in, because copying fidelity among genes isn’t 100%. Mutation, combined with natural selection and unfathomably long amounts of time, account for gene variation among the duplicated genes. Thus, the total information increases because you have a wide array of genes that, through natural selection, have been chosen because they promote survival. Luskin, of course, sees fault with this.
Of course Luskin sees fault; all proposed has never been documented in nature. If such were true, examples would be abundant, much like we have for microevolution.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I now have 2 questions to ask of Darwinists who claim that the mechanism of gene duplication explains how Darwinian evolutionary processes can increase the information content in the genome:(1) Does gene duplication increase the information content?
(2) Does gene duplication increase the information content?
Asking the question twice obviously does not double the meaningful information conveyed by the question. How many times would the question have to be duplicated before the meaningful information conveyed by the list of duplicated questions is twice that of the original question? The answer is that the mere duplication of a sentence does NOT increase the complex and specified information content in any meaningful way.
This was answered in my synopsis of Dawkins point: That mutation and natural selection combine to foster new genes into successive generations. But the truly perplexing part about Luskin’s article is that he provides the same answer later on in his article. So what, if anything, was the point of the quotation I posted (he devotes even more time to this point)?? There isn’t one, except to try to pick battles he knows he can win. It amounts to a moot point, because it means nothing in the article, but to an untrained eye it looks like a victory in the ID column.
You stated, “Mutation and natural selection combine to foster new genes into successive generations.” Where is the evidence?
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Darwinists laud the mechanism of gene duplication because they claim it shows how one copy of a gene can perform the original function, freeing up the other copy to mutate, evolve, and acquire a new function. But the new genetic information must somehow be generated during that subsequent evolution of the gene. To explain how Darwinian processes can generate new and meaningful genetic information, Darwinists must provide a detailed account of how a duplicate copy of a gene can evolve into an entirely new gene. But ask Darwinists for details as to how the duplicate copy then starts to perform some new function, and you probably won’t get any.Here’s the answer I was talking about. Except he has an ultimatum for Darwinists: they must show precisely how one gene becomes another very different gene, step by step, before they can be believed. Before responding to this I feel it is important to include his full argument.
Yet the crucial question that must be answered by the gene duplication mechanism is, exactly how does the duplicate copy acquire an entirely new function? Stephen Meyer explains in Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington that it is difficult to imagine how duplicated genes acquire new functions since they must successfully undergo “neutral evolution” and traverse a random walk in order to acquire a new function
The crux of this point is that the likelihood of a gene incurring numerous random mutations, surviving each, and eventually having a new function is extremely small. And in this much, he is right. But he is too narrow-sighted to realize the flaw of his logic: he is working with too short a timeframe. Imagine a gene duplicating itself numerous times, then a certain percentage of those genes mutate every generation and make more duplicates. Pretty soon you have a LOT of variation, without many generations. Granted, early in the evolutionary process, most of the host organisms will die without reproducing. But a certain percentage will survive because the mutations will be advantageous or at least neutral in survival terms. Then add the hundreds of millions of years upon which evolution is founded, and it becomes more preposterous to think that complexity wouldn’t arise via natural selection.
I’m impressed, but, again, where is the evidence?
Part-Two
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Rather than giving a step-by-step mutational account of how a duplicated gene acquires a new function, Dawkins’ article substitutes bland evidence of sequence identity between different genes as evidence for Darwinian evolution by gene duplication. Dawkins gives the example of the evolution of various globin genes that he claims arose via gene duplication. His evidence is that “[c]areful letter-by-letter analysis shows that these different kinds of globin genes are literally cousins of each other, literally members of a family.” Of course the “[c]areful letter-by-letter analysis” simply means finding amino acid sequences that are similar or identical between two different proteins. David Swift explains that such claims of relationship “are inferred solely on the basis of assuming a common ancestry and then deriving a route of polypeptide evolution, typically the most parsimonious one, to fit the known present day amino acid sequences and consistent with the observed pattern of conserved amino acids.”Here is Dawkins backing his point by showing similarity among variant genes. We know, for example, that all animals, and thus gene pools, are technically “cousins” because we can trace back to a common ancestor. For many of these ancestors, we have fossil records. So we don’t assume ancestry, as Luskin says. We prove it with empirical evidence, then work from that basis. Once again, many ID’ists like demanding complete fossil records before they believe this, which (of course) we do not have and will never have due to the rarity of fossils. But partial records, radio-carbon dating techniques, and DNA analysis of these animals are usually enough for rational individuals.
Please provide an example; and don’t confuse Darwinian evolution with microevolution.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Returning to the topic of junk DNA (part of the justification for gene duplication accounting for complexity, because we have large amounts of duplicated genes).Dawkins' article has other problems. He writes that “most of the capacity of the genome of any animal is not used to store useful information.” This is another good example demonstrating how Neo-Darwinism led may scientists to wrongly believe that non-coding DNA was largely junk. Dawkins’ statement is directly refuted by the findings of recent studies, which the Washington Post reported that scientists have now found that “the vast majority of the 3 billion ‘letters’ of the human genetic code are busily toiling at an array of previously invisible tasks.” That strikes a fatal blow to Dawkins’ argument
While it may strike a “fatal blow” to Dawkins position on junk DNA (written prior to the findings Luskin cites), it does nothing to shatter his central argument. In fact, this is simply off-topic, yet Luskin enjoys acting like it lends his argument more force. All it (possibly) shows is that “junk” DNA may have purpose in an organism, rather than simply existing within the genome with no specific purpose. First, he doesn’t show that all “junk” DNA has function. Some that was previously thought to have no function, does. Great, but that doesn’t equal correlation for all junk DNA, which, again, makes up the majority of our genome. There’s a lot to account for. Second, while this may make it even slightly more difficult for organisms to exist, it once again comes nowhere near proving that organisms could never exist via evolutionary processes, given sufficient time.
It is also good to point out that Luskin wants to see purpose at each level of mutation. The presence of junk DNA, not all accounted for in terms of function, suggests that perhaps they don't always need a function. But even assuming they do, intermediate levels of mutation can and do have function. For example, a common ID argument is "An eye is not useful unless it is complete. It could not have evolved because it would have had to evolve simultaneously to become an eye. Step by step mutation could not have happened because it is not functional until there is sight." This is a great example of the "always needs function" argument they make. yet, in this instance there IS always function. Eyes began as light-sensitive patches of skin that helped organisms detect light/dark, move around, and eventually identify threats. Partially mutated eyes are indeed functional, and it is easy to see how they were built up to their current complexity, because increased eyesight is advantageous in a survival sense.
Of course, not all examples are as cohesive as the eye. But they don't need to be, because it shows that it is possible. Some will fail because of the difficulty of retaining function and adapting in advantageous ways over successive generations. But some will succeed, and even if its a vast minority, it proves the point.
I admire your efforts; but where is the evidence? All you proposed is wishful speculation; your a tool. No pun intended.
Part-Three
Originally posted by DigiMark007
I am done with the scientific rebuttal of the argument. Hopefully it is obvious that, if not 100% proven, the case for gene duplication accounting for genome complexity is well defended and a very reasonable position.I turn now to simple logic, and the biggest foe facing ID advocates.
Thus, in order for Darwinists to convince me that Darwinian evolution can produce new information, at minimum I need to see a step-by-step mutational account of how they can take the sentence:
“METHINKSDAWKINSDOTHPROTESTTOOMUCH”
and evolve it into:
“BUTIMSUREDAWKINSBELIEVESHEISRIGHT”
by changing the first sentence one letter at a time, and having it always retain some comprehensible English meaning along each small step of its evolution.
Notice a trend with his chief questions regarding evolution? He’s demanding things. Luskin, apparently, wouldn’t be appeased until we tracked tens of thousands of generations of an animal and showed how a specific strand of DNA became another. We have observed mutation and variation over successive generations in animals whose lifespans are very short. But for new “useful” genetic code to arise via natural selection would take even longer.
So no, we can’t observe it currently. That admission is a death blow to the theory, right? Wrong.
You are correct about one thing, we have observed mutation and speciation (variation), but we have yet to document an organism evolving into an entirely new organism. If information within the genome increased, by any means, new organisms—even in transition—would have been documented; but that is only half of the problem. If—and I mean if—new information were introduced into the genome, such would have to be beneficial.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
You know what the one thing was that I could not find in Luskin’s article? An argument for ID, rather than against evolution. An alternative theory. Evidence for a belief in the creator that presumably affects evolution. Means by which we could begin to test for such non-evolutionary affects. ANYTHING!!
Luskin’s article was not about ID; it was a rebuttal to Richard Dawkins article. Luskin remained on topic.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
But wait, he offers us this:Additionally, Richard Dawkins’ article admits that “DNA carries information in a very computer-like way, and we can measure the genome's capacity in bits too, if we wish.” That’s an interesting analogy, reminiscent of the design overtones of Dawkins concession elsewhere that “[t]he machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.” (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life, pg. 17 (New York: Basic Books, 1995).) Of course, Dawkins believes that the processes of random mutation and unguided selection ultimately built “[t]he machine code of the genes” and made it “uncannily computer-like.” But I do not think a scientist is unjustified in reasoning that in our experience, machine codes and computers only derive from intelligence.
Let me word the argument in a way that is exactly the same, but less flattering to ID’ists. “Dawkins says DNA is very computer-like. Humans build computers, so some intelligence must have built us, right?” He takes an analogy and makes it literal to suit his purpose. Of course, to the religious slant, this sounds fine, except that there’s the pesky thing called evolution to deal with. And for some reason, ID’ists think that if they tear down evolution, their “theory” (I use the term loosely) wins by default. When, in fact, even if evolution is wrong, there’s still no reason to believe ID because it lacks any evidence at all. None. Ziltch. Kaput. A new reasonable theory could replace it, but certainly not one that has nothing backing it except
To be less flattering for advocates of Darwinian evolution, ID proponents believe that the construction of a 757 Boeing requires intelligence, while Darwinists account for this amazing feat by means of a tornado blowing through a junkyard—given a long period of time and chance, of course.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
So, sticking with that train of thought, let’s assume Luskin is right, and current evolutionary theory can’t account for “macroevolution” as ushome called it. Btw, he delighted in pointing out a Darwinist coined the term macroevolution. Pointless, really, especially given the era (the 20’s, well before modern technology revolutionized our understanding of the world). Anyway, even if we assume Luskin is correct about this (he’s not, as I showed), it doesn’t invalidate evolution as a whole, which is currently the best explanation for life as we know it. It may need refinement, and will continue to be refined and improved (probably to appease irrational religious fanatics, if nothing else), but saying “it’s not 100% right at this moment” does not mean “it’s actually 0% right.” To use an analogy, it would be like flat-earth believers saying “science says that the earth isn’t perfectly round, so we’re right.” In fact, the earth is slightly oblong, not round, so the first part of their argument is correct, but certainly not the latter.
Darwinian evolution is a theory; and nature is silent on the issue. Again, where is the evidence? All you did was explain how Darwinian evolution “could” and “should” work in theory—never provided examples. And that is something Dawkins "himself" couldn't do in his entire article. All Dawkins did was profess colorful theories.
Originally posted by DigiMark007
And if evolution does indeed need tweaking, for God’s sake let’s have it refined through legitimate scientific inquiry, not religious ranting that amounts to nothing except paranoia at the prospect that evolution could question their strongly-held beliefs.As before, this isn’t for ushome’s sake, who I’m a bit annoyed has even made me go to such lengths to refute his persistent tactics. This is for anyone interested in evolution, or who needed to see justification for evolutionary theory on these matters (or arguments against ID).
Persistent tactics? I think you need to re-examine why you hold true to Darwinian evolution; it’s a belief system.
The Human Genome Project:
Exploring Our Molecular Selves
"The difference between the Darwinist and ID definitions of information is equivalent to the difference between getting 10 consecutive losing hands in a poker game versus getting 10 consecutive royal flushes. One implicates design, while the other does not." --Casey Luskin
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The divine revelation of Scripture, the fact that fossilization fits in with the Noachian Flood, and the lack of reliability of radiometric dating.
1. There are no divine scriptures, for all books were written my humans. I don't believe in magic.
2. Fossilization does not fit with a Noachian Flood. 😆 It takes millions of years for a true fossil to form. Also, there was never a flood that covered the Earth. There may have been floods all over the Earth through out time that have found their way into stories, but the Earth was never covered with a flood.
3. Radiometric dating is very reliable now. Also, as the science for carbon dating has progressed, we have found that the dates of fossil have only been corrected by the fossils being found to be older.
You are confusing your beliefs with facts.