DNA Information Evolution and ID

[SailingCyclops]

In a Random Ramblings discussion dadman asserted:

.. since all code derives from an intelligent source . . .
[...]
I do believe the subject is not so much evolution . . . but intelligence . . .
do you know anything about this "evolution coder/de-coder" ??

ref:This post

The assertion is made that since DNA is a code, there must be a coder. Presumably, some intelligent entity.

Questions for debate:

Is the coding, and information transfer we observe in DNA a product of evolution by natural selection? Or does DNA information and it's transfer demand an intelligence?

Does all code derive from an intelligent source?

Bob

[Autodidact]

And this has been one of my big problems with these claims. One can not POSSIBLY predict how a supernatural agent would work. It is impossible because we have zero knowledge on the subject.

It is like me going into a forest, seeing a fallen tree and claiming a Zanzabar knocked the tree down. How do I knows this creature did this? Its how they work. How do I know it is how they work? I dont.

If the Zanzabar's modality of action were thoroughly documented in ancient writings purported to be the word of the Zanzabar, you might. What God did is pretty well described in Scripture and maps quite nicely to what is observed. The universe came to be, suddenly. Looks like it did. Life appeared suddenly. Looks like it did. Homo sapiens sapiens appeared very late in the game with quantifiably different attributes than had ever existed before. Looks like we did.

What science has learned about all these things does NOT match what the Bible describes. The earth cannot stand still. Snakes don't talk; neither do donkeys. You can't live three days in the belly of a fish. You can't have light without the sun. There are no "waters above" that pour down through holes in a firmament. There is nowhere on earth you can stand and see the entire earth. The earth was never entirely underwater. Animals did not spread out from a single point in Turkey and swim to their respective continents.

A purely naturalisitic explanation has a hard time explaining why there is anything rather than nothing, much less accounting for the universe, the sudden appearance of life from inanimate chemicals about as soon as it could possibly exist, or us.

Now you're arguing against atheism again. You have atheism and science hopeless confused, I'm afraid. We can argue whether there is a God or not. That has nothing to do with what science can tell us about HOW, not who but HOW, we get a diversity of species on earth.

That's a bit like asking that since Michaelangelo created the Pieta that he can only sculpt. What we would see in both a naturalistic and theistic model for creation is the repeated use of the same approaches. What we would not expect in a naturalistic model is widespread convergent evolution, which we do see.

This is incorrect.

3) God created everything out of nothing. EVERYTHING. This cant even be comprehended, let alone explained. So if god was capable of that, it is awfully hubristic to claim to know how he would create ANYTHING and ESPECIALLY to compare it to our design. Look at things engineered 100-200 years ago. Heck, some things just 10 years ago look crude and primitive. Imagine what our designs would look like to god. We are like bacteria in the soil. So there is no way to predict how god would create anything making any prediction impossible.

It is certainly true that we cannot know how God brought what is into existence, but it's not all mystery. It is pretty well explained in the Bible. I realize that such statements are disallowed, but when I read God admonish Job in Job 38 "...where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?" I have a hard time not thinking that this passage says that darkness is an entity different from light (written at a time when darkness was defined as simply the absence of light), and that 'darkness' has a location, (the reference seems to be about dark matter and energy, and these entities do have a spatial location.) Again, the Bible is not a science text book, but if it is the word of God, then it should not state things about the world that are clearly false. Does the above passage refer to dark energy and dark matter? Who knows. What is clear is that the passage is supportive of what we know of these entities, writtten a few thousand years before the invention of the telescope. Was Paul referring to the second law of thermodynamics in Romans 8:21 when he states that the physical world is in "bondage to corruption" since its beginning? Beats me, but the passage is not inconsistent with that interpretation.

Yes, well if you twist a passage of any book, from the Quran to Dune, you can squeeze something out of it that somehow seems consonant with what science has learned. Here's what you never see in any religious work: E = mc(squared.) Never see specifics like that.

So, no, we can't know for sure how God brought everything into being, but it's not like he didn't leave us any clues...

If He did, the clues seem to indicate that the various species on earth evolved via descent with modification plus natural selection.

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it. The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God?

Because it is unknown.

On that basis, we should stop trying to understand dark energy, since it can only be detected by its effects.[/quote] But we cannot know or speculate what the effects of God's work would be.

The effects we would expect include the sudden appearance of complex life as discussed above.

Evolution has explained this.

Just like the Hari Krishna chant. Keep saying it over and over and over and one day, maybe it will become true.[/quote] No, more like decades of hard scientific work, represented in thousands of books and journal articles, and taught in every non-religious university in the world.

[Starboard Tack]

And this has been one of my big problems with these claims. One can not POSSIBLY predict how a supernatural agent would work. It is impossible because we have zero knowledge on the subject.

It is like me going into a forest, seeing a fallen tree and claiming a Zanzabar knocked the tree down. How do I knows this creature did this? Its how they work. How do I know it is how they work? I dont.

If the Zanzabar's modality of action were thoroughly documented in ancient writings purported to be the word of the Zanzabar, you might. What God did is pretty well described in Scripture and maps quite nicely to what is observed. The universe came to be, suddenly. Looks like it did. Life appeared suddenly. Looks like it did. Homo sapiens sapiens appeared very late in the game with quantifiably different attributes than had ever existed before. Looks like we did.

What science has learned about all these things does NOT match what the Bible describes. The earth cannot stand still. Snakes don't talk; neither do donkeys. You can't live three days in the belly of a fish. You can't have light without the sun. There are no "waters above" that pour down through holes in a firmament. There is nowhere on earth you can stand and see the entire earth. The earth was never entirely underwater. Animals did not spread out from a single point in Turkey and swim to their respective continents.

Odd mixture of philosophy and error. Yes, the earth was once virtually covered completely by water. http://www.earthdive.com/site/news/news ... 09&id=2821

The rest of your objections are a premise that contains your desired conclusion, and therefore invalid. the premise - God does not exist, therefore miracles are impossible, therefore accounts of miracles in the Bible are all false, therefore the Bible is false because it says God exists. Completely circular and completely illogical.

Not sure where you got the animals swimming from Turkey bit....

A purely naturalisitic explanation has a hard time explaining why there is anything rather than nothing, much less accounting for the universe, the sudden appearance of life from inanimate chemicals about as soon as it could possibly exist, or us.

Now you're arguing against atheism again. You have atheism and science hopeless confused, I'm afraid. We can argue whether there is a God or not. That has nothing to do with what science can tell us about HOW, not who but HOW, we get a diversity of species on earth.

No, I don't confuse atheism with naturalistm, but can you point me to the atheist who doesn't believe in pure methodological naturalism? Of course not. The two go hand in glove, because MN disallows the possibility of God as a subject of science (as you assert without foundation, thereby proving my point), just as atheism insists that there is nothing to discuss about God because he doesn't exist.

That's a bit like asking that since Michaelangelo created the Pieta that he can only sculpt. What we would see in both a naturalistic and theistic model for creation is the repeated use of the same approaches. What we would not expect in a naturalistic model is widespread convergent evolution, which we do see.

This is incorrect.

No it is quite correct. Please see Stephen J. Gould's observation that if you re-wiond the tape of history you will always get a separate result, that is, convergent evolution cannot happen, as well as Michigan State's Long Term Evolution Experiment, which "proved" Gould was correct.

3) God created everything out of nothing. EVERYTHING. This cant even be comprehended, let alone explained. So if god was capable of that, it is awfully hubristic to claim to know how he would create ANYTHING and ESPECIALLY to compare it to our design. Look at things engineered 100-200 years ago. Heck, some things just 10 years ago look crude and primitive. Imagine what our designs would look like to god. We are like bacteria in the soil. So there is no way to predict how god would create anything making any prediction impossible.

It is certainly true that we cannot know how God brought what is into existence, but it's not all mystery. It is pretty well explained in the Bible. I realize that such statements are disallowed, but when I read God admonish Job in Job 38 "...where is the place of darkness, that you may take it to its territory and that you may discern the paths to its home?" I have a hard time not thinking that this passage says that darkness is an entity different from light (written at a time when darkness was defined as simply the absence of light), and that 'darkness' has a location, (the reference seems to be about dark matter and energy, and these entities do have a spatial location.) Again, the Bible is not a science text book, but if it is the word of God, then it should not state things about the world that are clearly false. Does the above passage refer to dark energy and dark matter? Who knows. What is clear is that the passage is supportive of what we know of these entities, writtten a few thousand years before the invention of the telescope. Was Paul referring to the second law of thermodynamics in Romans 8:21 when he states that the physical world is in "bondage to corruption" since its beginning? Beats me, but the passage is not inconsistent with that interpretation.

[/quote]

Yes, well if you twist a passage of any book, from the Quran to Dune, you can squeeze something out of it that somehow seems consonant with what science has learned. Here's what you never see in any religious work: E = mc(squared.) Never see specifics like that.

How am I twisting the passage? Point me to the passage in, for example, the Bhagavat Gita where a past finite universe is described? You can't, because that is not what Hindus believe. They believe in a past infinite cyclic universe, which science tells us is incorrect and which the Bible also tells us is incorrect. Besides, your demand that the Bible tell you how to program you smart phone to be taken seriously is absurd. If the book is the word of God, it must speak to people of all ages, not just in terms that you might be willling to entertain as proof of something. But in honesty, even if God wrote "I am" on the moon, that wouldn't really do it for you either, now would it?

So, no, we can't know for sure how God brought everything into being, but it's not like he didn't leave us any clues...

If He did, the clues seem to indicate that the various species on earth evolved via descent with modification plus natural selection.

That would be fine with me. I would then be a theistic evolutionist. But for me to be a theistic evolutionist, the theory would have to describe what is found in the fossil record coherently, and make predictions on what we will find in that record. It doesn't, so I remain skeptical.

If God did make it, then there should be evidence that he made it. The evidence will be in the effects that one would expect if God was responsible. We measure the reality of many things in science by their effects, so why not God?

Because it is unknown.

On that basis, we should stop trying to understand dark energy, since it can only be detected by its effects.

[/quote]

But we cannot know or speculate what the effects of God's work would be.

How does that possibly follow? If the bible says that God created the universe by fiat action and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find that the universe came into being suddenly. If the Bible says he created life by fiat action, and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find life appearing suddenly, and if it appeared as early as life could support itself, that would also be consistent with theistic expectations. We should find increasing levels of fine tuning for life that deny naturalistic expectations. If he exists and is active in the lives of men, then we should see his impact on those lives. These are all obvious so the effects of God are not in short supply, but the willingness of some to see those effects somethimes is.

[JohnPaul]

Starboard Tack wrote:

Not sure where you got the animals swimming from Turkey bit....

It might be more interesting to know how Noah got them all rounded up and into the Ark. Elephants and hippos from Africa, penguins from Antarctica, etc. Herding dozens of species of whales from the Pacific and Atlantic into the Mediterranean and then over dry land into the Ark would have been quite a task in itself, especially with only his family to help him. I doubt that an entire national government could do it today, even over a period of many years of national effort.

John

[Starboard Tack]

Starboard Tack wrote:

Not sure where you got the animals swimming from Turkey bit....

It might be more interesting to know how Noah got them all rounded up and into the Ark. Elephants and hippos from Africa, penguins from Antarctica, etc. Herding dozens of species of whales from the Pacific and Atlantic into the Mediterranean and then over dry land into the Ark would have been quite a task in itself, especially with only his family to help him. I doubt that an entire national government could do it today, even over a period of many years of national effort.

John

Since there is no evidence that a global flood occurred and no exegetical reason why such an interpretation of Scripture is preferred over the more obvious local flood that killed all of mankind but Noah and his family, your cartoon interpretation isn't to be taken seriously, but then again, you didn't intend it to be, now did you?

[nursebenjamin]

That would be fine with me. I would then be a theistic evolutionist. But for me to be a theistic evolutionist, the theory would have to describe what is found in the fossil record coherently, and make predictions on what we will find in that record. It doesn't, so I remain skeptical.

The theory of evolution doesnt do what? Are you saying that the theory does not explain what the fossil record or that the ToE has not made any predictions on what is found in the fossil record? Also, can you give an example of what you are talking about here?

If the bible says that God created the universe by fiat action and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find that the universe came into being suddenly. If the Bible says he created life by fiat action, and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find life appearing suddenly

This sounds like confirmation bias to me. Youve taken a few things from the Genesis creation story that resemble reality and then assume that the whole Genesis creation story is true. (Correct me if Im wrong here.) However, the Genesis creation story also states that plants existed before the sun, that water existed before there were stars, that birds and whales existed before land animals, etc Theres much in the Genesis creation story that contradicts reality.

When you claim that Genesis is consistent with reality, are you taking Genesis as a whole into consideration, or you are just picking and choosing from few verses?

It might be more interesting to know how Noah got them all rounded up and into the Ark. Elephants and hippos from Africa, penguins from Antarctica, etc. Herding dozens of species of whales from the Pacific and Atlantic into the Mediterranean and then over dry land into the Ark would have been quite a task in itself, especially with only his family to help him. I doubt that an entire national government could do it today, even over a period of many years of national effort.

John

Since there is no evidence that a global flood occurred and no exegetical reason why such an interpretation of Scripture is preferred over the more obvious local flood that killed all of mankind but Noah and his family, your cartoon interpretation isn't to be taken seriously, but then again, you didn't intend it to be, now did you?

So when the Bible says that the flood waters "swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep,[Genesis 7:19-20] this isnt to be taken seriously? Are you claiming that the flood was localized, and the bible is wrong when it says that the waters covered all the mountains under heaven by 15 cubits? The Bible then goes on to states that all flesh the moved on earth (men, women, babies, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, creepy crawly things, etc) died. Is it your claim that life/humans only existed in a small local somewhere in Asia Minor, and that the rest of Earth was barren of life/human beings?

Also, when do you think this flood occurred? In a previous post, you posted a link to an article that states 2.5 billion years ago, 97-98% of the Earth was covered with water. Is it year claim that Noahs flood occurred 2.5 billion years ago?

Im just trying to clarify a few things here. You seem to be arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible by interpreting it very liberally.

[nygreenguy]

No it is quite correct. Please see Stephen J. Gould's observation that if you re-wiond the tape of history you will always get a separate result, that is, convergent evolution cannot happen, as well as Michigan State's Long Term Evolution Experiment, which "proved" Gould was correct.

This logic doesnt make sense to me. Having a separate result doesnt mean convergent evolution would not happen. What Gould meant by that quote was that if we were to "redo" everything, it would likely turn out different because of the inherent randomness of nature. This doesnt mean convergent evolution cannot happen.

Because it is unknown.

On that basis, we should stop trying to understand dark energy, since it can only be detected by its effects.

But we have the ability to detect it, we have the ability to study it, we know SOMETHING about it. Not the same with God.

But we cannot know or speculate what the effects of God's work would be.

How does that possibly follow? If the bible says that God created the universe by fiat action and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find that the universe came into being suddenly. If the Bible says he created life by fiat action, and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find life appearing suddenly, and if it appeared as early as life could support itself, that would also be consistent with theistic expectations. We should find increasing levels of fine tuning for life that deny naturalistic expectations. If he exists and is active in the lives of men, then we should see his impact on those lives. These are all obvious so the effects of God are not in short supply, but the willingness of some to see those effects somethimes is.[/quote] this is all assumptions on what God did. Anyone can write nearly ANYTHING and have it fit ESPECIALLY when you attribute its total lack of specificity to the fact "primitive" people wrote it.

[Starboard Tack]

That would be fine with me. I would then be a theistic evolutionist. But for me to be a theistic evolutionist, the theory would have to describe what is found in the fossil record coherently, and make predictions on what we will find in that record. It doesn't, so I remain skeptical.

The theory of evolution doesnt do what? Are you saying that the theory does not explain what the fossil record or that the ToE has not made any predictions on what is found in the fossil record? Also, can you give an example of what you are talking about here?

The ToE, which proposes a mechanism, predicts gradualism, which isn't observed in the fossil record. Punctuated Equilibrium predicts what is observed in the fossil record, but has no mechanism. Therefore the theory is highly speculative, but I understand why it is clung to like a log in the ocean by the methodological naturalist, since it is the only game in town.

An excellent example of the ToE not working in the real world can be found in the reported data from MSU and the Long Term Evolution Experiment. They are now up to 50,000 generations, and to date, no macro evolutionary changes have been noted, and in fact, some of the early results are now being viewed as possibly invalid. This is a closed environment study. If evolution exists, surely the equivalent of 1,000,000 years of human history (50,000 generations) should produce some observable macro evolutionary change? For some additional perspective: http://panspermia.org/whatsnew64.htm (sixth item). Or:
http://www.panspermia.org/proof5.htm

If the bible says that God created the universe by fiat action and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find that the universe came into being suddenly. If the Bible says he created life by fiat action, and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find life appearing suddenly

This sounds like confirmation bias to me. Youve taken a few things from the Genesis creation story that resemble reality and then assume that the whole Genesis creation story is true. (Correct me if Im wrong here.) However, the Genesis creation story also states that plants existed before the sun, that water existed before there were stars, that birds and whales existed before land animals, etc Theres much in the Genesis creation story that contradicts reality.

No, what I have done is simply note that a document written 3,500 years ago is consistent with modern scientific understanding. I have already, and more than once, attempted to deal with the continued assertion that Gn 1:14 indicates that plant life existed before the sun. If this is what Genesis says, then it would mean that the goat herders who wrote the text did not understand that such a thing was impossible. Do you know many farmers who would assert that plants can grow without the sun? Anywhere on the planet? Perhaps in the Amazon Jungle? The answer is no. The interpretation of Genesis with respect to the visibility of the sun, moon and stars that is consistent with the text and with scientific understanding is:

1. Light is released following quark confinement 380,000 years after creation. Gn 1:3

2. Photosynthesizing bacteria (a.k.a plants to itinerant goat herders, or at least that is how God described it to the authors, and well He might. What would be the Hebrew noun for "bacteria" that would have made the slightest sense to men of the time?) are created following the creation of the moon from a collision with a Mars sized impacter which cleared the atmosphere sufficiently to allow these first life forms to survive. Gn 1:12.

3. After these cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere, it cleared sufficiently that an observer on the surface of the earth could seen the sun, moon and stars. Gn 1:14

Now, you are entitled to believe that these words, written thousands of years before the invention of the scientific method are just coincidence, but if so, that is a coincidence not found in any other religious text. It is also an interpretation of the meaning of these words consistent with the original Hebrew, as well as scientific understanding. From a theological point of view, if the Bible is the word of God, it will not be found to be in error when it makes flat statements about reality, so this concurrence is not remarkable, at least to Christian theists.

When you claim that Genesis is consistent with reality, are you taking Genesis as a whole into consideration, or you are just picking and choosing from few verses?

I'm referring to the specific passages relating to creation. Genesis is not the only place where creation is described, but it is the most widely understood. Psalm 104 is another creation account. In it, and in other places in Scripture, God is described as "stretching out the heavens". The text could say that the heavens are fixed, immovable and eternal, like many other religious traditions teach. But then it would be wrong. By repeatedly referring the the 'stretching of the heavens', the text poetically describes what we now understand is the nature of an explanding universe. Space time exits on a 3 dimensional projection over a 4 dimensional space. A tent exists in the fabric, not in the space it encloses. Space is expanding as we speak. The Hebrew verb for the 'stretching' of space I have seen translated as referring to continuous expansion, just like the universe. Again, the Bible is not a science text book, but color me not surprised that the words it uses to describe the world conform to the world.

It might be more interesting to know how Noah got them all rounded up and into the Ark. Elephants and hippos from Africa, penguins from Antarctica, etc. Herding dozens of species of whales from the Pacific and Atlantic into the Mediterranean and then over dry land into the Ark would have been quite a task in itself, especially with only his family to help him. I doubt that an entire national government could do it today, even over a period of many years of national effort.

So when the Bible says that the flood waters "swelled so mightily on the earth that all the high mountains under the whole heaven were covered; the waters swelled above the mountains, covering them fifteen cubits deep,[Genesis 7:19-20] this isnt to be taken seriously? Are you claiming that the flood was localized, and the bible is wrong when it says that the waters covered all the mountains under heaven by 15 cubits? The Bible then goes on to states that all flesh the moved on earth (men, women, babies, birds, domestic animals, wild animals, creepy crawly things, etc) died. Is it your claim that life/humans only existed in a small local somewhere in Asia Minor, and that the rest of Earth was barren of life/human beings?

I don't have the energy to explore this topic in the depth it deserves, but here the summary of my view. When Gn refers to the "earth", the Hebrew verb is Erets, which in this context doesn't mean planet earth, but the place where man lives. It is transliterated as "the land". For example, when the famine hit Eqypt, and people from all over the "earth" (land) came to Pharoah to beg for food, that didn't include the North American Indians, but the people of the 'earth' that mattered, which was the land within reach of Pharoah.

The community of modern man lived in one location in the Middle East, and had not migrated to other continents, which did not start until 50,000 years ago. Prior to that, yes a glacial dam breaking a la what happened in Washington State that created the Pot Holes area could have wiped out humanity, who went nowhere for the first few millenia of their existence, or such is the current scientific understanding. The animals referred to are interpreted to be those semi domestic animals that lived around humanity. The theological basis for the flood was that man was utterly corrupt, and this affected the animals around them. God had no reason to take it out on the Bison in North America, so why kill them? Scripturally, Psalm 104:9 describes God placing a boundary on the oceans that they would never cross and ever again cover the earth, and this action occurs long before man was created, so there is a Scriptural basis for understanding the flood to be local. If you're actually interested, there are many books written on this subject that will do far more justice than I can.

Also, when do you think this flood occurred? In a previous post, you posted a link to an article that states 2.5 billion years ago, 97-98% of the Earth was covered with water. Is it year claim that Noahs flood occurred 2.5 billion years ago?
Im just trying to clarify a few things here. You seem to be arguing for a literal interpretation of the Bible by interpreting it very liberally.

Water existed on the surface of the earth 4.2 bya, based on the existence of zircons that have structure only associated with water. Whether the earth was completely covered at that time is, I think, not clear. One of the predictions I would make is that evidence that this was in fact the nature of early earth should grow, since that seems to be clearly indicated in Gn. Be that as it may, since I don't think the flood was global since there is zero evidence of a global flood that corresponds to modern man, who is no older than 100,000 years based on the convergence of genetic lines of data (probably closer to 60,000 - 75,000 years), what happened billions of years ago is irrelevant to the question of the Noetic flood. I accept what I have read of others analysis that the great flood probably occurred between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago. It was local, killing off the special creatures made with the Imago Dei who had succumbed to evil 24/7 - Gn 6:12, where the same word for "land", erets, is used to describe the part of the planet that really PISSED GOD OFF. Part of the problem with interpreting the Bible is that Hebrew had a tiny vocabulary, and translators do their best to come up with English that captures the meaning, within the context of what is being translated. Endless opportunities exist as a result for people to get into "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type arguments, but hopefully a little common sense can be applied to figure out what is a reasonable interpretative possibilty, and what is not.

Regarding how I read the Bible, based on its correspondance to reality, I assume the Bible is inspired by God. I do not read it literally, but take it as inerrant, a distinction that may not make much sense to many, but is a real distinction nonetheless. I don't take Keats literally either, but don't deny the truth of what he wrote.

[Autodidact]

The ToE, which proposes a mechanism, predicts gradualism, which isn't observed in the fossil record.

False.

Punctuated Equilibrium predicts what is observed in the fossil record, but has no mechanism.

False. Also, Punk Eek is ToE.

Therefore the theory is highly speculative, but I understand why it is clung to like a log in the ocean by the methodological naturalist, since it is the only game in town.

Yes. The "methodological naturalist" is another word for a scientist. It is in fact the only scientific game in town, because it is the only theory that is consistent with the evidence.

An excellent example of the ToE not working in the real world can be found in the reported data from MSU and the Long Term Evolution Experiment. They are now up to 50,000 generations, and to date, no macro evolutionary changes have been noted, and in fact, some of the early results are now being viewed as possibly invalid. This is a closed environment study. If evolution exists, surely the equivalent of 1,000,000 years of human history (50,000 generations) should produce some observable macro evolutionary change? For some additional perspective: http://panspermia.org/whatsnew64.htm (sixth item). Or:
http://www.panspermia.org/proof5.htm

In reality, this experiment provides amazing real world corroboration of evolution in action.

This sounds like confirmation bias to me. Youve taken a few things from the Genesis creation story that resemble reality and then assume that the whole Genesis creation story is true. (Correct me if Im wrong here.) However, the Genesis creation story also states that plants existed before the sun, that water existed before there were stars, that birds and whales existed before land animals, etc Theres much in the Genesis creation story that contradicts reality.

No, what I have done is simply note that a document written 3,500 years ago is consistent with modern scientific understanding.

No, it isn't. If it were, you wouldn't be here rejecting all of modern Biology.

I have already, and more than once, attempted to deal with the continued assertion that Gn 1:14 indicates that plant life existed before the sun. If this is what Genesis says, then it would mean that the goat herders who wrote the text did not understand that such a thing was impossible.

It's a myth. A fable. Myths are full of impossible things; that's why they're myths.

Do you know many farmers who would assert that plants can grow without the sun? Anywhere on the planet? Perhaps in the Amazon Jungle? The answer is no. The interpretation of Genesis with respect to the visibility of the sun, moon and stars that is consistent with the text and with scientific understanding is:

1. Light is released following quark confinement 380,000 years after creation. Gn 1:3

2. Photosynthesizing bacteria (a.k.a plants to itinerant goat herders, or at least that is how God described it to the authors, and well He might. What would be the Hebrew noun for "bacteria" that would have made the slightest sense to men of the time?) are created following the creation of the moon from a collision with a Mars sized impacter which cleared the atmosphere sufficiently to allow these first life forms to survive. Gn 1:12.

3. After these cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere, it cleared sufficiently that an observer on the surface of the earth could seen the sun, moon and stars. Gn 1:14

Now, you are entitled to believe that these words, written thousands of years before the invention of the scientific method are just coincidence, but if so, that is a coincidence not found in any other religious text. It is also an interpretation of the meaning of these words consistent with the original Hebrew, as well as scientific understanding. From a theological point of view, if the Bible is the word of God, it will not be found to be in error when it makes flat statements about reality, so this concurrence is not remarkable, at least to Christian theists.

Or that you are completely rewriting them and twisting them beyond recognition to construct something quite different that simply isn't there.

And if you do that, it's completely consistent with modern science. Of course, so is Robinson Crusoe, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan.

[Starboard Tack]

NYGreenguy:

No it is quite correct. Please see Stephen J. Gould's observation that if you re-wiond the tape of history you will always get a separate result, that is, convergent evolution cannot happen, as well as Michigan State's Long Term Evolution Experiment, which "proved" Gould was correct.

This logic doesnt make sense to me. Having a separate result doesnt mean convergent evolution would not happen. What Gould meant by that quote was that if we were to "redo" everything, it would likely turn out different because of the inherent randomness of nature. This doesnt mean convergent evolution cannot happen.

I don't think you are accurately portraying the concept of historic contingency as used by Gould. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Historical_contingency

On that basis, we should stop trying to understand dark energy, since it can only be detected by its effects.

But we have the ability to detect it, we have the ability to study it, we know SOMETHING about it. Not the same with God.

We have the ability to detect God, or so say billions of believers over time. We have the ability to build models based on supernatural causation that entail predictions that would not be consistent with purely naturalistic models. Like dark energy, we aren't likely going to be able to put God in a test tube, but like dark energy, that doesn't mean he doesn't exist, nor feel his effects.

But we cannot know or speculate what the effects of God's work would be.

How does that possibly follow? If the bible says that God created the universe by fiat action and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find that the universe came into being suddenly. If the Bible says he created life by fiat action, and the God of the Bible is THE GOD, we should find life appearing suddenly, and if it appeared as early as life could support itself, that would also be consistent with theistic expectations. We should find increasing levels of fine tuning for life that deny naturalistic expectations. If he exists and is active in the lives of men, then we should see his impact on those lives. These are all obvious so the effects of God are not in short supply, but the willingness of some to see those effects somethimes is.

this is all assumptions on what God did. Anyone can write nearly ANYTHING and have it fit ESPECIALLY when you attribute its total lack of specificity to the fact "primitive" people wrote it.

[/quote] The primitive people wrote quite specifically about many things, and the fact that what they wrote corresponds to what we understand today, yet they were undoubtedly "primitive" should be a clue that something other than goatherders telling tales is going on here. They wrote quite specifically on the past finite boundary of the universe, the fact that early earth was a water world, that man appeared suddenly, that space is expanding, that the seond law of thermodynamics exists, that species will go extinct, etc. etc. You'd be surprised how specific it is if you took the time to study it.

[Starboard Tack]

The ToE, which proposes a mechanism, predicts gradualism, which isn't observed in the fossil record.

False.

Punctuated Equilibrium predicts what is observed in the fossil record, but has no mechanism.

False. Also, Punk Eek is ToE.

Please provide the evidence that neo-Darwinian evolution does not predict gradualism and please state what the mechaism for PE is. Your simple stating that my statement is false is meaningless.

Therefore the theory is highly speculative, but I understand why it is clung to like a log in the ocean by the methodological naturalist, since it is the only game in town.

Yes. The "methodological naturalist" is another word for a scientist. It is in fact the only scientific game in town, because it is the only theory that is consistent with the evidence.

The problem with the ToE is that it is not consistent with the evidence. Please see Avalon explosion, Cambrian explosion, stasis in the fossil record, sudden appearance of man, existence of universal DNA code, existence of molecular machines, etc., etc. etc.

An excellent example of the ToE not working in the real world can be found in the reported data from MSU and the Long Term Evolution Experiment. They are now up to 50,000 generations, and to date, no macro evolutionary changes have been noted, and in fact, some of the early results are now being viewed as possibly invalid. This is a closed environment study. If evolution exists, surely the equivalent of 1,000,000 years of human history (50,000 generations) should produce some observable macro evolutionary change? For some additional perspective: http://panspermia.org/whatsnew64.htm (sixth item). Or:
http://www.panspermia.org/proof5.htm

In reality, this experiment provides amazing real world corroboration of evolution in action.

In reality, the experiment shows that quadrillions and quadrillions of individuals over 50,000 generations haven't changed in any material way that would provide the slightest support for the grandiose claims of evolution. Your faith is strong, Grasshopper, to believe otherwise....

This sounds like confirmation bias to me. Youve taken a few things from the Genesis creation story that resemble reality and then assume that the whole Genesis creation story is true. (Correct me if Im wrong here.) However, the Genesis creation story also states that plants existed before the sun, that water existed before there were stars, that birds and whales existed before land animals, etc Theres much in the Genesis creation story that contradicts reality.

No, what I have done is simply note that a document written 3,500 years ago is consistent with modern scientific understanding.

No, it isn't. If it were, you wouldn't be here rejecting all of modern Biology.

Another complete falsehood. Equating all of modern Biology with the creaky ToE is ridiculous. Unless of course, you are posing a religious test here for biologists, where perhaps they must swear on a copy of Dawkins' "The God's Delusion" to undertake a study of gnat morphology.

I have already, and more than once, attempted to deal with the continued assertion that Gn 1:14 indicates that plant life existed before the sun. If this is what Genesis says, then it would mean that the goat herders who wrote the text did not understand that such a thing was impossible.

It's a myth. A fable. Myths are full of impossible things; that's why they're myths.

That is your theology, based on a myth.

Do you know many farmers who would assert that plants can grow without the sun? Anywhere on the planet? Perhaps in the Amazon Jungle? The answer is no. The interpretation of Genesis with respect to the visibility of the sun, moon and stars that is consistent with the text and with scientific understanding is:

1. Light is released following quark confinement 380,000 years after creation. Gn 1:3

2. Photosynthesizing bacteria (a.k.a plants to itinerant goat herders, or at least that is how God described it to the authors, and well He might. What would be the Hebrew noun for "bacteria" that would have made the slightest sense to men of the time?) are created following the creation of the moon from a collision with a Mars sized impacter which cleared the atmosphere sufficiently to allow these first life forms to survive. Gn 1:12.

3. After these cyanobacteria oxygenated the atmosphere, it cleared sufficiently that an observer on the surface of the earth could seen the sun, moon and stars. Gn 1:14

Now, you are entitled to believe that these words, written thousands of years before the invention of the scientific method are just coincidence, but if so, that is a coincidence not found in any other religious text. It is also an interpretation of the meaning of these words consistent with the original Hebrew, as well as scientific understanding. From a theological point of view, if the Bible is the word of God, it will not be found to be in error when it makes flat statements about reality, so this concurrence is not remarkable, at least to Christian theists.

Or that you are completely rewriting them and twisting them beyond recognition to construct something quite different that simply isn't there.

And if you do that, it's completely consistent with modern science. Of course, so is Robinson Crusoe, Alice in Wonderland and Peter Pan.

No, I am simply providing an interpretation that conforms to the text. An interpretation that seems to make you remarkably uncomfortable, as well it might.