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

[nygreenguy]

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

Really? Because what I said is nearly identical to your source.

We have the ability to detect God, or so say billions of believers over time.

appeal to popularity

We have the ability to build models based on supernatural causation

Impossible to build a causal model without known data.

that entail predictions that would not be consistent with purely naturalistic models.

Argument to incredulity.

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.

There is evidence for dark energy that can be measured.

The primitive people wrote quite specifically about many things, and the fact that what they wrote corresponds to what we understand today,

Except their writings are SO broad it could account for almost ANYTHING (and this excludes the issues of contradictions and false prophecies and down right offensive morality).

Look at Noah's flood. God had a reason for doing it. A local flood makes no logical sense. Why only kill THOSE people? As for Genesis, you explanations show the distance you can take the interpretation.

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.

I did, for 26 years. In fact, you will find (as studies show) non-believes tend to know more about the bible and religion that the believers. My knowledge of the bible plus me education is what allows me to see it as a religious text, not some divinely guided document.

[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.

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.

A statement without support may be refuted without support.

It's obvious that punctuated equilibrium is an evolutionary model:

Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology

[wiki] It was developed by paleontologist Niles Eldridge and evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould. It is based on, and is a variation on, the Theory of Evolution. No ToE, no punk eek.

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.

So you say. However, all the Biologists disagree with you.

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.

All of these are entirely consistent with and explained by ToE.

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....

You have a penchant for making claims without support, Sand Flea. But yes, my faith in science's ability to learn about the natural world is extremely strong. It is based on centuries of success. The whole point of this experiment is that the populations did change. They...(wait for it)...evolved.

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.

Sorry, you're mistaken. ToE is the foundational theory of all of modern Biology, completely central to understanding it.

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.

Once again you seem to confuse religion and science, atheism and evolution. Quite different things.

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.

I don't have a theology; I am more interested in things that actually exist.

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.

But ti doesn't conform to the text. It's not about my comfort; it's about reality. When you have to make "water" mean something other than H two O, you're not conforming with the text; you're distorting it.

btw, you can apply the same methodology to the noble quran and get the same delusional results, as thousands of Muslims do.

[nursebenjamin]

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.

Isnt punctuated equilibrium actually a form of gradualism? See this Wikipedia entry on common misconceptions of punctuated equilibrium.

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?

This isnt true. E. coli is unable to utilize citric acid; this is a defining characteristic of E. coli. The inability to grow on citrate acid is often used to identify of E. coli in a clinical setting.[1] In the Long Term Evolution Experiment, one of the twelve populations evolved the ability to utilize citrate acid. By definition, this would be a macro-evolutionary change.

Biologists don't really get hung up on the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution + time.

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

Those words werent written thousands of years ago; they were written yesterday by you. Genesis says something completely different.

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.

How is any of this a problem for evolution? If you wish to substantiate these claims, please do so with sources from the scientific literature and not with some creationists blog. If the ToE wasn't consistent with the evidence, then it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

[Starboard Tack]

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.

Isnt punctuated equilibrium actually a form of gradualism? See this Wikipedia entry on common misconceptions of punctuated equilibrium.

If you read this source you will note this: "Although there exist some debate over how long the punctuations last, supporters of punctuated equilibrium generally place the figure between 50,000 and 100,000 years." The whole point of PE is to explain why gradualism is not observed in the fossil record, so no, PE is not a form of gradualism. "Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology which proposes that most species will exhibit little net evolutionary change for most of their geological history, remaining in an extended state called stasis. When significant evolutionary change occurs, the theory proposes that it is generally restricted to rare and geologically rapid events of branching speciation called cladogenesis. Cladogenesis is the process by which a species splits into two distinct species, rather than one species gradually transforming into another."

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?

This isnt true. E. coli is unable to utilize citric acid; this is a defining characteristic of E. coli. The inability to grow on citrate acid is often used to identify of E. coli in a clinical setting.[1] In the Long Term Evolution Experiment, one of the twelve populations evolved the ability to utilize citrate acid. By definition, this would be a macro-evolutionary change.

No, macro evolutionary change is when new species emerge. With PE, the emergence is very quick in response to the kind of stress the test population was put under. However, the e coli in the LTEE are still e coli. By definition, micro evolution. Incidentally, e coli can metabollize citrate, it just can't pass it through the cell wall. That is the mutation that occurred. As a side note, the data from the LTEE is looking less and less like support for PE. The population was put under stress, a mutation occurred that allowed citrate to pass through the membrane, that population prospered. However, over time, that strain is now showing less fitness than the population that did not mutate. The idea of PE is that it is one way critters evolve, but the LTEE is indicating that at least in e coli, the punctuated change produced an equilibrium with reduced fitness relative to the original with the only changes being modest changes of an existing genome that remains the same species.

Biologists don't really get hung up on the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution + time.

One of the reasons why they don't get hung up on it is because macro evolution is not, nor has it ever been, seen. That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, but it's invisible. Kind of like God . The longer the LTEE goes on without speciation, the more it starts looking like a validation of intelligent design, if that is the only alternative available to evolutionary processes, which aren't occurring to produce anything other than variations within the same species, which remains e coli.

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

Those words werent written thousands of years ago; they were written yesterday by you. Genesis says something completely different.

The Bible says that "In the beginning..." I read that to mean there was a beginning. You read it to mean?

The Bible says that "God created the heavens and the earth". I read that to mean that the heavens and the earth (the universe) is what began. You read it to mean?

The Bible says that "God said Let there be light, and there was light". I read that to mean that electromagnetic radiation appeared suddenly. You read it to mean?

I could go on, but the point is that I am doing nothing other than reading the text and looking to see whether the text contradicts scientific understanding. It does not. It certainly could however. It just doesn't. I'll leave it to you to decide whether the fact that the words of Genesis, which align with scientific understanding of reality before that reality could be known means anything. Many choose to believe it does not, but that seems to me to require more faith than reason.

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.

How is any of this a problem for evolution? If you wish to substantiate these claims, please do so with sources from the scientific literature and not with some creationists blog. If the ToE wasn't consistent with the evidence, then it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

Mass speciation events are not predicted by neo-Darwinism. Punctuated Equilibrium says that entirely new species in the form of dramatic change will occur in response to intense environmental pressure that accelerates the natural selection process, as well as the mutation rate, or so it appears. The problem is that we can subject a population like the e coli in the LTEE and all we get is lower fitness change within the same old species.

If the number of problems that exist with evolution existed for Relativity theory, that theory would be in the junk heap decades ago. Not so for evolution for a very simple reason. If you can't explain how life comes about in the first place, nor how we happen to have had such diversity of life throughout history then there is no other naturalisitic theory to replace evolution and you are stuck with intelligent design. That is what William Schopf said, at least with respect to the origin of life - if replication first or metabolism first models can't work (and neither appear to), then you are left with intelligent design. I have no clue whether this is true or not. Perhaps some other theory will present itself. But based on the data we have at hand, and arguing to the best explanation, the ToE ain't it.

[Autodidact]

The whole point of PE is to explain why gradualism is not observed in the fossil record,

Correct. That's how science works. When the data doesn't support the theory, the theory gets changed.

so no, PE is not a form of gradualism. "Punctuated equilibrium (also called punctuated equilibria) is a theory in evolutionary biology

Stop there. PE is is a theory in evolutionary biology. It's an evolutionary theory. It is a modern variant of ToE. It's ToE. Get it?

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.

How is any of this a problem for evolution? If you wish to substantiate these claims, please do so with sources from the scientific literature and not with some creationists blog. If the ToE wasn't consistent with the evidence, then it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

Mass speciation events are not predicted by neo-Darwinism.

I don't know what you mean by "neo-Darwinism". The point is, PE is a type of evolutionary theory. You are aware that scientific theories change, right? What is not changed and not discarded is the core idea of ToE: populations change over time via descent with modification plus natural selection. Whether this change turns out to be uniform and gradual, or relatively sudden and sporadic, it's still evolution. The only difference is the rate of change, not the fundamental mechanism.

Punctuated Equilibrium says that entirely new species in the form of dramatic change will occur in response to intense environmental pressure that accelerates the natural selection process, as well as the mutation rate, or so it appears. The problem is that we can subject a population like the e coli in the LTEE and all we get is lower fitness change within the same old species.

So are you arguing that no new species ever come into existence? That every species now on earth has been here since the beginning of time?

If the number of problems that exist with evolution existed for Relativity theory, that theory would be in the junk heap decades ago

. What problems? So far you haven't named a single one.

Not so for evolution for a very simple reason. If you can't explain how life comes about in the first place, nor how we happen to have had such diversity of life throughout history then there is no other naturalisitic theory to replace evolution and you are stuck with intelligent design.

Boy, is this getting boring. I repeat, why do you continue to confuse abiogenesis with evolution? Is that you cannot grasp the distinction, or that you refuse to?

That is what William Schopf said, at least with respect to the origin of life - if replication first or metabolism first models can't work (and neither appear to), then you are left with intelligent design.

Please start a thread to discuss this interesting subject, one that, unlike evolution, is not yet solved.

I have no clue whether this is true or not. Perhaps some other theory will present itself. But based on the data we have at hand, and arguing to the best explanation, the ToE ain't it.

So apparently what you're saying is that there are no problems with ToE. Therefore you prefer to dishonestly point to all the problem with abiogenesis, because that problem is not yet solved.

It appears to me that if defending your position requires dishonesty, you are tacitly admitting that your position cannot be defended honestly.

btw, do you think all Biologists are idiots, or are they engaged in a vast conspiracy? How do you think modern Biology manages to continue to progress and prosper, when it's based on a theory that doesn't match the data? Why do you think Biologists continue to fail to notice that their foundational theory is false?

And, again--your hypothesis? How do we get all the different species? Is it Magical Poofing?

[nursebenjamin]

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.

Isnt punctuated equilibrium actually a form of gradualism? See this Wikipedia entry on common misconceptions of punctuated equilibrium.

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?

This isnt true. E. coli is unable to utilize citric acid; this is a defining characteristic of E. coli. The inability to grow on citrate acid is often used to identify of E. coli in a clinical setting.[1] In the Long Term Evolution Experiment, one of the twelve populations evolved the ability to utilize citrate acid. By definition, this would be a macro-evolutionary change.

Biologists don't really get hung up on the terms macro-evolution and micro-evolution. Macro-evolution is simply micro-evolution + time.

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

Those words werent written thousands of years ago; they were written yesterday by you. Genesis says something completely different.

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.

How is any of this a problem for evolution? If you wish to substantiate these claims, please do so with sources from the scientific literature and not with some creationists blog. If the ToE wasn't consistent with the evidence, then it wouldn't be a scientific theory.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 500#370500

[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

Really? Because what I said is nearly identical to your source.

My understanding of historical contingency is that evolution is contingent on the history of the critter evolving. Do you have a different understanding? Simon Morris tries to explain the preponderance of convergent designs, which he sees as not consistent with Gould's ideas as not as an outworking of evolution, as you do, but as a result of some "optimum body plan" that evolution tends towards. The point is that a very qualified biologist like Morris doesn't see standard evolutionary theory as explaining convergency, which is why he comes up with his idea of optimum body plans. I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you state it is.

We have the ability to detect God, or so say billions of believers over time.

appeal to popularity

We have the ability to build models based on supernatural causation

Impossible to build a causal model without known data.

I would offer the existence of the universe out of nothing and the sudden appearance and existence of life as known data.

that entail predictions that would not be consistent with purely naturalistic models.

Argument to incredulity.

Only if you have a priori prohibition on supernatural causation.

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.

There is evidence for dark energy that can be measured.

There is evidence for demonic possession and healing through prayer. The fact that you choose to dismiss the data without consideration does not invalidate it.

The primitive people wrote quite specifically about many things, and the fact that what they wrote corresponds to what we understand today,

Except their writings are SO broad it could account for almost ANYTHING (and this excludes the issues of contradictions and false prophecies and down right offensive morality).

The prediction that the universe had a beginning is pretty specific, isn't it? The statement that the universe is being stretched out as I write is pretty specific, isn't it? The statement that darkness is a substance with spatial location is pretty specific isn't it? By the way, I find that usually when people refer to offensive morality in the Bible it is because they don't understand what they are reading.

Look at Noah's flood. God had a reason for doing it. A local flood makes no logical sense. Why only kill THOSE people? As for Genesis, you explanations show the distance you can take the interpretation.

A local flood is consistent with Psalm 104 as well as a reasonable interpretation of the Hebrew used in Genesis. The Bible does not require a global flood to wipe out almost all of mankind, since mankind stayed put near their point of origin for many years, or so says science. Besides, what could God possibly have had against the Emperor Penguins?

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.

I did, for 26 years. In fact, you will find (as studies show) non-believes tend to know more about the bible and religion that the believers. My knowledge of the bible plus me education is what allows me to see it as a religious text, not some divinely guided document.

Well, that's nice. Not sure what you learned from your study, but how would I know?

Incidentally, I hereby withdraw my statement that the RNA world hypothesis is deader than Elvis. I had a chance to speak to a researcher and he said "no, it is still being actively pursued. It should be dead because of the number of problems that keep being added to as more is learned, but it is still being pursued." So, I was wrong, and you were right. It isn't deader than Elvis, it's just Elvis at the point when his body weight reached 325#.....

[Autodidact]

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,

No, that's what not Gould is saying. Convergent evolution does not mean "the same thing." It means analogous things. For example, birds and bats have wings. Their wings are not the same; they are different.

as well as Michigan State's Long Term Evolution Experiment, which "proved" Gould was correct.

In what way?

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

Really? Because what I said is nearly identical to your source. [/quote]

My understanding of historical contingency is that evolution is contingent on the history of the critter evolving.

I don't even know what this means. Critters don't evolve; populations do.

Do you have a different understanding? Simon Morris tries to explain the preponderance of convergent designs, which he sees as not consistent with Gould's ideas as not as an outworking of evolution, as you do, but as a result of some "optimum body plan" that evolution tends towards. The point is that a very qualified biologist like Morris doesn't see standard evolutionary theory as explaining convergency, which is why he comes up with his idea of optimum body plans. I don't think the issue is as clear cut as you state it is.

Are you trying to imply that Simon Morris (or Stephen Jay Gould) reject ToE? Over and over you confuse (or disguise) controversy within evolution with controversy over whether evolution is correct. Can you see the difference?

I would offer the existence of the universe out of nothing and the sudden appearance and existence of life as known data.

Of course, neither of these is known at all.

that entail predictions that would not be consistent with purely naturalistic models.

Argument to incredulity.

Only if you have a priori prohibition on supernatural causation.

No, only if you have trouble believing science.

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.

There is evidence for dark energy that can be measured.

There is evidence for demonic possession and healing through prayer. The fact that you choose to dismiss the data without consideration does not invalidate it.

actually, no. There is very strong evidence that prayer does not heal.

The primitive people wrote quite specifically about many things, and the fact that what they wrote corresponds to what we understand today,

Except their writings are SO broad it could account for almost ANYTHING (and this excludes the issues of contradictions and false prophecies and down right offensive morality).

The prediction that the universe had a beginning is pretty specific, isn't it?

No.

The statement that the universe is being stretched out as I write is pretty specific, isn't it

? No.

The statement that darkness is a substance with spatial location is pretty specific isn't it?

It doesn't state that.

By the way, I find that usually when people refer to offensive morality in the Bible it is because they don't understand what they are reading.

Yes, I'm sure when they read, "You may buy slaves," they think it means they may buy slaves. Poor them.