Creation vs. Evolution

[noguru]

Gravity affects "information" from a gene pool? Who knew?

No, it does not. Look at post #2995 if you want a clarification of what is really happening in regard to genetic variation, biodiversity, the first and second law of thermodynamics.

 

[alwight]

Nope, I click the link and get a NY times page saying:

"Page Not Found

We're sorry; we seem to have lost this page,
but we don't want to lose you."

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/18/s...tresses-landmark-theory-of-big-bang.html?_r=0

(Mainly for my own future reference )

 

[DFT_Dave]

As you say... There is no such thing as a simple cell. Advances in microbiology have shown the incomprehensible complexity of the living cell. A few years ago, scientists decided to try simulate one of the smallest known genomes of any organism (525 gene). The scientists had "a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes."
http://www.theatlantic.com/technolo...e-in-the-world-you-need-128-computers/260198/
Interestingly, the article unwittingly suggests an Intelligent Designer may be responsible... "Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total.

Also... Re "simple cells"... Have you seen some of the animations done by Harvard university, or Oasis, or others of the 'manufacturing city' within a cell. They are awesome evidence of the Creator

Yes, the first cell itself cannot have come about by accident/chance/randomness, etc., because it's filled with lots of information/organization/order, etc.

It's the diversity and adaptation within the gene pool of types/families that evolutionists think they can build their case for evolution. But clearly that's also impossible as well as untestable and unverifiable.

Isn't it funny to hear them keep talking about the "vast" amount of evidence that supports ToE but when we asked them to show us they attack Genesis instead. Six days, you have painted a bull's eye on yourself. Personally I've always wondered why it took God so long.

--Dave

 

[alwight]

You are having difficulty separating facts from evolutionary speculations. The article is about bacteria that have antibiotic resistance long before modern antibiotic medicine. That is what the evidence indicates.

You picked up on a speculative line from the article talking about evolutionary pathways.... There is no evidence of that. That is part of the belief system of evolutionists We know bacteria have anti-biotic resistance long before antibiotic drugs were created.

There is ZERO evidence of any evolutionary past... it is only beliefs

I pointed out that bacteria evidentially have had billions of years to reach a high level of sophistication and an arsenal of genetic information that we have probably only scratched the surface of over the last 70 years. While 4 million years is by comparison perhaps a mere drop in the ocean for the likely bacterial evolutionary timescales.
Without evidence of any supernatural involvement you have no naturalistic reason at all to presuppose that all of that hasn't evolved quite naturally over billions of years, other than perhaps your blind faith in an ancient scripture, but least of all from your link.

 

[noguru]

Isn't it funny to hear them keep talking about the "vast" amount of evidence that supports ToE but when we asked them to show us they attack Genesis instead. Six days, you have painted a bull's eye on yourself. Personally I've always wondered why it took God so long.

--Dave

You have been shown the evidence. And when confronted with the evidence, you claim "It supports my interpretation of Genesis" (take note that I do not do that - I honestly and courageously admit what the empirical evidence suggests). So you guys are the ones opening up Genesis (your interpretation especially) for scientific scrutiny from atheists.

But I do not expect you to be mature enough to honestly and courageously face reality this time either.

 

[DFT_Dave]

You continue to conflate information entropy with the laws governing thermodynamics and thermodynamic energy. There is no general principle governing the wearing out and dissipation of information. Information doesn't behave like heat.

It is your belief that information entropy is the same as information entropy that has lead to your erronious belief that all the info in a genome must have arrived at once. But it is fantasy physics. Come on Dave, what is your definition of information! You seem to be mixing up different definitions of information even. Can you be precise, please?

DNA is information that's why it's called the genetic code--a system for communication, an aspect of intelligence. A mutation is a break down or misalignment of information because there is movement in replication of physical elements that are subject to entropy.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Gravity affects "information" from a gene pool? Who knew?

Entropy effects cell information, moron.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Entropy effects cell information, moron.

--Dave

There is no evidence that this is the case. I have addressed your misrepresentation in post #2995.

 

[noguru]

DNA is information that's why it's called the genetic code--a system for communication, an aspect of intelligence. A mutation is a break down or misalignment of information because there is movement in replication of physical elements that are subject to entropy.

--Dave

Ah I see. Since you are incapable of grasping the complex details here, you have now decided to boil this all down into overly simplistic misdirection and misrepresentations.

Mutations are "copying errors". They are such because if all copies were exact then no genetic variation would occur. If no genetic variation cannot occur, how do you propose adaption could happen?

I have thoroughly and clearly addressed your misrepresentation of entropy in the context of SLoT in post #2995. But I posted it down below, again, for those who are interested, because you seem to have ignored it.

 

[noguru]

I didn't say information was effected by gravity, it's effected by entropy, a break down not a building up, as an analogy.

--Dave

Entropy (as in SLoT) is not a "breakdown" as you say. It is energy/heat reaching equilibrium throughout a closed system. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about in regard to the natural world.

The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium— a state depending on the maximum entropy.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is why I brought up how it inversely mirrors what we also see in biodiversity as a whole. Concentrated energy tends to dissipate within a closed system until an equilibrium is reached. Biodiversity tends to increase until an equilibrium is reached. That level (equilibrium) of biodiversity is directly related to climatic stability within a range that can accommodate life.

The rate of genetic variation is not effected by SLoT, because the FLoT allows biological organisms the required energy for this variation. Because of the first law of thermodynamics, energy passing through a differential can cause an increase in the concentration of energy/heat in local areas.

You see Dave you actually have to honestly look at all the evidence and courageously consider what all of it is suggesting.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Entropy (as in SLoT) is not a "breakdown" as you say. It is energy/heat reaching equilibrium throughout a closed system. You don't have the slightest clue what you are talking about in regard to the natural world.

Second Law of Thermodynamics.

This is why I brought up how it inversely mirrors what we also see in biodiversity as a whole. Concentrated energy tends to dissipate within a closed system until an equilibrium is reached. Biodiversity tends to increase until an equilibrium is reached. That level (equilibrium) of biodiversity is directly related to climatic stability within a range that can accommodate life.

The rate of genetic variation is not effected by SLoT, because the FLoT allows biological organisms the required energy for this variation. Because of the first law of thermodynamics, energy passing through a differential can cause an increase in the concentration of energy/heat in local areas.

You see Dave you actually have to honestly look at the evidence and courageously consider what it is suggesting.

Cells are "matter" and there is movement within cells, replication is movement. Heat is transferred, all physical bodies eventual grow old because cells no longer can replicate properly, sequences can no longer be maintained.

How else do you explain death? Cells die.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Evidence for good animation maybe. Wait, maybe that is why you think man and dinosaurs coexisted---The Flintstones??

What is the TV series Cosmos if not animation?

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Cells are "matter" and there is movement within cells, replication is movement. Heat is transferred, all physical bodies eventual grow old because cells no longer can replicate properly, sequences can no long be maintained.

How else do you explain death? Cells die.

--Dave

Cells die all the time in a multi-celled living organism, but are replaced by new ones throughout the life of that individual organism. Many generations of new cells are the reality in most multi-celled individual biological organisms. But there is a type of "genetic memory" in regard to how old an individual organism is. The DNA starts to lose its ability to reproduce (with integrity and vigor) within that individual organism.

Growing old does seem to be SLoT winning out over FLoT + a differential in the end. But that does not change the fact that FLoT + a differential can cause localized increases of energy. This is perhaps why reproduction was a necessary component of life, if it were to continue. Genetic information seems to carry its own memory (within an individual organism) of how old it is. Older genetic information (within an individual) loses its ability for the integrity of that information. It seems to need a new birth to renew that integrity.

I have experienced this with horticulture work in the past. I can clone some plants to about 3 or 4 times (cloning generations). After that the DNA loses its integrity, and I am forced to start with seeds again.

 

[alwight]

Yes, the first cell itself cannot have come about by accident/chance/randomness, etc., because it's filled with lots of information/organization/order, etc.

That's just an argument from incredulity Dave. But it is also a red herring because the first self replicating "whatever-it-was" can be rationally backwardly projected to have existed simply because of all the hard and testable evidence of evolution that exists, however it actually came about.
Declaring that the first "whatever-it-was" was far too complex to have ever come about naturally is wrong imo but still something you are quite rationally entitled to believe afaic, but it doesn't change the reality that it surely did nevertheless exist, however it came about. The origin of life itself is a separate issue to Darwinian evolution.

However considering this topic also concerns creation as well as evolution it seems to me that your entire argument is that because the first "whatever-it-was" must have been too complex to have come about naturally therefore it must have been supernatural?
If so then that seems a pretty flimsy evidence-free conclusion to arrive at to me Dave, and probably only based on the conclusion you wanted to arrive at anyway while it is not even an argument against the ToE.

 

[noguru]

What is the TV series Cosmos if not animation?

--Dave

One is animation based on real evidence (all of the relevant data), while the other is a fantasy world which does not make the effort of being accurately tied to evidence. I will leave it up to the reader to decide which is which. It is a good test of character.

 

[alwight]

Isn't it funny to hear them keep talking about the "vast" amount of evidence that supports ToE but when we asked them to show us they attack Genesis instead. Six days, you have painted a bull's eye on yourself. Personally I've always wondered why it took God so long.

--Dave

Utter nonsense Dave, you are constantly being shown evidence even though it's clearly a waste of time in your case, while it can also be found anywhere from reputable scientific sources, not that you want to look. The truth is that you don't want to see all the evidence and choose instead to see it as simply an attack on your precious ancient scripture simply because the ToE tends to suggest that something else might be the literal truth.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Ah I see. Since you are incapable of grasping the complex details here, you have now decided to boil this all down into overly simplistic misdirection and misrepresentations.

Mutations are "copying errors". They are such because if all copies were exact then no genetic variation would occur. If no genetic variation cannot occur, how do you propose adaption could happen?

I have thoroughly and clearly addressed your misrepresentation of entropy in the context of SLoT in post #2995. But I posted it down below, again, for those who are interested, because you seem to have ignored it.

Variation has always been there, created, the gene pool is not the result of a series of mutations.

Evolution was believed to be caused by environment. The neck of a giraffe became longer as the branches on trees became harder to reach as trees grew taller.

Today we say mutations, not caused by environment, gave some giraffes longer necks than others and that mutated gene became dominate as short necked giraffes died out and became extinct.

But what causes a misalignment in the genetic code over time?

What has effected the cell that it changes?

Are there causeless changes in nature?

There must be a cause for a change in a cell. Cells naturally die. Why?

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Cells die all the time in a multi-celled living organism, but are replaced by new ones throughout the life of that individual organism. Many generations of new cells are the reality in most multi-celled individual biological organisms. But there is a type of "genetic memory" in regard to how old an individual organism is. The DNA starts to lose its ability to reproduce (with integrity and vigor) within that individual organism.

Growing old does seem to be SLoT winning out over FLoT + a differential in the end. But that does not change the fact that FLoT + a differential can cause localized increases of energy. This is perhaps why reproduction was a necessary component of life, if it were to continue. Genetic information seems to carry its own memory (within an individual organism) of how old it is. Older genetic information (within an individual) loses its ability for the integrity of that information. It seems to need a new birth to renew that integrity.

I have experienced this with horticulture work in the past. I can clone some plants to about 3 or 4 times (cloning generations). After that the DNA loses its integrity, and I am forced to start with seeds again.

Thank you for your explanation of "entropy".

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

That's just an argument from incredulity Dave. But it is also a red herring because the first self replicating "whatever-it-was" can be rationally backwardly projected to have existed simply because of all the hard and testable evidence of evolution that exists, however it actually came about.
Declaring that the first "whatever-it-was" was far too complex to have ever come about naturally is wrong imo but still something you are quite rationally entitled to believe afaic, but it doesn't change the reality that it surely did nevertheless exist, however it came about. The origin of life itself is a separate issue to Darwinian evolution.

However considering this topic also concerns creation as well as evolution it seems to me that your entire argument is that because the first "whatever-it-was" must have been too complex to have come about naturally therefore it must have been supernatural?
If so then that seems a pretty flimsy evidence-free conclusion to arrive at to me Dave, and probably only based on the conclusion you wanted to arrive at anyway while it is not even an argument against the ToE.

An eternal super-natural is the cause of a temporal-natural would be logical.

--Dave

 

[noguru]

Variation has always been there, created,

Perhaps as a potential of the universe. But in order for it to be manifest in the physical, it must, well, become manifest in the physical.

the gene pool is not the result of a series of mutations.

The evidence we have from genetics and historical evidence from breeding populations suggests that it is. Despite your unsubstantiated protests.

Evolution was believed to be caused by environment. The neck of a giraffe became longer as the branches on trees became harder to reach as trees grew taller.

That was Lamarckian evolution. We have covered this many times Dave, yet you continue to resurrect this misrepresentation of the modern synthesis. You need to learn to be more precise in these matters and differentiate the various ideas and nuances of science.

Today we say mutations, not caused by environment, gave some giraffes longer necks than others and that mutated gene became dominate as short necked giraffes died out and became extinct.

The evidence we have suggests that mutation rates can be increased by environmental factors. Again as I have explained the rate (quantity) of genetic variation is not random, though the characteristics (quality) of these genetic variations do seem to be random.

But what causes a misalignment in the genetic code over time?

Various factors. You might want to consult a geneticist if you are sincerely interested. One of my good friends is a world renowned geneticist (PHD). I can ask him if he would help you get a better understanding of the details of this.

What has effected the cell that it changes?

Again there are various factors involved. Would you like a detailed breakdown? Would it help your understanding? Would you let it?

Are there causeless changes in nature?

Yes, everything seems to have a cause. Even things that seem "random" have a cause. But the vast amount of variables and/or unknowns makes an accurate prediction highly unlikely if not impossible, so we label it "random".

There must be a cause for a change in a cell. Cells naturally die. Why?

--Dave

Are you trying to insert your "scientific" idea of original sin here (which is from your interpretation of Genesis)?