Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
    What we have here is an appeal to ignorance and begging the question, i.e. "RNA is coded information and since all codes are created by a conscious mind, and there is no natural process that creates coded information, therefore the ability of squid to recode its own RNA is evidence of a Creator." It's just sloppy argumentation.
    Perhaps you'd like to quote where I have made that argument.

    You don't have a brain in this argument.
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
      Perhaps you'd like to quote where I have made that argument.

      You don't have a brain in this argument.
      Meanwhile, RNA recoding is still a necessarily purposed attribute that the squid possesses, proving problematic to the idea that the ability arose through random mutations and natural selection.
      This is question begging.


      Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

      It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

      I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.
      This is appeal to ignorance.
      "Auto correct has become my worst enema."

      Comment


      • Barbarian asks:
        If you like, I can show you a simple dice game that will give you an increase in fitness or stasis depending on the environment.

        Want to try it?

        Both of us can play games with dice where we set the rules to get the results we want.
        Only difference is, yours doesn't simulate reality. Mine starts with an unadapted population, and a specific environment. What happens is that random mutations in the genomes of the individual organisms change their fitness. (you've already said that this is observable)

        Then, the system evaluates the fitness of each organism, and only the most fit get to reproduce.

        What follows is a period of rapid change in the population, which gradually slows to stasis.

        Precisely what you claimed could not happen under such circumstances.

        Interestingly, if there is more than one niche open, the population tends to diverge into two populations, each fit for a specific environment.

        Again, precisely what we see in nature, but what creationism claims is impossible.



        Want to try it?
        This message is hidden because ...

        Comment


        • Stripe,

          Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA".
          "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

          Comment


          • And I'm still waiting for any creationist to tell us what they mean by "information" in terms of genetics. How are you defining and measuring it? Nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes? Something else?
            "The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous." --H.L. Mencken

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Barbarian

              Originally posted by 6days
              Both of us can play games with dice where we set the rules to get the results we want.
              Only difference is, yours doesn't simulate reality. Mine starts with an unadapted population, and a specific environment.
              Only difference is yours doesn't simulate reality. *Mine starts with no dice but i will be generous and give you some energy to create the dice.*

              I thought we were playing dice.... Anyways

              Originally posted by Barbarian
              What happens is that random mutations in the genomes of the individual organisms change their fitness. (you've already said that this is observable)
              Ok...yes, that is observable.
              Originally posted by Barbarian
              Then, the system evaluates the fitness of each organism, and only the most fit get to reproduce.
              That is not generally observable. Organisms often will adapt and become *'fit' to specific envioronments, but are often now less fit when the environment changes.*

              Also, it is observably false that only the most fit reproduce. It is observable that genetic problems are passed generation to generation causing an overall decline in fitness.
              Originally posted by Barbarian
              What follows is a period of rapid change in the population, which gradually slows to stasis.
              Precisely what you claimed could not happen under such circumstances.
              You should have read the peer reviewed article I linked to yesterday discussing that very thing.*

              Have your dice appeared yet?
              Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                Tell us what you believe and why you think it is true. Quit compartmentalizing.
                Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts, but when you can demonstrate that the doctrines of MAD or the Trinity can be verified in a lab through scientific analysis, I'll gladly quit compartmentalizing.

                The beliefs of YE creationism predate the advent of modern science. YE creationism is derived purely from religion, not from science. There is no way that a modern scientist who had never heard of the Bible could observe the earth and the visible physical universe and come to the conclusion that everything was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Alate_One

                  Originally posted by 6days

                  Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments.
                  The "program" called evolution, yeah.*

                  It is the answer to the problem of a finite genome. Mutation and selection gives a finite genome infinite possibilities. Stripe (and you apparently) want God to have pre-designed every possibility into every organism (so it sounds) but reality is far more amazing than that. Why can't you accept that?
                  You misrepresent our positions. ...perhaps to avoid answering the question which is...Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments? *As Christians ...shouldn't it be easy to answer *"yes to that? (No matter what our differences are about common ancestry / common Designer beliefs)
                  Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mocking You View Post
                    This is question begging.
                    Nope. Begging the question is where you assume the truth of your idea to generate evidence for your idea — like when evolutionists, when faced with the challenge, claimed that the squid's ability could have arisen by random mutations.

                    I haven't been presented with a challenge, therefore I have not presented evidence for anything, making it rather silly of you to accuse me of question begging.

                    This is appeal to ignorance.
                    Nope. It's a challenge to what you believe. If you cannot present a reasonable explanation for what you believe, I am justified in rejecting your ideas and sticking with what I believe.

                    You're not very good at this, are you?

                    Originally posted by User Name View Post
                    Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts.
                    Nope. Both are either true or not true. You've been sucked into a lie where everything must be compartmentalized. I prefer a wholistic worldview.

                    When you can demonstrate that the doctrines of MAD or the Trinity can be verified in a lab through scientific analysis, I'll gladly quit compartmentalizing.
                    Then you've damned yourself to forever live a schizophrenic existence; never able to affirm that a spiritual truth maps onto a physical reality.

                    The beliefs of YE creationism predate the advent of modern science.
                    Science is not "modern" or otherwise.

                    YE creationism is derived purely from religion, not from science.
                    Nope. It is based on scripture and upheld by the evidence. The benefits of a wholistic worldview.

                    There is really no way that a modern scientist who had never heard of the Bible could observe the earth and the visible physical universe and come to the conclusion that everything was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago.
                    Plenty of ways, in fact.
                    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
                    E≈mc2
                    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

                    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
                    -Bob B.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by User Name

                      Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts....
                      Modern science was founded by many who believed science was possible because God's Word is true.*

                      Science and scientists were created by God, so not mutually exclusive. When God's Word touches on areas of science, it is always correct.
                      Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                        It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.
                        Your argument doesn't seem to rely particularly on RNA-editing, but rather the existence of any RNA at all. This is hardly a new argument, one that we've personally been over; Your reasoning on the matter begins and ends at personal incredulity.

                        To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.
                        Is this not just another Watchmaker Argument?
                        > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                        "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by 6days View Post
                          Adaptation is a 'piller' of Biblical creation also.

                          Historically, Creationists have thought species immutable.
                          This view only began to change at the earliest until the 19th century.
                          > TheologyOnline's resident Agnostic Pantheist and self-proclaimed Science Advocate. Defeating pseudoscience at locations near you.


                          "I am but a student to all religions and an adherent of none."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by User Name View Post
                            Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts,...
                            I would disagree. I see them as opposite sides of the same coin. The bible deals with matters of why the Earth was created while science deals with the mechanics of how the Earth was created. God tells us why through scripture while our nature by virtue of being created in His image allows us to observe creation and learn about how God handled His creation.
                            Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version)

                            But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

                            What are my fruits today?

                            Cityboy With Horses A blog about what happens when you say, "I Promise"

                            "Moral standards" are a lot like lighthouses: they exist to help us stay on course as we sail through life. But we have to steer BY them, but not directly AT them. Lest we end up marooned on the shoals of perpetual self-righteousness.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              I did not contest what you said — apart from to call it pedantic.
                              It's an important distinction.

                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Where we find meaning conveyed through writing — in every example — we automatically assume an author without ever thinking about it.
                              That just isn't true. And it begs the question.

                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              It is only when evolutionary theory is challenged that there are suddenly demands that we prove text has an author.
                              That's entirely a product the context in which we find it. It would be difficult to explain how we could find painted letters on the side of a cave without some intelligent agent to put them there. But we have perfectly reasonable mechanisms for chemical messaging to happen, which we can actually observe in action.

                              Originally posted by Stripe View Post
                              Given the situation, I think it is up to you to prove the non-standard argument that there might be writing without an author.
                              You laid out a principle that isn't adopted by any of mainstream science. It's up to you to justify it. I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.
                              Global warming denialists are like gravity denialists piloting a helicopter, determined to prove a point. We may not have time to actually persuade them of their mistake.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Daedalean's_Sun View Post
                                Historically, Creationists have thought species immutable.
                                This view only began to change at the earliest until the 19th century.
                                So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?
                                Actually both have existed in some form for a couple thousand years.
                                Without Genesis, absolutely nothing makes sense in all of Scripture.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X