• This is a new section being rolled out to attract people interested in exploring the origins of the universe and the earth from a biblical perspective. Debate is encouraged and opposing viewpoints are welcome to post but certain rules must be followed. 1. No abusive tagging - if abusive tags are found - they will be deleted and disabled by the Admin team 2. No calling the biblical accounts a fable - fairy tale ect. This is a Christian site, so members that participate here must be respectful in their disagreement.

Dinosaurs are fake and leads to atheism!

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I am trying to get away from metaphorical language or what Divider called language of intelligence. The cellular signaling system has no intentional sender, so I am not using that language even though it is standard. So, no, no one is telling me anything. I am using my own judgment. I am trying not to just repeat what others say. You are the one parroting creationist apology.
It doesn't matter if there is and intelligent person sending a message. Message systems for the most part don't have an intelligent person directly sending a message. It is by definition a messaging system and therefore includes all the parts of a messaging system. Those parts include a sender, a transport system where noise may or may not be added, and a receiver. It doesn't matter how a message is sent it has to be sent in such a way that the message can properly be received. If there is too much noise when a message is transmitted the receiver must be able to either ignore the noise or reconstruct the message properly or catastrophic failure occurs.

This is the simplest explanation as to why the improvements we see today because of added noise will always break something to achieve their improvements. Thus making the overall system less fit.

I would guess about 80 % is functional for sure, another 5% is functional but we do not know the function. The remaining 15% is not functional currently but could become so but may never be.
You probably don't realize that you just gave away the farm. If 80%, and it's probably more, is functional then there is not enough room for improvements that can be made for a new function to develop. Realize that as the percentage of functionality goes up the chances of interaction with those functioning parts also goes up.
How do you understand the fact that every individual human has 70 to 200 mutations each?
That is entropy. How you cannot see that would prove my point boggles the mind.
You should realize that most mutations are neutral and make no significant difference but contribute to variability and are available to combine with other mutations. If the new attribute improves fecundity, there is a net increase, so there is no net loss.
But the experiments show that there is a net loss. Every. Single. Time.
 
Last edited:

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you mean recently functional in a fully developed human then I would say fifteen percent.
There is a great deal of functionality that is used in development and then no longer, but those sets of instructions are critical to making a viable fully functioning adult. Then there is a great deal of code that is either redundant or used during unusual times. And then there is code that we see is translated for some use that we currently have no clue about yet.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
There is a great deal of functionality that is used in development and then no longer, but those sets of instructions are critical to making a viable fully functioning adult. Then there is a great deal of code that is either redundant or used during unusual times. And then there is code that we see is translated for some use that we currently have no clue about yet.
This is true enough.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
It doesn't matter if there is and intelligent person sending a message.
Good, then you will have no problem believing the systematic process of natural selection can imbue information in genes. A bottom up process sends a message into the future.
This is the simplest explanation as to why the improvements we see today because of added noise will always break something to achieve their improvements. Thus making the overall system less fit.
Nope. Epigenetics now allow the system to focus despite the noise.
You probably don't realize that you just gave away the farm. If 80%, and it's probably more, is functional then there is not enough room for improvements that can be made for a new function to develop. Realize that as the percentage of functionality goes up the chances of interaction with those functioning parts also goes up.
15% or even less is plenty to support the gradual change we usually see, and even the leaps we see when there is an extinction event that opens up environmental niches.
That is entropy. How you cannot see that would prove my point boggles the mind.

But the experiments show that there is a net loss. Every. Single. Time.
The fact that we all have a number of mutations that are not harmful to the overall system speaks the viability of change on the population level. Mutations can hurt individuals but they do not harm populations. If you can understand this, you can start to find your way out of a self-imposed dead end.
 

Right Divider

Body part
Good, then you will have no problem believing the systematic process of natural selection can imbue information in genes.
Natural selection removes defects.
A bottom up process sends a message into the future.
Anti-science nonsense.
Nope. Epigenetics now allow the system to focus despite the noise.
Smoke screen.
15% or even less is plenty to support the gradual change we usually see, and even the leaps we see when there is an extinction event that opens up environmental niches.
We do not see mistakes making improvements. That's just a silly idea.
The fact that we all have a number of mutations that are not harmful to the overall system speaks the viability of change on the population level.
It's always entertaining when evolutionists talk about populations as if they are not made up of individuals.
Mutations can hurt individuals but they do not harm populations.
🙄
If you can understand this, you can start to find your way out of a self-imposed dead end.
Design does not come about by accumulating mistakes.
 
Last edited:

marke

Well-known member
Good, then you will have no problem believing the systematic process of natural selection can imbue information in genes. A bottom up process sends a message into the future.

Atheistic secularists claim what they refer to as 'natural selection' has the brains and power to create new genetic information into the genome, but that is definitely one claim they have never gotten even close to proving.
 

Yorzhik

Well-known member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
Good, then you will have no problem believing the systematic process of natural selection can imbue information in genes. A bottom up process sends a message into the future.
Except that's not what natural selection does. Imbuing information comes from the random mutation portion of 'random mutation + natural selection'

And that doesn't work. The only message sent to the future is the subset of information passed on by the ancestors with noise.
Nope. Epigenetics now allow the system to focus despite the noise.
Only magic could do that. Oh, I forgot, you think epigenetics is magic.

Sorry, epigenetics isn't magic, but it is largely not understood which makes it seem like magic, and makes it easy to pass on as magic by snake-oil salesmen.
15% or even less is plenty to support the gradual change we usually see, and even the leaps we see when there is an extinction event that opens up environmental niches.
15% isn't nearly enough. You still don't understand how systems, as they get more complicated, get more difficult to change and especially more difficult to improve. The problem isn't that there can be space to make changes, the problem is that the changes have to be integrated into systems that already only understand certain messages. It can be done, but it takes increasingly more intelligence and time to make it happen. With only 13 to 15 billion years worth of time (or has it gotten higher already?) there isn't nearly enough, and intelligence is verboten in your claims.
The fact that we all have a number of mutations that are not harmful to the overall system speaks the viability of change on the population level. Mutations can hurt individuals but they do not harm populations. If you can understand this, you can start to find your way out of a self-imposed dead end.
Sorry, entropy means the flesh of this world is at a dead end. If you can understand that you can start to find your way out of your mere flesh.

If a system is robust, it means it can take a lot of negative pressure and still work. But negative pressure never helps the system become more robust.

And stop with the nonsense that populations can transcend the individuals that comprise them. All changes have to start with an individual, and all changes are passed on to discreet individuals by its ancestor individual in order to create change in a population. This is why Haldane's Dilemma has no response against it.
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Except that's not what natural selection does. Imbuing information comes from the random mutation portion of 'random mutation + natural selection'
Of course both elements are integral. If the gene did not change it would not be passed to the next generation. If the change to the organism did not interface with the environment, it would not change fecundity ie, it would not systematically impact the allele frequency of the next generation.
And that doesn't work. The only message sent to the future is the subset of information passed on by the ancestors with noise.
Harmless noise can be passed or removed; but negative impact is removed.
Only magic could do that. Oh, I forgot, you think epigenetics is magic.
We have a better understanding of epigenetics than creationistic notions. Supernatural blinking of things into existence has no mechanism to explore, and has never been observed.
Sorry, epigenetics isn't magic, but it is largely not understood which makes it seem like magic, and makes it easy to pass on as magic by snake-oil salesmen.

Religion is the original fake news and a time-honored hucksterism. I have a bridge and 99 virgins to sell you.
Sorry, entropy means the flesh of this world is at a dead end. If you can understand that you can start to find your way out of your mere flesh.
Entropy only occurs in a closed system, and order within an overall matrix of entropy is readily understood by physicists.
If a system is robust, it means it can take a lot of negative pressure and still work. But negative pressure never helps the system become more robust.
Negative and positive pressure do their part.
And stop with the nonsense that populations can transcend the individuals that comprise them. All changes have to start with an individual, and all changes are passed on to discreet individuals by its ancestor individual in order to create change in a population. This is why Haldane's Dilemma has no response against it.
It is not nonsense and in fact it is easy to understand when you realize populations evolve not individuals. Each individual does its job as a mini-experiment on how well the environment can be used for survival and therefore reproduction potential on a particular subset of genes. Sex solved the dilemma. Recombination in a randomly mating sexual population, eliminates the accumulation of costs over multiple loci. Reproduction usually occurs high rates and allows for many dead ends.
 

marke

Well-known member
If you mean recently functional in a fully developed human then I would say fifteen percent.
How much junk DNA is really junk? What scientists once declared was junk is now known not to be junk at all. It is amazing how stupid scientists can be who imagine themselves experts on a subject that they know nothing yet as they ought to know.


Although very catchy, the term "junk DNA" repelled mainstream researchers from studying noncoding genetic material for many years. After all, who would like to dig through genomic garbage? Thankfully, though, there are some clochards who, at the risk of being ridiculed, explore unpopular territories. And it is because of them that in the early 1990s, the view of junk DNA, especially repetitive elements, began to change. In fact, more and more biologists now regard repetitive elements as genomic treasures. It appears that these transposable elements are not useless DNA. Instead, they interact with the surrounding genomic environment and increase the ability of the organism to evolve by serving as hot spots for genetic recombination and by providing new and important signals for regulating gene expression.
 

marke

Well-known member
Good, then you will have no problem believing the systematic process of natural selection can imbue information in genes. A bottom up process sends a message into the future.

'Natural selection' cannot add new information to the genome. That is nonsense. Mutations can alter existing information, but cannot create new information that would be needed for new species to develop through imagtinary Darwinian evolution.

https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/evidence-of-new-genetic-information/

As has been said many times on this site, duplications (see “Yeast Fails to Rise to Evolutionists’ Expectations” [PDF]) and mutations do not add new information to the genome. Duplications are the result of duplicating existing genetic information, and mutations alter existing genetic information (whether original or duplicated). Neither of them adds new information.
 

marke

Well-known member
Of course both elements are integral. If the gene did not change it would not be passed to the next generation. If the change to the organism did not interface with the environment, it would not change fecundity ie, it would not systematically impact the allele frequency of the next generation.

Harmless noise can be passed or removed; but negative impact is removed.

We have a better understanding of epigenetics than creationistic notions. Supernatural blinking of things into existence has no mechanism to explore, and has never been observed.


Religion is the original fake news and a time-honored hucksterism. I have a bridge and 99 virgins to sell you.

Entropy only occurs in a closed system, and order within an overall matrix of entropy is readily understood by physicists.

Negative and positive pressure do their part.

It is not nonsense and in fact it is easy to understand when you realize populations evolve not individuals. Each individual does its job as a mini-experiment on how well the environment can be used for survival and therefore reproduction potential on a particular subset of genes. Sex solved the dilemma. Recombination in a randomly mating sexual population, eliminates the accumulation of costs over multiple loci. Reproduction usually occurs high rates and allows for many dead ends.

Romans 1:21-23
King James Version

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.​

 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Entropy disprove evolution because it proves that life could never have gotten started by undirected natural processes.
Why do you put credence in the 2nd law of thermodynamics but not the first? No energy can be created or destroyed. If entropy disproves evolution, then the first law disproves creationism. HINT: both claims are stupid.
 

JudgeRightly

裁判官が正しく判断する
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Gold Subscriber
Why do you put credence in the 2nd law of thermodynamics but not the first?

Of course we put credence in both.

No energy can be created or destroyed.

Which only applies to things within the universe.

If entropy disproves evolution, then the first law disproves creationism. HINT: both claims are stupid.

The problem is that the first and second rules only apply to that which is natural, "inside" of nature (which includes the entire universe).

They do NOT apply to that which is SUPERnatural, something outside of the universe.

Such as the supernatural Creator, God.

The laws of the universe He created do not apply to Him, because He is the one who created them.
 

marke

Well-known member
Why do you put credence in the 2nd law of thermodynamics but not the first? No energy can be created or destroyed. If entropy disproves evolution, then the first law disproves creationism. HINT: both claims are stupid.
It is stupid to say the Creator God could not have created the universe and everything in it.
 

Clete

Truth Smacker
Silver Subscriber
Why do you put credence in the 2nd law of thermodynamics but not the first? No energy can be created or destroyed. If entropy disproves evolution, then the first law disproves creationism. HINT: both claims are stupid.
That might be the stupidest thing I've read in the last six months!

Just because we cannot create or destroy energy doesn't mean that the SUPER-NATURAL God can't do so! God isn't bound by the laws of physics!

DUH!
 

Skeeter

Well-known member
Of course we put credence in both.

Which only applies to things within the universe.

The problem is that the first and second rules only apply to that which is natural, "inside" of nature (which includes the entire universe).

They do NOT apply to that which is SUPERnatural, something outside of the universe.

Such as the supernatural Creator, God.

The laws of the universe He created do not apply to Him, because He is the one who created them.
Wow. So you get to believe something without evidence and require precise rigor on the other side. Convenient. Lazy.
 

Idolater

"Never believe anyone who is not cross-examined."
That there is a supernatural realm.
Whatever that means. Christian faith follows from the Resurrection of Christ. We identify as Christians not "those who believe in a 'supernatural realm'," whatever that means.
 
Top