Why Evolution is real science - let's settle this "debate"!

[Lon]

Thanks for clarifying.

So if you don't believe God put the "genetic information" into pathogens that allows them to cause disease, do you have a view on how they did get there?

Let me ask first (need some information): Can a pathogen ever be good? Maybe I need to clarify my question: Can something that acts as a pathogen, have had a better reason for existing than 'harm' of another organism? I'm going back to my example: I have the 'strength' to kill another human being. If I follow your question, God gave me strength, yes, but not to abuse it. You may have to be a bit pedantic here (not just for me, but for all in the thread, and thank you ahead of time). Thanks.

Obviously at some point there were organisms that didn't have this "genetic information", and then at some later point there were. Where did that "genetic information" come from and how did it find its way into the genomes of various pathogens?

I'm listening, but 1) why "Obviously?" and 2)is it 'new' genetic information, or just a different way the same information is used?

 

[Stripe]

He's on my ignore list for adding absolutely nothing to a conversation but his own display of incredulity and ridicule.

He just isn't that interesting to engage on TOL, to me. He is simply too, 2-dimensional and not here to actually discuss anything (troll's troll)

:mock: Silent Munter.

:think:

I wish I was on his ignore list.

 

[Silent Hunter]

Upset? No. Just tired of your continuous misrepresentation of evolution. You've been corrected on this straw man too many times to count yet you continue to post it; why?

You mean you think the 'monkey' to man is dishonest rather than saying a monkey like primate? You don't like when being teased that you believe 'fish' evolved into philosophers??

Your "teasing" is dishonest and veiled ad hominems. Evolution is a rational explanation of the evidence. Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", should be invoked whenever possible to solve all the little inconveniences.

Your dishonesty is well known. You've been lectured on how to falsify evolution.

Awww... you almost hurt my feelings. I consider it a compliment (in a funny sort of way) when I get 'lectured' by those who believe in uphill evolution.

... said the guy who thinks, "Poof!!! - Goddidit!!!", is the best explanation for what he can't understand or explain.

Would you like to try or are you going to continue with your lies?

You can try refute what I said.....

Refute straw men? Seriously?

..... but it seems you are unable so resort to ad hominem.

Look who's talking.

Shall we discuss how evolutionists claim both good design... and bad design supports their beliefs?

Straw man. Evolution makes no such claims. You're equivocating how creationists use "design" with how "design" is used when describing the result of evolution.

IOW... the evidence does not matter, but it all that matters is trying to create explanations that shoehorn into the belief system.

If you think this is what evolution is perhaps you should objectively reexamine how creationism "works".

 

[6days]

Evolution is a rational explanation of the evidence.

An Intelligent Creator is the most rational explanation of the evidence.

Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", should be invoked whenever possible to solve all the little inconveniences.

That is your go-to strawman. You were challenged before numerous times to provide an example to back up your claim. You came up empty. Sophisticated coded complexity as in DNA is evidence of an intelligent Creator.

Straw man. Evolution makes no such claims.(That both good and bad design support evolutionist beliefs)

Hunter..... surely you know your statement is false. We see evolution being credited all the time for everything no matter how good or how bad they imagine the design to be. We see an organ like the appendix being used as evidence because it useless. Then when discovered it is functional, we see claims of evolutiondidit!.
Here is an example... I googled and here is first result .."The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..."https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

There you have it... clunky design... evolution did it
well performing...a marvel...evolution did it.
IOW... the data does not realy matter, because we can explain everything with 'evolutiondidit!'
And, btw, this article is wrong with ther clunky comment. That was old beliefs. Modern science has revealed an optimal fibre optic type design.

 

[The Barbarian]

:rotfl:
You think the loss of energy involved in converting hydrogen and oxygen gasses into water is not entropy?

There's no loss of energy. There's an increase in thermal energy. You didn't know that?

Try converting chaos into order in any system without adding any energy to the system.

Let's take a look at that...

In a gas, (for example water vapor), the molecules are bouncing around in a highly chaotic manner. If you remove some thermal energy, they condense into water, but the molecules are still disordered. If you remove enough energy, the molecules form highly ordered arrays.

Does this suggest to you that you don't really understand entropy? It should.

 

[The Barbarian]

Try and keep up.....that's exactly my point. As long as there is available energy, localized decreases in entropy are possible.

GO doesn't realize that he's telling us that evolution would cease if there were no energy inputs from outside the system, and will continue as long as the sun shines (or other energy inputs happen).

 

[The Barbarian]

Let's take an obvious example....the parasite that causes malaria, a disease that has killed millions upon millions upon millions of humans. Here is the life cycle of the parasite:

Pretty complex, right? Now, if we assume the creationists' argument that evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate complexity, and complexity only comes from "intelligence" (which to most creationists means God), what obvious conclusion must we reach under those parameters?

You realize that it's blasphemous to say God designed this? And yes, there are creationists who claim that God did it to punish living things after Adam and Eve disobeyed Him.

Or alternately, they argue that this remarkably fine-tuned system just happened after the fall.

And yet, they argue that God isn't capable of producing a universe in which such remarkable systems happen.

 

[The Barbarian]

Evolution is the idea that all life is descended from a common ancestor by means of random mutations and natural selection. This is what the debate is over.

Stipe knows that evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But he knows that's already a demonstrated fact. So he wants to redefine the term to be one of the consequences of evolution, common descent.

And since a lot of creationists now admit that evolution, as scientists describe it, is a fact, he's focusing on something he hopes will not be demonstrated. The idea is to find something that can't be tested. This is typical of creationists: They do not want their ideas put to the test, so they define the debate out of existence. Hence Stipe's attempt to redefine evolution.

Unfortunately, his ploy falls apart when the evidence is examined. Darwin's theory implies common descent, and this prediction produces a number of testable claims:

1. at some point, there must have been transitionals between:
a. dinosaurs and birds
b. ungulates and whales
c. humans and other primates
d. salamanders and frogs
e. fish and tetrapods

2. dinosaurs and birds should be more closely related in biochemistry than dinosaurs and lizards

3. DNA testing should provide the same phylogenies as produced hundreds of years ago by men who didn't know about evolution.

4. Homobox genes should show these phylogenies

(long list continues)

All of these predictions and more have been confirmed.

Stipe is watching his new belief slowly crumbling before his eyes.

 

[Jose Fly]

Is this another question like your microsatellite question? You don't understand, but when you are presented with evidence you claim you knew it all along?

Lets suppose a mutation destroys specificity for an enzyme in bacteria. Enzymes are generally tuned to a specific substrate. The enzyme now has lost, or has reduced function. It might be new info... but certainly not a gain of specified complex information. (The LOSS of information might bestow a benefit...which in bacteria may be a designed response since we need good bacteria)

It's a pretty straightforward question, but I know you have trouble with those so let's try again....

You've argued that evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate or add "genetic information".

You've argued that only "intelligence", i.e., God, can produce "genetic information".

Pathogens, parasites, and pests require significant amounts of "genetic information" to live out their complex life cycles, infect, and cause death and suffering. For example, the plasmodium parasite that causes malaria...

If your argument is correct and only God can produce "genetic information", doesn't that therefore mean you must believe God specifically and deliberately created the "genetic information" that's necessary for plasmodium to live out its complex life cycle and cause malaria?

BTW, this has nothing to do with "loss of specificity" (unless you want to argue that plasmodium used to infect lots of different organisms and later through loss of specificity came to only infect humans).

 

[Greg Jennings]

You realize that it's blasphemous to say God designed this? And yes, there are creationists who claim that God did it to punish living things after Adam and Eve disobeyed Him.

Or alternately, they argue that this remarkably fine-tuned system just happened after the fall.

And yet, they argue that God isn't capable of producing a universe in which such remarkable systems happen.

Gonna play devil's advocate here:

I don't think pathogen design is evidence of a cruel creator. His love can't extend without bounds. Not everybody and everything can live forever. Death is a necessity for new life to grow.

Pathogens tend to eliminate older and weaker people, sometimes causing great suffering, but for the whole of the population this is not just mercy but love. Bc pathogens kill, our planet continues to thrive.

Humans are vastly overpopulated already. Imagine how we'd ruin His creation if we had no checks

 

[Jose Fly]

Let me ask first (need some information): Can a pathogen ever be good? Maybe I need to clarify my question: Can something that acts as a pathogen, have had a better reason for existing than 'harm' of another organism? I'm going back to my example: I have the 'strength' to kill another human being. If I follow your question, God gave me strength, yes, but not to abuse it. You may have to be a bit pedantic here (not just for me, but for all in the thread, and thank you ahead of time). Thanks.


I'm listening, but 1) why "Obviously?" and 2)is it 'new' genetic information, or just a different way the same information is used?

Well Lon, you've put waaaaaaay more effort into dodging this very basic question that it would have taken to just give a staightforward answer. And as a result, I've pretty much lost interest in chasing you around further, trying to get an answer out of you.

So at this point, I'll just thank you for your time.

 

[Jose Fly]

GO doesn't realize that he's telling us that evolution would cease if there were no energy inputs from outside the system, and will continue as long as the sun shines (or other energy inputs happen).

I think he's just in Monty Python argument clinic mode, and is automatically disagreeing with everything I say, even when he contradicts himself. Plus, he doesn't understand the subject matter very well, which doesn't help.

 

[Jose Fly]

You realize that it's blasphemous to say God designed this?

And therein lies the conundrum. If evolution can't do it, then God must have. But obviously several of the creationists here don't want to admit it, so they dance, dodge, and evade, hoping the issue will just go away and they won't have to think about it any more.

And yes, there are creationists who claim that God did it to punish living things after Adam and Eve disobeyed Him.

Yep. A few creationists here have expressed that belief.

Or alternately, they argue that this remarkably fine-tuned system just happened after the fall.

And yet, they argue that God isn't capable of producing a universe in which such remarkable systems happen.

Well there ya go.....

 

[6days]

You've argued that evolutionary mechanisms cannot generate or add "genetic information".

False... and a strawman. If you wish me to respond to something that I actually said... then quote it.

You've argued that only "intelligence", i.e., God, can produce "genetic information".

Instead of trying to frame (or twist) a conversation in way you wish, why not post a quote?

If your argument is correct and only God can produce "genetic information"

That wasn't my argument... it wasn't what I said. Why not quote what was actually said, instead of creating strawmen?

 

[6days]

G
Pathogens tend to eliminate older and weaker people, sometimes causing great suffering, but for the whole of the population this is not just mercy but love. ...

Scripture shows us God created a perfect creation. Pain, suffering and death exist because creation was corrupted due to mans sin. IOW. suffering is not mercy.

We look forward to a time when "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."Rev. 21:4

 

[6days]

Stripe knows that evolution is a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But he knows that's already a demonstrated fact.

Of course... Stripe agrees with science!

And since a lot of creationists now admit that evolution

Wait... You just described 'evolution' as a change in allele frequency.... Now you swivel / equivocate to the word meaning something different.

Your beliefs that bacteria can evolve into biologists is NOT science.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Scripture shows us God created a perfect creation. Pain, suffering and death exist because creation was corrupted due to mans sin. IOW. suffering is not mercy.

We look forward to a time when "He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death' or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away."Rev. 21:4

And reality shows us how silly that is. Death and suffering indeed are mercy, for without them how could we have children? I would like an answer to that question, please. How could we go forth and prosper, as God Himself commanded, if nobody ever died and the world was packed to the brim with overpopulation?? We've added 6 billion people in the last 200 years WITH death and suffering in existence.

I believe you've been asked to explain why God designed the malaria parasite? Have you done so?

 

[Silent Hunter]

Evolution is a rational explanation of the evidence.

An Intelligent Creator is the most rational explanation of the evidence.

You creationists are a peculiar lot. In one breath you call, "Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", should be invoked whenever possible to solve all the little inconveniences", a straw man then say, "Goddidit!!! is the most rational explanation". Why? "Because life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", solves all the little inconveniences". :kookoo:

Creationism is the deity-of-the-gaps "explanation", it basically says life is too complex and, "Goddidit!!!", should be invoked whenever possible to solve all the little inconveniences.

That is your go-to strawman.

6days, you wouldn't know a straw man if you made one up yourself... oh, wait...

You were challenged before numerous times to provide an example to back up your claim. You came up empty.

Provide an example of what, you invoking, "Goddidit"? Creationists, you in particular, take every opportunity to yell, "Goddidit!!!", I long ago provided examples of specific quotes you, yourself, made and what happened? You disappeared. Now, I expect, you're going to pull a Stripe and say, "Show me", after my post(s) have long since been buried, no?

Sophisticated coded complexity as in DNA is evidence of an intelligent Creator.

Well, why am I not surprised, "Goddidit!!!", didn't take longer for you to invoke?

Shall we discuss how evolutionists claim both good design... and bad design supports their beliefs?

Straw man. Evolution makes no such claims. You're equivocating how creationists use "design" with how "design" is used when describing the result of evolution.

Hunter..... surely you know your statement is false.

Quote mine much? I wonder why you decided to omit the bolded sentence :think:. Does it negate your objection?

We see evolution being credited all the time for everything no matter how good or how bad they imagine the design to be. We see an organ like the appendix being used as evidence because it useless. Then when discovered it is functional, we see claims of evolutiondidit!.
Here is an example... I googled and here is first result .."The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..."https://thehumanevolutionblog.com/2015/01/12/the-poor-design-of-the-human-eye/

There you have it... clunky design... evolution did it
well performing...a marvel...evolution did it.
IOW... the data does not really matter, because we can explain everything with 'evolutiondidit!'
And, btw, this article is wrong with their clunky comment. That was old beliefs. Modern science has revealed an optimal fibre optic type design.

Did you ACTUALLY READ the article you cited/linked? No? I thought not. All you did was scan through the FIRST paragraph, find something to quote-mine, then claim the article says something it doesn't.

6days quote-mine: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel,..."

What the article ACTUALLY says: "The human eye is a well-tread example of how evolution can produce a clunky design even when the result is a well-performing anatomical product. The human eye is indeed a marvel but if it were to be designed from scratch, it’s hard to imagine it would look anything like it does."

The article also says: "Before I discuss the puzzling physical design of the eye, let’s start off by making one thing clear: the human eye is fraught with functional problems as well... myopia... hyperopia and presbyopia... glaucoma... cataracts... color blindness".

and...

"Compare this to the excellent vision of most birds, especially birds of prey, such as eagles and condors. Their visual acuity at great distances puts even the best human eyes to shame."

as well as other examples of the inadequacies of the human eye...

6days, your record of dishonesty is long and disgusting.

 

[Jose Fly]

False... and a strawman. If you wish me to respond to something that I actually said... then quote it.
Instead of trying to frame (or twist) a conversation in way you wish, why not post a quote?That wasn't my argument... it wasn't what I said. Why not quote what was actually said, instead of creating strawmen?

Wait....so now you're saying that evolutionary mechanisms can indeed generate and add "genetic information"?

 

[Jose Fly]

When I characterized the arguments of [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] as 1) evolution cannot generate or add "genetic information", and 2) "genetic information" only comes from "intelligence", he accused me of presenting a straw man and "twisting" what he'd said. So let's take a look....

6days: "information (coded info as in my examples, that require action) always have an Intelligent Creator"

6days: "All "non-intelligent sources" that contain information that is sent/ received and requires action ALWAYS HAS AN INTELLIGENT DESIGNER! Our DNA... the most sophisticated information system in existence is evidence of our Creator. "In the beginning, God...""

6days: "genetist J. Sandford who did work with plants and intentional mutations said that he is not aware of one single mutation that clearly showed a increase of complex specified instructions."

And just because 6days and Stripe always act like they're in total agreement...

Stripe: "Random changes can never produce information"

Stripe: "Information only comes from an informed source"

So again [MENTION=15431]6days[/MENTION] if it's as you say and "information always has an intelligent creator", what intelligent creator created the information for the plasmodium life cycle?