We humans evaluate based on our experience. Our experience shows us man-made and natural structures. Man-made are, by definition, designed, unless one think that we humans would be unconsciously designing. Natural structures can be judged only from within the framework of our own experience.
We do not design planets, stars, and dark matter. Those are not within our experience. Does that mean that there is design or no design? Inconclusive, unless there be a law of the universe which would say that the universe be evaluated solely from within the framework of our current experience.
Can it be said that the universe is fundamentally chaotic and, therefore, not a product of design? That would be possible, but not probable, because the universe could be the product of a more complex design than what we perceive. Given that man-made design becomes ever-more complex with time, we should concede the possibility that the universe might be of a complex design which we have yet to perceive.
The reason "design" is such a hated word among the evolutionist crowd is because design by its very defintion implies...purpose or goal oriented creation....and only a mind could provide that.
Design by accident is an oxymoron. Phil johnson is right when he chides Dawkins for agreeing that the universe at least "appears" to be designed....but is not according to Dawkins. Apparently appearance canot be used for impirical evdidence. Now...for sure...appearances can be and often are deceiving....but it would seem that any judicious sceintist would at least begin with the theory that is was designed since everything in nature APPEARS to be.
We do HAVE to examine every molecule in the universe to know that none it could be here unless it was caused to be here. It it was caused...the someTHING did the deed. Not wanting to call that "thing" God is simply childish temper tantrum on our part
UofP. lol. But what makes a universe look designed or natural?
vic,
You are probably talking about The Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins said biology studies things that appear designed but aren't. He was talking about life not the universe. He was talking about first appearances not what is apparent after study. Yes: Design by accident is an oxymoron. But what about adaptation by natural selection?
You are assuming that the adaptation BEGINS with some kind of "selection".....but how can any selection (no matter what is driving it) be made ...unless the desired traits are already in existence to be selected from????
Natural selection is most certainly a bonefide biologic phenomenon ......but it is really nothing more than environmental pressures limiting or favoring an expression of traits...WHICH HAVE TO ALREADY BE IN EXISTENCE in order to be selected. Why is this so hard to see as a design feature in and of itself???
You didn't mention muations so i wont open that can of worms except to say that they can't really cause any long term beneficial change either. So...whats left that could have been responsible for bringing into existence something like the human hand...or eye....or beings capable of being thrilled by their first kiss?
I get into discussions w/ folks who hold these same kinds of beliefs and it blows my mind. They are basically saying that everything comes from an unintelligent,non-designed, random origin. To which I pose the question, "If that is true, then everything that happens -including the actions of man- is merely an extension of that randomness. Hence, even your beliefs are just a "natural" occurrence that has no meaning or even a connection to reality as we can not know what "reality" even is. Apart from our own,chemically induced, "opinion" of it that is."
The consistent (see: honest) ones will admit that yes, life has no meaning in that context. Others, not so much. It's sad, that poor guy in "Expelled" who came to this inevitable conclusion and lost all of his verve for life when all he had to do was turn to Christ.
Well...I suppose you could say that is another one of those "appearances" conundrums.In some ways i suppose you certainly could correlate evolution with magic. They both certainly make bold claims for what is real. Thank God for logic and true science though, eh?
This thread seems to be mutating but, not exactly sure, to what "benefit". (sorry. lame joke, i know.)
Try this, Joe: before there was life (to hold true to "scientific theory") there was no "survival instinct". Given that, does it not seem ever more improbable that life could have gained a foothold "on its own" in the first place? Put simply, life would have had to keep on "trying to exist" after untold failed "attempts" until it finally "got it right". You see how absurd that is? First, you have the astronomical improbability of life "succeeding" in the first place and then it has to go through an even more unlikely process of "trial and error".
Or are you of the belief that the first life forms were incredibly simple and, therefore, able to survive on "the first try"? Well, seeing as how we can't "reduce" life as we know it down to such a thing, that would make that "first life" unrelated to current life making that whole argument mute from the outset. Still, even if you could connect the two (the incredibly simple origin w/ its current,"mature" and incredibly complex version), you must first discover this life form that, was so simple, we have yet to figure it out. Think about that, would ya?
For some reason, no one ever wants to talk to me regarding the above points. Do you have an answer? Am I flawed in my thinking? Seriously, I'm all ears. The truth is the only thing being sought here. Thanks and God bless, Mark
(amendment to above that just occurred to me) I said, "...then it has to go through an even more unlikely process of "trial and error"."
To which must be added the reality that each successive "try" at life would be independent of every previous failed "effort" meaning: ALL "attempts" by life would not have the benefit of previous "attempts'" "experience". It boggles the mind. It actually makes the lottery seem like a worthwhile endeavor.
Question: Considering that life had to start in what can only be seen as a very sterile environment (there was, after all, NO LIFE), does it not seem reasonable to think that, given earths' current "user friendliness" re:life -so to speak, that brand new life forms would be springing up so fast that one couldn't help but observe them happening? Or, now that life has "broken through", is it no longer necessary for it to originate itself -once more- and go through all of that "work" again?
Even within the context of theory that seems a bit hard to swallow, if not down right silly, don't you think? Thanks again for any input, Mark
What mark has written is straightforward and logical. If we stick with what the data shows (shedding philosophical bias), Natural selection most certainly been responsible for genome stabilization OR genome depletion......NEVER genome enhancement.
To say this in a slightly different way: Natural selection can maintain or deplete a species genome...but it can never add new information to it. Mutations can only deplete a genome. Natural selection can only "select" from the existing genome (whether mutated or not)...and it never adds new genetic material (DNA).
Not admitting and owning this clear truth is the main reason evolution will always be a farce IMO.
If evolution truly has anything to do with life on earth...it hasn't shown it from any natural selection.
I suspect evolution will continue to be a blight on science for quite some time simply because most of us have been told and believe that evolution is nothing more than "change"...and its very easy to let it go at that...since everyone sees "change" all around us.
What I mean is this. Every genome has a maximum variation potential. Lets take the canine species as an example. All dogs are related to an original canine that most think looked a lot like the modern wolf. The original canine had the potential, within its own genome, to produce all the varieties that we see today...chirahuahua to St Bernard. This orginal canine animal was as "fit" for survival as any canine could ever be. It had the potential to weather all kinds of envirnomental selection pressures. Man came along and began selectively breeding the species more or less for entertainment (some for specific work related goals). When the canine species began to express all this varieties of dog...the over all "fitness" of the species began to deteriorate. German Shepards are magnificent animals...but they are far less "fit" than the original canine. However, This selective breeding comes at a price. The German Shepard, as sturdy as it may appear has a large number of maladies inbred. Potential for Pannas (sensitivity to ultra-violet radiation causing blindness) and hip displasia to name just a couple.
Mutations work a lot like this selective breeding as far as the effect on the species. Mutations are called "beneficial" if they allow a species to survive some environmental threat. But they do this not by adding anything to the genome...but rather by subtracting or deactivating some enzyme sequence that counters the envirnomental threat. Note...the species is LESS fit after the mutation (even though it survives the first enviromental threat such as a weak antibiotic dose of penicillan). Its total genome is LESS fit overall and is in fact a weaker species because of it.
Mutations are real but they could never ever be the cause of a fish turning into an amphibian...or turning and amphibian into a reptile etc simply bcause again...they do NOT add potential (more genetic information...that might produce higher brain function as an example).....they DECREASE the genome...no exceptions.
This is one reason evolutionists are speaking gibberish when they say evolution is simply "change". Mutations certainbly do change genetic potential alright...but never ever in the right direction...from simple to more complex.
How do you know this? How many genomes have you followed over time such that you can conclude that "potential" never increases? Define "maximum genetic potential". What is "maximum genetic potential"?
"They do NOT add potential (more genetic information...that might produce higher brain function as an example).....they DECREASE the genome...no exceptions."
You're pretty certain about this. How do you know that this is true? How would you define "add potential"? What do you mean by "decrease the genome"? How can you tell if there has been an increase or decrease over time?
Consider the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
If you're interested in the evolution of resistance to penicillin, start here.
You're pretty certain about this. How do you know that this is true? How would you define "add potential"? What do you mean by "decrease the genome"? How can you tell if there has been an increase or decrease over time?
Apparently, you think that Vic has the potential to answer your question as well as the obligation to do so, and if he were to answer it in a mistaken way, you would be within your rights in suggesting that he has violated his mind's proper function.
But this sort of judgment is only possible if (1) your intellect has the power to know non-empirical normative realities, and (2) that in fact Vic is the sort of being that by its nature ought to exemplify certain perfections.
But such a judgment is in fact impossible if you claim that all natural design is illusory (as Dawkins and others claim), since (1) and (2) require intrinsic design (though not necessarily "ID," which is not the only sort of knowable natural design). So, it seems to be that the best way to be anti-intelligent design advocate is to believe in design.
I don't think that this is quite as complicated as you seem to think. Vic claims something never happens. I need some definitions so that we can know exactly what it is that allegedly doesn't happen. Then we can see if it actually happens after all. And that's about it.
New information could be added to a genome in the way new information could be created in the hand copying of a Biblical manuscript. Suppose that a scribe accidently duplicates a line of a manuscript. The new manuscript has an extra line of text. Suppose a reader of the new manuscript does not have access to the old one. If the extra line is not a self-standing formula it will stand out as an error and the reader will skip over it. But if it is a self standing formula the reader might interpret it as an emphasis, since the Bible uses repetition as an emphasis. The meaning of the text will have changed.
If a functional gene is duplicated in a DNA strand it might amplify the trait it refers to; furthermore, mutation could later change one of the duplicated genes.
Joe asks how we know that any particular genome has a maximum varience in its potential?
Joe...how do you think ANY change occurs from parent to offspring??? Take humans for example. Do you know why we do not develope elephant size trunks....or giraffe like necks? Its because we do not have that potential in our genes. It can't be bred into us either...because again....only the traits you are born with can be expressed .If it doesn't exist in the genes you aint agoin to be born with it.
I know for a fact that mutations never add information to a genome because mutations simply do not increase DNA material. Again...if you read the material on pennicillan resistance you will find that the developed resistance is NOT the result of more genetic material being somehow manufactured into a gene...rather the resistance to a particular antibiotic has resulted from a deactivation of an original genetic component...which DOES allow the bacterial to survive...but the total potential for future generations of the bacteria...is LESS. Just as explained with the selective breeding of dogs causing an overall LESS viable animal.
The idea that an organ like an eye could ever eventually develope from a light sensitive spot (from simple to complex) by mutating is magic with a vengence.
Only "magic" can cause something to exist without a cause. (sic)
Johnnie...you suggest that new genetic material CAN be introduced by "copying". Have you thought about what you have said. If you "copy"....you duplicate. You do not add anything.
You make assertions about how the natural world works, but they don't match reality. Did you check out the references in the first link I provided?
I'm afraid that you don't understand much about molecular genetics and mutation. If you think that you do understand the subject, then explain what is wrong with the what Johnnie wrote. That is, quoting Johnnie..."if a functional gene is duplicated...the mutation could later change one of the duplicated genes".
And that would add information.
Given your spelling of penicillin, I'm guessing you didn't read the article that I linked to. You just keep repeating what you read somewhere about penicillin resistance, but I don't think that you really undersand the subject.
You suggest that if a gene duplicates...a mutation can change it later?? If a mutation is going to occur it has to occur at the time of duplication. Just saying its going mutate sometime in the future says nothing.
Your illustration of a sequence mutating is quite faulty. If STOP duplicates itself...then it can never ever end up TOPS. It can only end up TOPS by being given directions to REARRANGE...and this is NOT duplication....and further...just saying it does so with no explanation of HOW it does so is no argument.
When a muatation makes a bacterium resistant to an anitbiotic it does so by DISABLING its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. (The bacterium will not take in the antibiotic which would kill it). There is NOTHING new as far as genetic material GAINED here.
By analogy....a computer program might on rare occasion actually IMPROVE its performance if you disable some component causing the problem. There could be a gain in effective performance even though the computer progrtam now contains less information. Likewise...you can sometimes "fix" a sputtering radio by throwing a shoe at it...but you'd hardly recommend that course of action to routinely repair sputtering radios.
You guys simply do not understand what would be required for a species to change into another by EITHER natural selection or mutation. More than copying is required. Information must be added to the genome in order to turn fins into legs and light senstive spots into functioning eyes etc. That never ever happens.
One more time...mutations SUBTRACT from the original genome...and you can't progress (evolve) to more complex organisms by taking away genetic information. It simply does not happen. There is no way it can happen.
As a point of fact most mutations are harmful NOT beneficial. Mutations are most often named after the disease syndrome that they cause....hardly a benefical effect on the organism in the long run.
"If a mutation is going to occur it has to occur at the time of duplication."
Wrong. The is no reason why the mutation can not occur later. But there is also no reason why a change in the sequence could occur at the time of duplication.
"If STOP duplicates itself...then it can never ever end up TOPS. It can only end up TOPS by being given directions to REARRANGE."
Wrong, again. Once a sequence is duplicated, the copy can mutate. in the case of the sequence STOP, one possible rearrangement is TOPS. This does not have to be the result of "being given directions to rearrange". It just happens that one possible rearrangement is TOPS. As to how rearrangements or mutations occur, see the molecular genetics textbook of your choice.
"When a muatation makes a bacterium resistant to an anitbiotic it does so by DISABLING its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical."
Wrong. In the case of penicillin, resistance is due to the ability of the cell to metabolize (or break) the beta lactam ring of the penicillin molecule. If you'd read the link that I gave you, perhaps you'd understand this.
As for the rest, you keep repeating the same thing again and again, but you refuse to look at the references provided. As long as you refuse to interact wtih the evidence presented, this is pointless. There are plenty of examples of what you say can't happen in the provided link, but you obviously haven't taken the time to examine them.
Oh, and you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by "adding" or "subtracting" from the original genome. Definitions please. Explain what would count as an "addition".
To be honest, so far, I see little evidence that you actually understand the subject under discussion. It appears that you are just parroting falsehoods from various creationist web sites.
"Information must be added to the genome in order to turn fins into legs."
Actually, there is strong evidence that the difference between "fins" and "legs" is more a product of changes in the regulation of genes. The genes involved in creating lobed fins on the one hand and tetrapod legs on the other are likely to be essentially the same. The difference is in when, where and how those genes are used, and those differences are the product of mutations in the regulatory sequences upstream from the genes themselves.
You might be interested in reading about the E. coli long-term evolution experiment here:
http://tinyurl.com/5wt358
Some of the bacteria in this experiment gained the ability to 'eat' a food (citrate) their ancestors couldn't eat at all. Hundreds of millions of mutations took place among the bacteria before some individual bacterium hit this jackpot after 20 years. It took a combination of mutations to get this benefit.
The bacteria were being grown in citrate - that's what made this a beneficial series of mutations.
Their situation was something like the fish that lived before there were land animals. Many opportunities were waiting to be exploited - eventually on dry land but first in the very shallow water where the best way to move is to swimwalk - half swim and half walk. What do you need to swim-walk? A finfoot. The more shallow the water and the more time you spend there the more your finfoot needs to look like a foot rather than a fin.
It makes sense that beneficial mutations would be rare and it turns out that they actually are rare. The thing that would be really amazing would be if mutations were never beneficial. How would they know to do that? How would a random thing like a mutation know not to ever be beneficial?
For those who believe that man is / can be "unnatural" (see: so called AGW, "pollution", Trent Lott's hair etc.), this is for you:
If there is no "supernatural", how can there be an "unnatural"? Humans must be natural, as that is all that exists, right? Or, can the natural "create" the "unnatural"? How could that be? By definition -the secular, evolutionary definition- man is wholly and completely natural and nothing more. Which means that he is no more "unnatural" when constructing a nuclear power plant than is a beaver making a damn. We're just more sophisticated, as the beaver is more sophisticated than the creatures who suffer at the paws of its actions*. Yet, we are more "advanced" because we have a conscience. A conscience that allows us to send millions of our own "species" to their doom for the sake of an imaginary horror**. For the current "leaders" in the evolutionary gene pool Olympics, we sure have a sense for irony. You might say we are doing the back stroke, when the crawl would appear to be more in order.
bottom lines__ Given evolutionary theory, how can man do anything unnatural? How can anything be unnatural? Earth colliding w/ a celestial body would "harm the environment". Would that be as "unnatural" as ANYTHING man does? If so, please explain:
* Yes, many creatures benefit as a result of BOTH of the foregoing endeavors, it's just that most atheists seem to identify w/ negative references and I'm trying to "relate", savvy?
Forgive me, but I understand the word equivocation to apply to "equaling TWO things". What am I "equivocating" natural with? Am I missing something? Let me know, curious.
Equivocation - using of multiple meanings of a single word - is a logical fallacy.
unnatural - man-made, artificial
natural - Formed by nature, not artificial
supernatural - transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature
natural - not supernatural
Unnatural and supernatural are both antonyms of natural but each is the antonym of a different meaning of natural. It's exactly as though they were antonyms of different words.
So yes everything we do is natural: it is not supernatural. But some things we do are unnatural: they are artificial.
So that's what I meant when I said you were equivocating on natural.
Can you restate your comment please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean to say.
Guess I'm arguing w/ Mirriam and Webster then. Still though, it is a subjective term and, within the context of the origin of a natural universe, how can anything be "unnatural"? Isn't it just a matter of degrees that are arrived at subjectively? It clearly is.
To be consistent, the materialist must acknowledge that all things are relative. Otherwise, why isn't the beaver unnatural? Because it's an "animal"? But I thought that man was just a more "advanced" animal. And that is yet to be determined for, if they are still here long after we are gone, would you not have to say they are "fitter". If not, what would have "selected" them?
Ya can't have it both ways. In a natural universe, all things within it must be natural otherwise, where can the unnatural come from? The "superunnatural"?
When people say 'unnatural' they (sometimes) mean 'man made' as opposed to 'from (non-human) nature'. This is true whether the believe in a supernatural realm or not. This is the way people use language; one word often has multiple meanings. You are mixing the meanings of 'natural' to make your point; you are equivocating.
I completely agree with you that being natural doesn't mean a thing is good. Nor does being unnatural make it bad.
I also agree: Nuclear power plants are analogous to beaver dams in the way you suggest.
Try this: http://tinyurl.com/yj9gamk
Humans are not more 'advanced' than beavers. Each is closer matched to its own niche.
if [beavers] are still here long after we are gone, would you not have to say they are "fitter"
The concept of fitness is usually applied within one species.
In Romans ch. 9 (or is it ch. 10?), the apostle Paul uses the phrase "contrary to nature" in referring to wild branches that are graffed in to a vine. This is an unnatural act being performed by natural humans. Also, Paul is using the vine analogy to refer to God's graffing in the Gentiles to the Jewish vine. This is an act done by a spiritual being. If we presume to call God "supernatural", his actions would be, at the least, supernatural. But can God do anything contrary to the "nature' of his spiritual dimensions? At God's level, it might not be possible to distinguish "supernatural" from "unsupernatural".
But who decides what is natural / unnatural? Isn't that -at best/worst, least/most- a subjective conclusion within the context of a "deity free" universe? That was my original point: that -sans God- calling man (or anything) "unnatural" is just an opinion.
It's much like AGW, get enough "experts" to agree on it and, VOILA!, it's a "documented fact".
Well Mark,
Who decides? You do: you put everything on one side of the natural/unnatural line or you insist the line doesn't exist. Fine, but your never going to change the fact that other people put things on both sides of the line. I decided: I'll avoid making distinction per se but recognize that when people make it they have something real in mind: our actions in the world can have powerful effects that we can regret. This says nothing about any particular action.
It's not only believers that make the complaint that you're making.
//Who decides?//
God does. At least that is the way our founders set things up in America. Hence, their many references to "natural law".
//... our actions in the world can have powerful effects that we can regret.//
At the risk of equivocating: One mans' "regret" is another mans' "benefit" - in a universe free of a just God. That is why The Bill of Rights, the free market system and other judeo-christian concepts are not "zero sum games". We know that a mans' particular endeavor is natural because it not only benefits him, it also benefits everyone else, ultimately, in "the community".
Western/judeo-christian culture works from the basic premise that objective truth/justice does in fact exist and that it has a source. The materialist -to be consistent- must acknowledge that truth, just like reality itself, is a subjective construct in the mind of the beholder. That is why the idea of right and wrong is so squishy in these modern, free "thinking", squishy times we live in. An activity is seen as virtuous to the extent that it makes you happy. Which opens the door to all kinds of horrors.
So, a "good" atheist can be a very solid citizen who participates and contributes to the good of all or, he can choose to waste his life and subject others to misery so long as it "makes him happy". Not so w/ the God fearing man. One (the functioning atheist) looks at the guy wallowing in his own filth and says, "Well, whatever gets your rocks off." while the narrow minded, hate filled, God fearing, uptight, judgmental, conservative looks at him and says, "Hey man, why don't you straighten up and fly right? Here's a Bible, let's go study it before you fry your brains or something -you selfish pig!" (he just thought that last part. had to get that in there, being the hate filled, yadda-yadda that I am...)
The universe appears designed? Natural?
To whom? How'd they learn to distinguish designed universes from natural ones?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 18, 2010 at 11:20 AM
"The universe appears designed? Natural? To whom?"
To the person asking the question referenced in the video. Was that not obvious?
"How'd they learn to distinguish designed universes from natural ones?"
University of Phoenix.
Posted by: Lumbergh | January 18, 2010 at 12:18 PM
We humans evaluate based on our experience. Our experience shows us man-made and natural structures. Man-made are, by definition, designed, unless one think that we humans would be unconsciously designing. Natural structures can be judged only from within the framework of our own experience.
We do not design planets, stars, and dark matter. Those are not within our experience. Does that mean that there is design or no design? Inconclusive, unless there be a law of the universe which would say that the universe be evaluated solely from within the framework of our current experience.
Can it be said that the universe is fundamentally chaotic and, therefore, not a product of design? That would be possible, but not probable, because the universe could be the product of a more complex design than what we perceive. Given that man-made design becomes ever-more complex with time, we should concede the possibility that the universe might be of a complex design which we have yet to perceive.
Posted by: Wondering | January 18, 2010 at 01:13 PM
The reason "design" is such a hated word among the evolutionist crowd is because design by its very defintion implies...purpose or goal oriented creation....and only a mind could provide that.
Design by accident is an oxymoron. Phil johnson is right when he chides Dawkins for agreeing that the universe at least "appears" to be designed....but is not according to Dawkins. Apparently appearance canot be used for impirical evdidence. Now...for sure...appearances can be and often are deceiving....but it would seem that any judicious sceintist would at least begin with the theory that is was designed since everything in nature APPEARS to be.
We do HAVE to examine every molecule in the universe to know that none it could be here unless it was caused to be here. It it was caused...the someTHING did the deed. Not wanting to call that "thing" God is simply childish temper tantrum on our part
Posted by: vic | January 18, 2010 at 01:44 PM
Should have written: We do NOT have to examine every molecule....
Posted by: vic | January 18, 2010 at 04:36 PM
Lumburgh,
UofP. lol. But what makes a universe look designed or natural?
vic,
You are probably talking about The Blind Watchmaker where Dawkins said biology studies things that appear designed but aren't. He was talking about life not the universe. He was talking about first appearances not what is apparent after study. Yes: Design by accident is an oxymoron. But what about adaptation by natural selection?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 18, 2010 at 06:13 PM
Ron...
You are assuming that the adaptation BEGINS with some kind of "selection".....but how can any selection (no matter what is driving it) be made ...unless the desired traits are already in existence to be selected from????
Natural selection is most certainly a bonefide biologic phenomenon ......but it is really nothing more than environmental pressures limiting or favoring an expression of traits...WHICH HAVE TO ALREADY BE IN EXISTENCE in order to be selected. Why is this so hard to see as a design feature in and of itself???
You didn't mention muations so i wont open that can of worms except to say that they can't really cause any long term beneficial change either. So...whats left that could have been responsible for bringing into existence something like the human hand...or eye....or beings capable of being thrilled by their first kiss?
Posted by: vic | January 18, 2010 at 08:00 PM
I get into discussions w/ folks who hold these same kinds of beliefs and it blows my mind. They are basically saying that everything comes from an unintelligent,non-designed, random origin. To which I pose the question, "If that is true, then everything that happens -including the actions of man- is merely an extension of that randomness. Hence, even your beliefs are just a "natural" occurrence that has no meaning or even a connection to reality as we can not know what "reality" even is. Apart from our own,chemically induced, "opinion" of it that is."
The consistent (see: honest) ones will admit that yes, life has no meaning in that context. Others, not so much. It's sad, that poor guy in "Expelled" who came to this inevitable conclusion and lost all of his verve for life when all he had to do was turn to Christ.
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 19, 2010 at 01:21 AM
Mark...
exactly. The truth of the 1st chapter of Romans stands like a rock. God's mercy seems to be the only thing allowing any of us to truly marvel at that.
Posted by: vic | January 19, 2010 at 04:56 AM
"But what makes a universe look designed or natural?"
The point has already been established since even those who disagree with design admit that it appears designed.
Posted by: Lumbergh | January 19, 2010 at 06:44 AM
another very good point! In other words.."Takes one to know one"...
Posted by: vic | January 19, 2010 at 08:44 AM
"Mutations can't really cause any long term beneficial change either."
Really? Again with the no beneficial changes from mutations argument?
Posted by: Joe | January 19, 2010 at 09:46 AM
Sure...as many times as it takes.
Posted by: vic | January 19, 2010 at 11:43 AM
"As many times as it takes."
So, you think that if you say it enough times, it will magically become reality?
Posted by: Joe | January 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM
Well...I suppose you could say that is another one of those "appearances" conundrums.In some ways i suppose you certainly could correlate evolution with magic. They both certainly make bold claims for what is real. Thank God for logic and true science though, eh?
Posted by: vic | January 19, 2010 at 04:11 PM
"Logic and true science" shows that beneficial mutations occcur.
Posted by: Joe | January 19, 2010 at 04:34 PM
This thread seems to be mutating but, not exactly sure, to what "benefit". (sorry. lame joke, i know.)
Try this, Joe: before there was life (to hold true to "scientific theory") there was no "survival instinct". Given that, does it not seem ever more improbable that life could have gained a foothold "on its own" in the first place? Put simply, life would have had to keep on "trying to exist" after untold failed "attempts" until it finally "got it right". You see how absurd that is? First, you have the astronomical improbability of life "succeeding" in the first place and then it has to go through an even more unlikely process of "trial and error".
Or are you of the belief that the first life forms were incredibly simple and, therefore, able to survive on "the first try"? Well, seeing as how we can't "reduce" life as we know it down to such a thing, that would make that "first life" unrelated to current life making that whole argument mute from the outset. Still, even if you could connect the two (the incredibly simple origin w/ its current,"mature" and incredibly complex version), you must first discover this life form that, was so simple, we have yet to figure it out. Think about that, would ya?
For some reason, no one ever wants to talk to me regarding the above points. Do you have an answer? Am I flawed in my thinking? Seriously, I'm all ears. The truth is the only thing being sought here. Thanks and God bless, Mark
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 21, 2010 at 02:49 PM
(amendment to above that just occurred to me) I said, "...then it has to go through an even more unlikely process of "trial and error"."
To which must be added the reality that each successive "try" at life would be independent of every previous failed "effort" meaning: ALL "attempts" by life would not have the benefit of previous "attempts'" "experience". It boggles the mind. It actually makes the lottery seem like a worthwhile endeavor.
Question: Considering that life had to start in what can only be seen as a very sterile environment (there was, after all, NO LIFE), does it not seem reasonable to think that, given earths' current "user friendliness" re:life -so to speak, that brand new life forms would be springing up so fast that one couldn't help but observe them happening? Or, now that life has "broken through", is it no longer necessary for it to originate itself -once more- and go through all of that "work" again?
Even within the context of theory that seems a bit hard to swallow, if not down right silly, don't you think? Thanks again for any input, Mark
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 21, 2010 at 03:08 PM
Mark and Joe:
What mark has written is straightforward and logical. If we stick with what the data shows (shedding philosophical bias), Natural selection most certainly been responsible for genome stabilization OR genome depletion......NEVER genome enhancement.
To say this in a slightly different way: Natural selection can maintain or deplete a species genome...but it can never add new information to it. Mutations can only deplete a genome. Natural selection can only "select" from the existing genome (whether mutated or not)...and it never adds new genetic material (DNA).
Not admitting and owning this clear truth is the main reason evolution will always be a farce IMO.
If evolution truly has anything to do with life on earth...it hasn't shown it from any natural selection.
I suspect evolution will continue to be a blight on science for quite some time simply because most of us have been told and believe that evolution is nothing more than "change"...and its very easy to let it go at that...since everyone sees "change" all around us.
Posted by: Vic | January 23, 2010 at 06:00 AM
"Mutations can only deplete a genome."
Not true.
Posted by: Joe | January 23, 2010 at 02:17 PM
Joe...
What I mean is this. Every genome has a maximum variation potential. Lets take the canine species as an example. All dogs are related to an original canine that most think looked a lot like the modern wolf. The original canine had the potential, within its own genome, to produce all the varieties that we see today...chirahuahua to St Bernard. This orginal canine animal was as "fit" for survival as any canine could ever be. It had the potential to weather all kinds of envirnomental selection pressures. Man came along and began selectively breeding the species more or less for entertainment (some for specific work related goals). When the canine species began to express all this varieties of dog...the over all "fitness" of the species began to deteriorate. German Shepards are magnificent animals...but they are far less "fit" than the original canine. However, This selective breeding comes at a price. The German Shepard, as sturdy as it may appear has a large number of maladies inbred. Potential for Pannas (sensitivity to ultra-violet radiation causing blindness) and hip displasia to name just a couple.
Mutations work a lot like this selective breeding as far as the effect on the species. Mutations are called "beneficial" if they allow a species to survive some environmental threat. But they do this not by adding anything to the genome...but rather by subtracting or deactivating some enzyme sequence that counters the envirnomental threat. Note...the species is LESS fit after the mutation (even though it survives the first enviromental threat such as a weak antibiotic dose of penicillan). Its total genome is LESS fit overall and is in fact a weaker species because of it.
Mutations are real but they could never ever be the cause of a fish turning into an amphibian...or turning and amphibian into a reptile etc simply bcause again...they do NOT add potential (more genetic information...that might produce higher brain function as an example).....they DECREASE the genome...no exceptions.
This is one reason evolutionists are speaking gibberish when they say evolution is simply "change". Mutations certainbly do change genetic potential alright...but never ever in the right direction...from simple to more complex.
Posted by: Vic | January 23, 2010 at 06:07 PM
"Every genome has a maximum variation potential."
How do you know this? How many genomes have you followed over time such that you can conclude that "potential" never increases? Define "maximum genetic potential". What is "maximum genetic potential"?
"They do NOT add potential (more genetic information...that might produce higher brain function as an example).....they DECREASE the genome...no exceptions."
You're pretty certain about this. How do you know that this is true? How would you define "add potential"? What do you mean by "decrease the genome"? How can you tell if there has been an increase or decrease over time?
Consider the following:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
If you're interested in the evolution of resistance to penicillin, start here.
http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/short/42/1/1
Posted by: Joe | January 23, 2010 at 07:25 PM
Joe writes:
Apparently, you think that Vic has the potential to answer your question as well as the obligation to do so, and if he were to answer it in a mistaken way, you would be within your rights in suggesting that he has violated his mind's proper function.
But this sort of judgment is only possible if (1) your intellect has the power to know non-empirical normative realities, and (2) that in fact Vic is the sort of being that by its nature ought to exemplify certain perfections.
But such a judgment is in fact impossible if you claim that all natural design is illusory (as Dawkins and others claim), since (1) and (2) require intrinsic design (though not necessarily "ID," which is not the only sort of knowable natural design). So, it seems to be that the best way to be anti-intelligent design advocate is to believe in design.
Posted by: Francis Beckwith | January 23, 2010 at 09:36 PM
FB,
I don't think that this is quite as complicated as you seem to think. Vic claims something never happens. I need some definitions so that we can know exactly what it is that allegedly doesn't happen. Then we can see if it actually happens after all. And that's about it.
Posted by: Joe | January 23, 2010 at 09:48 PM
New information could be added to a genome in the way new information could be created in the hand copying of a Biblical manuscript. Suppose that a scribe accidently duplicates a line of a manuscript. The new manuscript has an extra line of text. Suppose a reader of the new manuscript does not have access to the old one. If the extra line is not a self-standing formula it will stand out as an error and the reader will skip over it. But if it is a self standing formula the reader might interpret it as an emphasis, since the Bible uses repetition as an emphasis. The meaning of the text will have changed.
If a functional gene is duplicated in a DNA strand it might amplify the trait it refers to; furthermore, mutation could later change one of the duplicated genes.
Posted by: Johnnie | January 24, 2010 at 01:51 PM
Joe asks how we know that any particular genome has a maximum varience in its potential?
Joe...how do you think ANY change occurs from parent to offspring??? Take humans for example. Do you know why we do not develope elephant size trunks....or giraffe like necks? Its because we do not have that potential in our genes. It can't be bred into us either...because again....only the traits you are born with can be expressed .If it doesn't exist in the genes you aint agoin to be born with it.
I know for a fact that mutations never add information to a genome because mutations simply do not increase DNA material. Again...if you read the material on pennicillan resistance you will find that the developed resistance is NOT the result of more genetic material being somehow manufactured into a gene...rather the resistance to a particular antibiotic has resulted from a deactivation of an original genetic component...which DOES allow the bacterial to survive...but the total potential for future generations of the bacteria...is LESS. Just as explained with the selective breeding of dogs causing an overall LESS viable animal.
The idea that an organ like an eye could ever eventually develope from a light sensitive spot (from simple to complex) by mutating is magic with a vengence.
Only "magic" can cause something to exist without a cause. (sic)
Posted by: Vic | January 24, 2010 at 03:20 PM
Johnnie...you suggest that new genetic material CAN be introduced by "copying". Have you thought about what you have said. If you "copy"....you duplicate. You do not add anything.
Posted by: Vic | January 24, 2010 at 03:24 PM
Vic,
You make assertions about how the natural world works, but they don't match reality. Did you check out the references in the first link I provided?
I'm afraid that you don't understand much about molecular genetics and mutation. If you think that you do understand the subject, then explain what is wrong with the what Johnnie wrote. That is, quoting Johnnie..."if a functional gene is duplicated...the mutation could later change one of the duplicated genes".
And that would add information.
Given your spelling of penicillin, I'm guessing you didn't read the article that I linked to. You just keep repeating what you read somewhere about penicillin resistance, but I don't think that you really undersand the subject.
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Vic,
Take the following sequence of letters...
STOP.
Now duplicate it.
STOP. STOP.
Now mutate the copy.
STOP. TOPS.
Have I added anything?
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2010 at 03:35 PM
Joe...
You suggest that if a gene duplicates...a mutation can change it later?? If a mutation is going to occur it has to occur at the time of duplication. Just saying its going mutate sometime in the future says nothing.
Your illustration of a sequence mutating is quite faulty. If STOP duplicates itself...then it can never ever end up TOPS. It can only end up TOPS by being given directions to REARRANGE...and this is NOT duplication....and further...just saying it does so with no explanation of HOW it does so is no argument.
Posted by: Vic | January 24, 2010 at 05:13 PM
Joe and Johnnie:
When a muatation makes a bacterium resistant to an anitbiotic it does so by DISABLING its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical. (The bacterium will not take in the antibiotic which would kill it). There is NOTHING new as far as genetic material GAINED here.
By analogy....a computer program might on rare occasion actually IMPROVE its performance if you disable some component causing the problem. There could be a gain in effective performance even though the computer progrtam now contains less information. Likewise...you can sometimes "fix" a sputtering radio by throwing a shoe at it...but you'd hardly recommend that course of action to routinely repair sputtering radios.
You guys simply do not understand what would be required for a species to change into another by EITHER natural selection or mutation. More than copying is required. Information must be added to the genome in order to turn fins into legs and light senstive spots into functioning eyes etc. That never ever happens.
One more time...mutations SUBTRACT from the original genome...and you can't progress (evolve) to more complex organisms by taking away genetic information. It simply does not happen. There is no way it can happen.
As a point of fact most mutations are harmful NOT beneficial. Mutations are most often named after the disease syndrome that they cause....hardly a benefical effect on the organism in the long run.
Posted by: Vic | January 24, 2010 at 05:43 PM
Vic,
"If a mutation is going to occur it has to occur at the time of duplication."
Wrong. The is no reason why the mutation can not occur later. But there is also no reason why a change in the sequence could occur at the time of duplication.
"If STOP duplicates itself...then it can never ever end up TOPS. It can only end up TOPS by being given directions to REARRANGE."
Wrong, again. Once a sequence is duplicated, the copy can mutate. in the case of the sequence STOP, one possible rearrangement is TOPS. This does not have to be the result of "being given directions to rearrange". It just happens that one possible rearrangement is TOPS. As to how rearrangements or mutations occur, see the molecular genetics textbook of your choice.
"When a muatation makes a bacterium resistant to an anitbiotic it does so by DISABLING its capacity to metabolize a certain chemical."
Wrong. In the case of penicillin, resistance is due to the ability of the cell to metabolize (or break) the beta lactam ring of the penicillin molecule. If you'd read the link that I gave you, perhaps you'd understand this.
As for the rest, you keep repeating the same thing again and again, but you refuse to look at the references provided. As long as you refuse to interact wtih the evidence presented, this is pointless. There are plenty of examples of what you say can't happen in the provided link, but you obviously haven't taken the time to examine them.
Oh, and you still haven't explained exactly what you mean by "adding" or "subtracting" from the original genome. Definitions please. Explain what would count as an "addition".
To be honest, so far, I see little evidence that you actually understand the subject under discussion. It appears that you are just parroting falsehoods from various creationist web sites.
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2010 at 06:08 PM
"Information must be added to the genome in order to turn fins into legs."
Actually, there is strong evidence that the difference between "fins" and "legs" is more a product of changes in the regulation of genes. The genes involved in creating lobed fins on the one hand and tetrapod legs on the other are likely to be essentially the same. The difference is in when, where and how those genes are used, and those differences are the product of mutations in the regulatory sequences upstream from the genes themselves.
Posted by: Joe | January 24, 2010 at 06:12 PM
vic,
You might be interested in reading about the E. coli long-term evolution experiment here:
http://tinyurl.com/5wt358
Some of the bacteria in this experiment gained the ability to 'eat' a food (citrate) their ancestors couldn't eat at all. Hundreds of millions of mutations took place among the bacteria before some individual bacterium hit this jackpot after 20 years. It took a combination of mutations to get this benefit.
The bacteria were being grown in citrate - that's what made this a beneficial series of mutations.
Their situation was something like the fish that lived before there were land animals. Many opportunities were waiting to be exploited - eventually on dry land but first in the very shallow water where the best way to move is to swimwalk - half swim and half walk. What do you need to swim-walk? A finfoot. The more shallow the water and the more time you spend there the more your finfoot needs to look like a foot rather than a fin.
It makes sense that beneficial mutations would be rare and it turns out that they actually are rare. The thing that would be really amazing would be if mutations were never beneficial. How would they know to do that? How would a random thing like a mutation know not to ever be beneficial?
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 24, 2010 at 08:38 PM
For those who believe that man is / can be "unnatural" (see: so called AGW, "pollution", Trent Lott's hair etc.), this is for you:
If there is no "supernatural", how can there be an "unnatural"? Humans must be natural, as that is all that exists, right? Or, can the natural "create" the "unnatural"? How could that be? By definition -the secular, evolutionary definition- man is wholly and completely natural and nothing more. Which means that he is no more "unnatural" when constructing a nuclear power plant than is a beaver making a damn. We're just more sophisticated, as the beaver is more sophisticated than the creatures who suffer at the paws of its actions*. Yet, we are more "advanced" because we have a conscience. A conscience that allows us to send millions of our own "species" to their doom for the sake of an imaginary horror**. For the current "leaders" in the evolutionary gene pool Olympics, we sure have a sense for irony. You might say we are doing the back stroke, when the crawl would appear to be more in order.
bottom lines__ Given evolutionary theory, how can man do anything unnatural? How can anything be unnatural? Earth colliding w/ a celestial body would "harm the environment". Would that be as "unnatural" as ANYTHING man does? If so, please explain:
* Yes, many creatures benefit as a result of BOTH of the foregoing endeavors, it's just that most atheists seem to identify w/ negative references and I'm trying to "relate", savvy?
** search: carlson, ddt, africa
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 25, 2010 at 02:00 AM
Mark,
You are equivocating on the word natural.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 25, 2010 at 10:13 AM
Mark,
You are equivocating on the word natural.
Forgive me, but I understand the word equivocation to apply to "equaling TWO things". What am I "equivocating" natural with? Am I missing something? Let me know, curious.
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 25, 2010 at 02:29 PM
Mark,
Equivocation - using of multiple meanings of a single word - is a logical fallacy.
unnatural - man-made, artificial
natural - Formed by nature, not artificial
supernatural - transcending the powers or the ordinary course of nature
natural - not supernatural
Unnatural and supernatural are both antonyms of natural but each is the antonym of a different meaning of natural. It's exactly as though they were antonyms of different words.
So yes everything we do is natural: it is not supernatural. But some things we do are unnatural: they are artificial.
So that's what I meant when I said you were equivocating on natural.
Can you restate your comment please. I'm not sure I understand what you mean to say.
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 25, 2010 at 03:53 PM
Gotcha, Ron
Guess I'm arguing w/ Mirriam and Webster then. Still though, it is a subjective term and, within the context of the origin of a natural universe, how can anything be "unnatural"? Isn't it just a matter of degrees that are arrived at subjectively? It clearly is.
To be consistent, the materialist must acknowledge that all things are relative. Otherwise, why isn't the beaver unnatural? Because it's an "animal"? But I thought that man was just a more "advanced" animal. And that is yet to be determined for, if they are still here long after we are gone, would you not have to say they are "fitter". If not, what would have "selected" them?
Ya can't have it both ways. In a natural universe, all things within it must be natural otherwise, where can the unnatural come from? The "superunnatural"?
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 25, 2010 at 11:34 PM
Mark,
You are still doing it. Equivocating.
When people say 'unnatural' they (sometimes) mean 'man made' as opposed to 'from (non-human) nature'. This is true whether the believe in a supernatural realm or not. This is the way people use language; one word often has multiple meanings. You are mixing the meanings of 'natural' to make your point; you are equivocating.
I completely agree with you that being natural doesn't mean a thing is good. Nor does being unnatural make it bad.
I also agree: Nuclear power plants are analogous to beaver dams in the way you suggest.
Try this: http://tinyurl.com/yj9gamk
Humans are not more 'advanced' than beavers. Each is closer matched to its own niche.
The concept of fitness is usually applied within one species.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_(biology)
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 26, 2010 at 05:58 AM
In Romans ch. 9 (or is it ch. 10?), the apostle Paul uses the phrase "contrary to nature" in referring to wild branches that are graffed in to a vine. This is an unnatural act being performed by natural humans. Also, Paul is using the vine analogy to refer to God's graffing in the Gentiles to the Jewish vine. This is an act done by a spiritual being. If we presume to call God "supernatural", his actions would be, at the least, supernatural. But can God do anything contrary to the "nature' of his spiritual dimensions? At God's level, it might not be possible to distinguish "supernatural" from "unsupernatural".
Posted by: Johnnie | January 26, 2010 at 02:09 PM
RonH,
But who decides what is natural / unnatural? Isn't that -at best/worst, least/most- a subjective conclusion within the context of a "deity free" universe? That was my original point: that -sans God- calling man (or anything) "unnatural" is just an opinion.
It's much like AGW, get enough "experts" to agree on it and, VOILA!, it's a "documented fact".
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 27, 2010 at 12:02 AM
Well Mark,
Who decides? You do: you put everything on one side of the natural/unnatural line or you insist the line doesn't exist. Fine, but your never going to change the fact that other people put things on both sides of the line. I decided: I'll avoid making distinction per se but recognize that when people make it they have something real in mind: our actions in the world can have powerful effects that we can regret. This says nothing about any particular action.
It's not only believers that make the complaint that you're making.
http://tinyurl.com/ygs4myp
RonH
Posted by: RonH | January 28, 2010 at 04:21 AM
//Who decides?//
God does. At least that is the way our founders set things up in America. Hence, their many references to "natural law".
//... our actions in the world can have powerful effects that we can regret.//
At the risk of equivocating: One mans' "regret" is another mans' "benefit" - in a universe free of a just God. That is why The Bill of Rights, the free market system and other judeo-christian concepts are not "zero sum games". We know that a mans' particular endeavor is natural because it not only benefits him, it also benefits everyone else, ultimately, in "the community".
Western/judeo-christian culture works from the basic premise that objective truth/justice does in fact exist and that it has a source. The materialist -to be consistent- must acknowledge that truth, just like reality itself, is a subjective construct in the mind of the beholder. That is why the idea of right and wrong is so squishy in these modern, free "thinking", squishy times we live in. An activity is seen as virtuous to the extent that it makes you happy. Which opens the door to all kinds of horrors.
So, a "good" atheist can be a very solid citizen who participates and contributes to the good of all or, he can choose to waste his life and subject others to misery so long as it "makes him happy". Not so w/ the God fearing man. One (the functioning atheist) looks at the guy wallowing in his own filth and says, "Well, whatever gets your rocks off." while the narrow minded, hate filled, God fearing, uptight, judgmental, conservative looks at him and says, "Hey man, why don't you straighten up and fly right? Here's a Bible, let's go study it before you fry your brains or something -you selfish pig!" (he just thought that last part. had to get that in there, being the hate filled, yadda-yadda that I am...)
[/simplisticrightwingrant]
Posted by: Mark Ducharme | January 30, 2010 at 02:18 PM