Darwin Day Is Not Really about Darwin

It’s Darwin Day, a day when evolutionists celebrate “science and reason,” allegedly.

But this annual celebration is more about the Darwinists of today than the Darwin of yesterday. Conspicuously absent each year is a tribute to one of Darwin’s most noteworthy traits: intellectual honesty.

When you read Darwin’s book, On the Origin of Species, you can sense his honesty about the problems with evolutionary theory. Like a good scientist should do, he acknowledges that his theory could be proven false (it’s falsifiable). He even offers specific examples of the kind of data that is necessary to show he’s mistaken about his theory. He was a fair-minded man.

Not so with Darwinists today. According to them, evolution is not only a proven fact, but impossible to disprove. It’s scientific dogma. Sure, they give a nod to falsifiability by saying evolution is “testable,” “open to evidence,” and is “forever uncertain,” but this is just lip-service. Their lips would serve the scientific community far better if they uttered the words “open to error” and actually meant it.

If Darwinists were open to evidence against evolution, they would consider the evidence of design and intelligence in biology. Though these might qualify as evidence to reasonable scientists, they are the very things Darwinists disqualify by definition.

Noted Darwinist Douglas Futuyma says, “In a scientific sense, there can be no evidence for…creation.” Notice he doesn’t say, “There is no evidence,” or “We haven’t found any evidence yet.” He says there can’t be. That’s because he’s not open to any evidence that might possibly cast doubt on Darwin’s theory. So much for continuing Darwin’s legacy of being fair-minded. Futuyma has left the school of science and entered the department of dogma.

Why have Darwinists abandoned the falsifiability of evolution? It’s because, in their mind, any evidence against evolution is evidence for an intelligent Designer. Darwinists aren’t interested in the right answers, but the right kind of answers.

It’s too bad for Darwin. His legacy couldn’t continue the treasured scientific tradition of fair-mindedness and falsifiability. Instead, Darwin Day celebrations reflect the mentality of Darwinists rather than Darwin, a man of more noble character than his theory’s progeny.

Comments

[Malebranche]

By treating the hypotheses of evolution and intelligent design as rivals, this discussion has already crippled itself to some extent. No doubt many secularists treat these hypotheses as rivals, but that is no good reason to continue to do so here. The hypothesis of evolution is not a rival with the hypothesis of intelligent design simply because they are not incompatible. Both could be true, since neither is an all-or-nothing affair. Here are at least two ways in which both could play a crucial role in the explanation of life.

Model One, Intelligent Designing of the Initial Conditions and Laws: God so masterfully crafted the universe and its laws so that through its own natural evolutionary processes the wide variety of living organisms would develop. Perfect power is conjoined with perfect foresight in order to create a system of maximal functional integrity. No miracle-mongering or divine tinkering is required in order to generate or develop life on Earth. As Leibniz would say, God the supreme moral monarch is at complete harmony with God the supreme architect.

Model Two, Intelligent Designing of Initial Organisms with Occasional Intervention: God, via a non-natural process, creates the first simple, primitive living organism. The organism develops for the most part via natural evolutionary processes, but occasionally God may intervene to direct the process, which eventually produces the variety of life we find today. As Newton would say, God may occasionally be required to perform a miracle in order to sustain the system.

Both models involve intelligent design and evolutionary development over time. One could, on both models, believe that whales evolved non-miraculously from land mammals in roughly the way that biologists say they have (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates_ex4). The truth of neither model logically or evidentially precludes such evolutionary development.

So, evidence for design is not evidence against macroevolution. Neither is evidence for macroevolution evidence against design. It may be evidence against miraculous interference, but even that is not evidence against intelligent design, as one can see by reflecting on Model One above. It is not as though the only way to intelligently design an outcome is to interfere in the process; one can, after all, stack the deck at the beginning rather than pull cards out of one’s sleeves in the middle of the game.

[Malebranche]

What really is Stand to Reason's beef with evolution? The Bible? The alleged complete lack of evidence (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)? The heartbreak of the thought that God didn't miraculously create each species? The thought that if it's true then humans lack moral dignity? The suspicion that the biological concept of 'randomness' is not consistent with robust divine providence? Why is Stand to Reason so emphatic that whales did not evolve from land mammals? Or is it just human evolution that gets them exercised?

[Malebranche]

I may have posted this before, but it's worth calling attention to again. This is a great talk in which Elliott Sober (noted philosopher of biology) discusses issues surrounding the existence of God and evolution:

http://fora.tv/2010/04/22/Elliott_Sober_Darwin_and_Intelligent_Design

[M.M]

What are the actual good arguments against evolution that aren't being nodded at? Any in a peer reviewed journal? Any?

[RonH]

Malebranche,

What really is Stand to Reason's beef with evolution?

If evolution is impossible then God is necessary. So showing that evolution is impossible has great apologetic value. Hence the beef.

Greg/STR claims a natural process can't add information to a genome. Here is a simple explanation of how a natural process can add information to a genome. This process happens.

RonH

[Malebranche]

Well it certainly has no apologetic value to wed one’s faith to something as hopeless as ignoring the evidence for common descent or believing that the current scientific consensus in favor of common descent is really merely the product of a bunch of dogmatic naturalists going on nothing but what they think metaphysical naturalism requires. That is so embarrassing that one would have thought that Christians would do everything in their power to disassociate that from Christianity. Why would anyone think that it would make Christianity more credible to set it against our best scientific theories? Does Stand to Reason have a rival hypothesis to evolutionary theory that is both at least as plausible initially as evolution and explains the data at least as well?

[ToNy]

I don't see why it matters anymore...

Given that William Lane Craig, the Pope (and even STR's own Amy) don't see the truth or falsity of evolution as threatening to the Christian world view either way, then I don't know why we keep discussing it.

I think Huxley would be shocked to learn that, in the year 2011, some of the most respected Christian theologians see evolution as only a mildly curious footnote in the book of Genesis.

[RonH]

ToNy,

You've read Gould's Wonderful Life?

He suggests that given how evolution works, had things been just a bit different, life on Earth might have gotten as far as some creeping things that creep on the earth but not so far as the smart things like people before getting fried by the Sun.

I suspect he's right - some planets make some chemical reproducers and then get fried. Other planets get as far as bacteria before they get fried. Others get far enough so that some of the inhabitants know what's happening but not what to do about it.

This kind of evolution seems incompatible with God creating Man.

RonH

[Suhan Ginanrs]

Discussion points to raise with evolutionists:

1. Consistent fossil record? Descent with modification through mutation and natural selection suggests a gradual increase in speciation (diversity of species). However, the fossil record, particularly the "Cambrian Explosion" does not support gradual increase in speciation; it is more consistent with Gould's "punctuated equilibrium" theory, which most evolutionists dislike because it conveys too strongly the notion of a miracle.

2. Foundational Support? Evolutionists offer little support for crucial pre-requisites for their theory. In the absence of any explanation for these prerequisites, atheists are at least as "guilty" as theists of practicing their Faith. I would submit theists are less guilty because they can offer rational, deductive reasons for why the explanations for these pre-requisites point to God. Atheists just treat them as non-sequiturs and try to draw your attention elsewhere:

a. From what process did the matter needed for evolution arise? Science concludes that the Universe (including space, matter and time) came into existence at a specified time long ago. To create space, matter and time, one requires a spaceless and timeless cause that is not part of the Universe ... that cause can rationally be called 'supernatural', because it is outside of space and time ... this cause is consistent with the God of the Bible. We all know, however, that atheists (and many evolutionists) a-priori exclude the possibility of the supernatural, which wholly biases their perspective.

b. Through what process did first life begin? No evolutionist who wants to be taken seriously today will even try to answer this question. "Sheer chance" is their best answer, but don't probe them on this, because they'll get mad at you for uncovering flaws in their reasoning. Previously some well-respected scientists like Francis Crick and Richard Dawkins received incredulous double-takes when they pointed to "panspermia" (life coming from alien civilizations). Others have said that life "rode in on crystals ..." Michael Denton said it well:


Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable the problem the origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.”

c. Via what mechanism does the information in DNA arise? Even the simplest cyanobacteria, from which evolutionists claim all life derives, have hundreds of thousands of nucleotide base-pairs. Through what process were the instructions for creating this simplest life form (let alone more complex creatures) persisted in DNA? A peer-reviewed publication (Axe, 2004) addresses the infinitesimal probabilities for such an event occurring.

Item 1 speaks directly to the evolutionary theory. While the points under item 2 don't directly address evolutionary theory, they do speak to the uncertain foundations upon which the theory rests, and interestingly points to the need for a supernatural cause. On this point even Carl Sagan, no friend of the supernatural, said, "If you wish to bake an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe."

[Malebranche]

There are, broadly speaking, two kinds of objections here. First, the Cambrian explosion is offered as evidence against evolution. Second, it is argued that evolution cannot explain the origin of matter, DNA, or life itself.

Concerning the first objection. No doubt there are many features of the world that are puzzling to scientists given our current theories. The Cambrian explosion may be an instance of a puzzle for evolutionary theory. Even so, however, that would not show that given our current evidence evolution is probably false. It may be that on the total available evidence, the hypothesis of evolution is highly likely, even if it is not highly likely when we restrict our evidence to the Cambrian fossils. We all know that even if one bit of evidence disconfirms a theory, the other bits may confirm the theory so well that the balance is in favor of the theory.

With that said, here is a discussion of the Cambrian explosion from the perspective of an evolutionist: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html

Concerning the second objection. There are many things the theory of evolution does not explain. It does not, for instance, explain who killed JFK, nor does it explain how gravity affects light. But that is not a problem because it was never intended to explain that. Those just aren’t the things evolution is an explanation for. Similarly, evolution is not a theory of the origin of matter. It’s failure to explain that, therefore, is not a liability against it. We shouldn’t expect it to explain that.

What about the origin of life? If we construe the theory of evolution as a theory of how the various species today arose from an original living organism, then the theory is not really an explanation of the origin of life either. Just like the existence of matter, evolution so construed presupposes an original living organism in order to explain the development of life. Even if there is not a satisfactory explanation for the origin of life, it in no way follows that evolution fails as the best available explanation for the development of life.

Finally, it is a fallacy to argue as follows:

(1) If evolution is true, then probably we wouldn’t see such and such.
(2) We do see such and such.
(3) Therefore, probably evolution is false.

To see the fallacy, consider the following argument:

(4) If this deck is a fair deck, then probably I won’t draw the Ace of hearts.
(5) I drew the Ace of hearts
(6) Therefore, probably this is not a fair deck.

[Malebranche]

Here's another resource concerning the Cambrian explosion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

[Louis Kuhelj]

Malebranche

"Second, it is argued that evolution cannot explain the origin of matter, DNA, or life itself."

As is often the case, it is not what is said that defines your position, but what is avoided. The major problem is philosophical materialism as a foundation of upon which to build the theory of evolution. This excludes any possibility of design as a possible explanation and strict avoidance of the topic of information that rides on the DNA and ITS origin. I have not seen information of the kind that resides on DNA having its source traced back to anything other than a mind. The attack here is not on Darwinian evolution, but on its materialistic foundation. If that foundation does not exist, you have nothing to build the theory on and it cannot simply float in mid air without support and not have a reasonable man challenge it.

[Malebranche]

Darwinian evolution does not have a materialist foundation, if by that you mean it depends for its explanatory success on the truth of materialism. It is an empirical hypothesis about the development of life from a common ancestor that is compatible with theism. But if that’s the case, then it does not entail materialism. Even William Lane Craig would tell you that’s true:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XdVBfIWE6sg

[RonH]

Evolution is only intended to explain the diversity and distribution of species - not the origins of the universe and not the origins of life.

So evolution is independent of metaphysical materialism: evolution can be true whether metaphysical materialism is true or false.

Phillip Johnson didn't invent a wedge strategy. He invented a glue strategy.

The glue is for sticking metaphysical materialism to evolution. Once that is done the strategy says teaching evolution equals teaching metaphysical materialism which equals atheism or deism.

RonH

[Ana V]

A few days ago, I listened to one of the podcasts broadcasted by the Discovery Institute, in which the host made mention of an paper that was published in the January 2010 issue of Nature, that discussed significant differences between the Y chromome of chimps and humans, and related that to how previous thinking (dogmatic thinking, I might add) was that chimps and human DNA were similar by over 98%.

I went ahead and looked it up online, found this:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v463/n7280/full/nature08700.html

Though the above is only an excerpt of the entire article. I'd like to read the full thing, so I'm going to see if my local library carries Nature journals, but I dount it as the subscription is pricey.

Anyways, the host on the ID program said he had been in an email exchange with a Ph.D biologist, an evolutionist, and the issue of falsification came up and he asked the biologist what would serve to falsify evolution, and that the biologist had offered human and chimps genomes being radically different as a hypothetical falsifier. The host informed the biologist about the discovery published in the Nature article, and apparently their correspondence on the issue of falsification stopped after that.

[Suhan Ginanrs]

I have the article ... not sure how to convey ...

[ToNy]

Ana

heres the link

link

you do realize that paper basically refers to the amount and speed of evolution, and not about the truth or falsity of it.

[Malebranche]

Here’s a bad argument that Greg offers against theistic evolution (see http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5494):

(1) Theistic evolution is true only if life was designed by chance.
(2) It is incoherent for anything to be designed by chance.
(3) Therefore, theistic evolution is false.

I guess this is the thought behind premise (2). If an event obtains by chance, then its obtaining is not due to the intention of an agent. If an event obtains by design, then its obtaining is due to the intention of an agent. So, an event can’t obtain both by chance and design.

But when biologists say that mutations happen by chance, they are certainly not saying that the mutations are uncaused (see Elliott Sober for a good discussion of this). We know that mutations do have causes. What biologists mean when they say that the event obtained by chance is simply that the proximate physical causes of the mutation did not bring about the mutation in order to benefit or harm the organism. That’s the same sense in which a deck of cards is shuffled and dealt randomly. The thought is not that the cards are distributed without a cause. Rather, the thought is just that the proximate cause of the distribution did not bring about that distribution in order to benefit or harm any particular individual (otherwise, we would say that the dealer was cheating).

This sense of ‘random,’ however, is perfectly compatible with God foreknowing that the event would obtain and permitting its obtaining for good reasons.

These distinctions are at least as old as Aquinas himself, who writes,

An occurrence may be accidental or fortuitous with respect to a lower cause when an effect not intended is brought about, and yet not be accidental or fortuitous with respect to a higher cause, inasmuch as the effect does not take place apart from the latter’s intention. For example, a master may send two servants to the same place, but in such a way that neither is aware of the mission of the other. Their meeting is accidental so far as each of them is concerned, but not as regards the master. So, when certain events occur apart from the intention of secondary causes, they are accidental or fortuitous with respect to those causes; and they may be said without further ado to be fortuitous, because effects are described simply in terms of their proximate causes. But if God’s point of view is considered, they are not fortuitous, but foreseen.

[Patrick]

What exercises STR and others is the insistence by many that metaphysical naturalism can be both true and untrue at the same time. Many terms gets mixed up in this. There is either intelligent agency responsible for the origin of all species or there is not. It really is that simple a discussion. If metaphysical naturalism is true, it wouild not matter. It matters to everyone, and is therefore not true.

[M.M]

I'm just here to offer my support to Malebranche. I've decided not to discuss evolution over the internet because of the waste of time it becomes, but I do think it's a major embarrassment to the Christian community to deny the validity of the theory of evolution.

[2oldstroke]

M.M, we're so touched that you've decided to take the elitist high-road and not dirty yourself with all of the stupid questions and theories from those Christian peons.

Try reading the web site "Reasons to Believe" which is produced by an astro physicists named Dr. Hugh Ross. He does a better job of calmly explaining a view that you might not agree with. And shouldn't we all be after truth and not let our egos complicate the research.

[Malebranche]

Fortunately it is no part of the Christian faith to reject the empirical hypothesis of evolution. The Catholic Church at least has enough good sense about this issue to know that Christian theism is compatible with common descent and evolution. You can add C.S. Lewis, Alvin Plantinga, Peter van Inwagen, Richard Swinburne, and William Lane Craig to that list too. Christians laboring under the tutelage of those unable to distinguish evolution from metaphysical naturalism certainly do reject the theory; but their inability to discern the theory from the metaphysics is no evidence that there is no distinction there to be made. Once the distinction is made, moreover, there is no longer any need to feel threatened by the theory or those who support it. One need not join Allan in maligning the intellectual honesty and character of those to whom it seems that the theory of evolution is probably true and that intelligent design thus far offers nothing close to a serious rival. Certainly raising puzzles about the bacterial flagellum is far from sufficient for offering a rival hypothesis that is both plausible and capable of explaining all of the data (e.g., features of our DNA and the fossil record) at least as well as evolution. Making the appropriate distinctions would help Christians see that it truly does not matter at all if whales evolved from land mammals. Helping Christians recognize that would be far more beneficial to the Church and the country than encouraging them yet again to think that most Darwinists are just a bunch of closed minded naturalists afraid of the data.

[Dogbyte]

@RonH

"Greg/STR claims a natural process can't add information to a genome. Here is a simple explanation of how a natural process can add information to a genome. This process happens."

i think the chap in the first link correctly admits his shortcoming to understanding what "adding information" means with respect to a genome. He openly admits that he doesn't understand information theorems, yet in the same breath goes on to say that his lack of knowledge is moot, because when these theorems are applied to more basic things, information theory is not needed (without understanding why does he make this declaration?), and he goes on to say that the idea of "no new genome info" is "patently wrong". His reasoning seems a bit arbitrary and illogical, why would you claim an absence of knowledge in a given area is reason to disregard the need of such knowledge?

Firstly i would like to say that information theory is some of the most basic logical theorems known to man. The guy in the video says they are really complex, and it seem that this is just his opinion, because i see some info theorems to be quite basic, likewise in my opinion. for instance, encoding is a fundamental requirement for establishing information, theorem 6. i view this to be quite simple, not complex.

Then he gives a demonstration, equivocating text duplication, to represent the same thing as when a protein changes due to point mutation, and then offers a mutation with the interchanging of a letter of the alphabet. These two events are not great examples to equivocate to one another.

Notice that he changes the word "house" to "mouse". Why did he change the H to an M? and not the O in "house" to HMUSE? why? because that word would not have made sense, or have been coded where we understand it.

Now you could say that by random chance, this occurrence would eventually happen, and the meaningful word "mouse" would appear, but then you've shown a basic fundamental violation of information theory. that is, that all information must be encoded. the form of information is being looked over, without showing how it arrived. The word "mouse" is only meaningful because in the english language, we use the coded string of letters M O U S E, to represent a certain object, a mouse =). This coding came from a human mind. However, this encoding is exactly what is necessary to equivocate his analogy with point mutation or the polyploid process in your link. He's using the code of the english language, and interchanging it with the idea that DNA works the exact same way. The encoded info stored in DNA does not work in the way he represented by picking and choosing to change a letter of his choice. Information in DNA and the english language does not originate by blind mutation. If anything, it shows that the word Mouse is only meaningful because that change came from a mind, the mind of the guy in the video actively making the change in the right place.

If you would more accurately equate the entire english alphabet with the entire dna code, then when a mutation occurs, and a different outcome is expressed, the outcome can be seen as only one possible outcome of a finite string of possibilities, depending upon the code at hand, dictates the meaning, either rubbish, or has meaning.

There would be a finite possibility of words created with the string "the house is brown". and likewise, there would be a finite possibility of proteins within a given string of DNA available. any change in letters, or proteins, is only a duplication of what is already present, out of a finite pool of possibilities, not anything "new". The new information is not possible without a newly created and understood code between a sender and a recipient (theorem 9). I could use the alphabet to create the code that the newly created word "Zouse" means "a dog", so by random mutation if the copied info produced this string, the meaning of that combination of coded string, would be transferred to the recipient (maybe the protein lead to a certain trait), the meaning and understanding, only came from me. This is what is needed before new information is possible. That is, a mind.

most times, a mutation is deadly to the genome, especially in animals. especially the Polyploid mutations that occur in those organisms or cells. Even with these mutations, the end result is still the same species, even though it may vary within that species, the species is the same, and not a "new" species, because there is no "new" information, only duplicates, or mutated copies of those duplicates.

If Polyploid cells proved evolution, then you would expect to find more and more chromosome sets in more and more complex organisms, the "tree of life" where all share a common ancestor. After all, if less complex life forms are at the bottom of the tree of life, then they would have less available chromosomes present to copy and retain in the parent cell. then as generations went on, each duplication and mutation would add to the already present number of retained DNA, because with each mutation and duplication, these sets are duplicated and potentially added to, by new sets of chromosomes.

Yet this is NOT what we find in creation. Humans have 46 chromosomes, yet there are less complicated organisms on earth like the Chrysanthemum that can have up to 198, or other plants that have over 600. this polyploidy can however be a reasonable account to separation within a genus, with respect to its related genera, within the family. but the variation seems to be limited to within its genus. But nevertheless, all still within their created "kind" or family, not part of some single common ancestor, that would span across family categories.

a single ant has 1 chromosome, but is more complex than a single celled organism that may have dozens more. the number of mutations or copies of chromosomes does not imply complexity.

The analogy in the link was first offered and used in its correct sense, duplication only. The "M" was arbitrarily added by the guy in your video. He gives no explanation how this "M" is to occur in natural processes, nor was an explanation of the protein the "M" was to represent. The sender/recipient understanding was not accounted for. It only has meaning in this analogy because he put it there with purpose, meaning, it wasnt a random mutation. The meaning isnt random, even if the occurrence of the mutation is. the meaning is already coded in our language, stemming from a mind.

Its the info contained in genes that make life possible, not the number of mutations. Even inside bacteria that has tens of thousands of copied chromosomes per duplication, this doesnt account for anything besides yet another bacteria. Polyploidy is not new information, but recopied information that was already there and retained.

In the analogy above, it would be more accurate to have "the house is brown" copied twice on the same sheet of paper, to be an example of your second link. The information is not new, its just recopied info that was already there. As i mentioned earlier, Polyploidy leads to death or deformities in some cases, for instance, its very rare, and often lethal in animals, like Down's Syndrome in humans.

[Dogbyte]

@Malebranch

"Fortunately it is no part of the Christian faith to reject the empirical hypothesis of evolution."

why is it fortunate?

and what repeated occurrence does the hypothesis of evolution claim to observe?

[Malebranche]

It's fortunate because evolution is probably true. If it was inconsistent with Christianity, it would follow that Christianity is probably false.

I don't know what your second question is getting at. If you're asking for the evidence for evolution, read the following:

http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Malebranche]

For those Christians tired of fighting the Darwinian bugaboo and ready to integrate Darwinian evolution with their faith, the following resource might be very helpful:

http://biologos.org/

[Malebranche]

Did anyone else come away thinking that Alan thinks that Darwinists are pretty vicious people? Listening to him you’d come away thinking that Darwinists are, as a whole (with the exception of Darwin himself), a pretty shabby group of people. Apparently they lack noble character, intellectual honesty, fair-mindedness, and openness to evidence; they are prone to cling to dogmas in the face of the evidence and won’t tolerate new ideas. They probably have horns too. Wow. At least Christians have been sufficiently warned about the character of those meany-foos and malefactors polluting our biology departments.

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

The guy in the video needn't have chosen "house" to "mouse". If he had chosen "house" to "hzouse" there would still be new information in the genome.

Think some more.

RonH

[Dogbyte]

@Malebranche

"It's fortunate because evolution is probably true. If it was inconsistent with Christianity, it would follow that Christianity is probably false."

ok....well i think evolution IS inconsistent with the Bibles account, that every thing on earth was created "after its kind", Jesus took the historical parts of Genesis as literal, so i really see no amount of wiggle room where evolution could be seen as sound Bible doctrine, and be consistent at the same time. now that you've given me the "why" on "it" being fortunate, can you give me who you mean by "it", who is fortunate in the idea that rejecting evolution is not part of Christianity? Because if evolution is not the truth, and the Bible claims that He "is the way, the truth and the life", then i think rejecting non-truth would be part of Christianity.

well we can punt on my second question, if thats ok, because i just found it odd that you qualify this hypothesis with "empirical", with evolution being very heavy on the origins aspect, dealing with processes that cannot be empirically tested or observed. I just thought maybe you had some empirical process in mind you would share.

[Dogbyte]

@RohH

"The guy in the video needn't have chosen "house" to "mouse". If he had chosen "house" to "hzouse" there would still be new information in the genome.

Think some more."

did you read the part where i mentioned adding a letter of the alphabet that wasnt present in the original copy, is arbitrary? where did the M come from?

the equivalent of this happening in the genome is not the same as the video represents. This cannot be swept under the rug. If you more accurately say that all letters of the alphabet are part of the pool that make up the information, you are still left with a meaningless word "Hzouse". If the recipient does not understand what the sender sends, there is no information being transmitted, nothing is encoded, no abstract meaning is being represented or conveyed to a recipient. If no information is being transmitted, then no new information is being added. "Hzouse" means nothing, random letters jumbled together mean nothing. random letters that convey no message is not new information. This violates the basic laws of information, namely that a random string of symbols only satisfy the statistical aspect of information, therefore no code exists to make this string have meaning. adding a random letter is not new information. if this was the genome, especially with polyploidy, the added letter would have already been present either retained in the parent or copied down to the daughter copy. Information is not the material itself, but the abstract representation of those material realities. This is a fundamental property of information. As is the fact that information is a substitution, that substitution, or encoding, is a mental process.

[Patrick]

To Malebranch,
in what way do you believe that Darwinism explains origins? Darwinism does not have the option of positing a fossil of the gaps and simulaneously opine the same (so called) in theism. And why do you mimimize Michael Behe's very good argument about IC?

Also, you mention Alvin Platinga, but surely you know that he argues vehemently against naturalism and argues that N & E cannot coexist, one is a defeater for the other, inasnuch as the goal of evolution in the Darwinian paradigm is not truth but survival. In such a case, we cannot possible depend on evolution to properly equip us to deal with issues of truth.

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

where did the 'm' come from?

It came from the list below. The role of the duplication is to free up a copy of 'house' to be mutated without losing the function of 'house'.

The role of chance is to try various mutations.

The role of natural selection, going back to the analogy, is to find douse, louse, mouse, rouse, souse, and horse among the mutants.

1 aouse
2 bouse
3 couse
4 douse
5 eouse
6 fouse
7 gouse
8 iouse
9 jouse
10 kouse
11 louse
12 mouse
13 nouse
14 oouse
15 pouse
16 qouse
17 rouse
18 souse
19 touse
20 uouse
21 vouse
22 wouse
23 xouse
24 youse
25 zouse
26 hause
27 hbuse
28 hcuse
29 hduse
30 heuse
31 hfuse
32 hguse
33 hhuse
34 hiuse
35 hjuse
36 hkuse
37 hluse
38 hmuse
39 hnuse
40 hpuse
41 hquse
42 hruse
43 hsuse
44 htuse
45 huuse
46 hvuse
47 hwuse
48 hxuse
49 hyuse
50 hzuse
51 hoase
52 hobse
53 hocse
54 hodse
55 hoese
56 hofse
57 hogse
58 hohse
59 hoise
60 hojse
61 hokse
62 holse
63 homse
64 honse
65 hoose
66 hopse
67 hoqse
68 horse
69 hosse
70 hotse
71 hovse
72 howse
73 hoxse
74 hoyse
75 hozse
76 houae
77 hoube
78 houce
79 houde
80 houee
81 houfe
82 houge
83 houhe
84 houie
85 houje
86 houke
87 houle
88 houme
89 houne
90 houoe
91 houpe
92 houqe
93 houre
94 houte
95 houue
96 houve
97 houwe
98 houxe
99 houye
100 houze
101 housa
102 housb
103 housc
104 housd
105 housf
106 housg
107 housh
108 housi
109 housj
110 housk
111 housl
112 housm
113 housn
114 houso
115 housp
116 housq
117 housr
118 houss
119 houst
120 housu
121 housv
122 housw
123 housx
124 housy
125 housz

RonH

[Dogbyte]

@RonH

"It came from the list below. The role of the duplication is to free up a copy of 'house' to be mutated without losing the function of 'house'. "

again, i gave this possibility in my reply, yes it was long, maybe you didnt read it, or overlooked where i said,

"If you would more accurately equate the entire english alphabet with the entire dna code, then when a mutation occurs, and a different outcome is expressed, the outcome can be seen as only one possible outcome of a finite string of possibilities, depending upon the code at hand, dictates the meaning, either rubbish, or has meaning."

So, if you claim the letter M came from a pool of possibilities that is represented by the english alphabet, then that information would ALREADY be present in the genome, it is the very substance being copied, or as a function of polyploidy. you are already defining the possible mutations when you assign a pool to its possibilities. thats why i said if you do not show where the letter M came from, this is arbitrary.

So now that you agree that the letter M comes from an already existing pool of possibilities, your still left with a meaningless mutation, unless a mental process had already established an intended message between the sender and recipient.

No new information is added, the letter M was always there as a possibility. Your equivocating "new information" with any possible outcome. Random strings of symbols do not make languages. they do not by themselves carry information or give meaning.

actual new information would be a 27th letter that wasnt present in the parent cell, or copied prior in either the parent/daughter cell. new information would be a new understood meaning between the sender and the recipient. new information is not the material itself, but the sum of all the characteristics of what make the understanding possible.

unless you are saying that each and every possible combination has an understood meaning, then you are misunderstanding what constitutes as information.

information is not a random occurrence of statistical sequences of symbols or other representations, they in themselves carry no message. an empirical observation of information, is that it always points back to a mental process as its origin.

some random string of letters that do not follow semantics, syntax, or encoding, is not information, much less "new".

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

actual new information would be a 27th letter that wasnt present in the parent cell, or copied prior in either the parent/daughter cell.

Here then, is all the information in the universe: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.

Congratulations! You now know everything.

RonH

[RonH]

Sorry to be sarcastic.

The things that correspond to 'mouse' and 'louse' etc. are DNA sequences that translate to proteins that confer relative reproductive fitness to the organism possessing the genome.

Individuals that get or inherit the 'mouse' or 'horse' mutations will out-reproduce those who don't have them.

The things that correspond to 'housg' and 'houge' are DNA sequences that translate to proteins too. But these proteins don't confer relative reproductive fitness. They will lose out to the 'mouse' and 'louse' variants.

RonH

[Dogbyte]

"Here then, is all the information in the universe: abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz.

Congratulations! You now know everything."

you know that is not what the analogy represented.

[RonH]

I did?

Then tell me why we find no need to add letters to the alphabet or even words to the dictionary every time we want to say something new.

RonH

[Patrick]

Ron H
because we have the ability to make use of the symbols we have to deliberately manipulate and join together those symbols to express ideas--the whole process is teleological. Surely you are not likening that to the unintended and accidental results of the entirely random process of naturalism?

[Dogbyte]

"The things that correspond to 'mouse' and 'louse' etc. are DNA sequences that translate to proteins that confer relative reproductive fitness to the organism possessing the genome."

yes, but WHY do they translate to anything at all, unless the information already present, already had a corresponding message to the potential recipient? the building blocks need the rest of the corresponding building blocks, to eventually convey a message. The outcome was always a possibility of the over all pool of available information.

No new outcome from the mutation occurred, that the previous copy didnt already contain, the exact same possible outcome was present in the parent genome, but never occurred.

the possibility for "Mouse" to occur was there, but just because it wasnt expressed, doesnt mean the information wasnt there. again, the information itself is not the material reality, but the representation of an understood message to the recipient that is the real information. i think a misunderstanding of what information means, is present in your argument.

"Individuals that get or inherit the 'mouse' or 'horse' mutations will out-reproduce those who don't have them."

there is no reason to assume this, without first stating that the environment in which Mouse or Horse mutations occur, lend to an advantage over those who dont possess those genes. But if both the parents possess those genes, then the daughter copies will possess them also. until another mutation occurs, and the previous copy of information loses yet another bit of info.

breeding practices in canines come to mind. you cannot breed a toy poodle back up to a wolf equivalent, DNA wise. But you can breed a wolf down to a toy poodle eventually. a loss of genetic information is the process, not a gain. often, the product that these mutations produce, either die as a result, or become advantageous to their situation. However, if you take this product out of that environment, to a different one, the ability to shift back to a previous state that could accommodate them in the new environment is no longer available, that information is lost, and not regained as a function of mutation. the poodle never has the ability to become a wolf again. not to mention they are both still dogs, not another kind, or family.

"The things that correspond to 'housg' and 'houge' are DNA sequences that translate to proteins too. But these proteins don't confer relative reproductive fitness. They will lose out to the 'mouse' and 'louse' variants."

No, this is the misrepresentation of the analogy between DNA processes with respect to the alphabet that i mentioned before. your saying all possible outcomes precipitate a message in one sense (to make a protein), but we know not all possible outcomes in the other sense (string of letters) produce meaningful strings of symbols, instead, some of them lack a conveyed message.

All proteins that are expressed as a result of their building blocks, do so because those building blocks conveyed a message, that only "they" received.

you cant cut half a blue print that builds a bridge, and combine it with half a blue print that builds a house, and expect any kind of meaningful outcome. the two halves have no intended relationship, or code, this is opposite of the building blocks that eventually make a protein. a certain combination of building blocks went into making that protein.

before a chromosome is even copied, a related process took place, the "letters" that formed the "words" had meaning, the letters lined up to convey a message.

this misrepresentation of conveyed info, is what kills this analogy with respect to the alphabet. not all strings of letters convey a message, yet ALL of the building blocks that eventually created a protein, conveyed a message. Hzouse is not a word. it has no meaning. a protein is not analogous with any string of letters. one is the result of a conveyed message (protein), and one has a random chance of resulting in a conveyed message (string of letters).

either way, the conveyed message is not accounted for in nature. Its coded structure always points back to a mind, the sender of the information.

[M.M]

2oldstroke, I've read Hugh Ross's website. It's not convincing. I've also read Behe and Dembski. I used to be Pro-ID.

Have you read the Pro-evolution side? I'd suggest Finding Darwin's God (http://www.amazon.com/Finding-Darwins-God-Scientists-Evolution/dp/0060930497) by Kenneth Miller. It's a very good read.

[Dogbyte]

RonH

"I did?

Then tell me why we find no need to add letters to the alphabet or even words to the dictionary every time we want to say something new.

RonH"

yes you did, or at least i hope so.

why do we not need to add letters to the alphabet? i dont know, you may want to, but i do not. if i did add a letter, i would then have to assign a representation to it, like a phonetic sound, or a convention understood by the recipient.

we do add words to the dictionary, but only from the result of a mental process that gives this new string of letters a meaning. its not a result of page 35 and 36 of Websters Dictionary mutating, and producing that new word, along with the intended meaning. there is always an associated substitution.

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

One page has 'mouse' written on it. Another page has 'house' and 'mouse' written on it. Which page has more information?

One genome has 20,000 genes. Another has 25,000 genes. Which genome has more info in it?

RonH

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

It's clear from your wolf-poodle story that you know the answer.

RonH

[Malebranche]

This really is a fascinating and accessible article on whale evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/features/whales/

Since I suspect most won’t have the time to read it, I’ll summarize what I take the argument to be. I’ll state the evidence first and then the two hypotheses we are testing.

Evidence and Hypotheses

Evidence Statement (ES): (a) Whales are mammals, and (b) have vestigial features that would be expected if they evolved from terrestrial mammals, and (c) we have found fossils of whales with legs (Basilosaurus, Ambulocetus, etc.), and (d) whales are more similar in their molecular biology to ungulates (with whom we think they share a common ancestor) than all other mammals, and (e) whales, while in the womb, develop body hair and so possess a gene for producing body hair, and (f) early whales lived in fresh water habitats and slowly moved into salt water habitats.

Whale Evolution: Whales evolved from terrestrial mammals.

Whale Special Creation: God originally created whales as a distinct species from terrestrial mammals.

The Evidential Argument For Whale Evolution As Opposed To Whale Special Creation

(1) ES
(2) The hypothesis of Whale Special Creation is not, prior to considering the evidence, many times higher than the hypothesis of Whale Evolution.
(3) ES is many times more likely given the hypothesis of Whale Evolution than it is given the hypothesis of Whale Special Creation.
(4) So, other evidence held equal, the hypothesis of Whale Evolution is more probable than the hypothesis of Whale Special Creation.

The heart of the idea is just that one would expect ES more if Whale Evolution is true than if Whale Special Creation is true. ES, therefore, is evidence for Whale Evolution over Whale Special Creation.

[Malebranche]

These are interesting videos too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2C-3PjNGok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_IKPSavQ4Y&feature=related

[Dogbyte]

@RonH

"One page has 'mouse' written on it. Another page has 'house' and 'mouse' written on it. Which page has more information?"

the second page has more info on it, where the discussion rests however, is that in the analogy, the page with more information must come from the page with less information.

"One genome has 20,000 genes. Another has 25,000 genes. Which genome has more info in it?"

25k > 20k

there is more stored genetic information in a wolf, than in a poodle. yet they are still the same kind, a dog. variation within a kind is not evolution. evolution requires the gain of genetic information to eventually change from one kind to another. the DNA strand for a canine is only observed to lose information within variation, with wolves possessing the most available info. a dingo could never be relocated and eventually become a wolf, due to its environment, the variation is one way, and downhill, not uphill. this is the opposite of your analogy where information is said to be gained.

the wolf has genetic info that the poodle can never regain. variation within a kind is not equivocal to processes required for evolution. what i call adaptation is what you might call micro-evolution. to move from simple life forms to complex life forms, macro evolution is required. Micro evolution fails as a mechanism to spur macro evolution. the opposite direction, and loss of information is observed to happen within species variation. there will be one variation with the most genetic make up in a given kind or family, the rest are made up of less genetic information that was lost during natural selection and mutations upon reproduction. macro evolution needs the opposite to happen, they need the wolf to be the end result of a poodle breeding program.

[Someone]

I don't believe in this "God" concept and how he is able to create woman out of a rib bone of a man. Please write about how this is possible.

[Dogbyte]

@Someone

"I don't believe in this "God" concept and how he is able to create woman out of a rib bone of a man. Please write about how this is possible."

Honestly, if anyone possessed the ability to explain it perfectly where you could understand it, would it really change your concept of God? How would you be certain they are telling the truth? would you require them to demonstrate it first, or would you just take their word on it? Im not positive that i could even understand such a process if someone explained it in detail anyway, who knows.

but something you might consider is that the rib bone is the only bone that can regenerate itself. other bones can repair, but only ribs can regenerate if you remove the bone from within the periosteum, which is an outer layer of tissue surrounding the bone. it would be like removing the inside of a banana, from the skin. The rib is specifically mentioned in the process you question. The Bible was put together over thousands of years, which came well before this knowledge was discovered by men in the 20th century.

[RonH]

Dogbyte,

I don't know if it's true, but I'll grant you for the sake of discussion: no new genes were added when dogs descended from wolves. This is irrelevant.

There is no getting around the fact that a mutated copy of a duplicated gene adds information to the genome.

By the way, where do the theorems you refer to come from? I want to have a look.

the wolf has genetic info that the poodle can never regain.

How do you know that?

Micro evolution fails as a mechanism to spur macro evolution.

How do you know that?
RonH

[RonH]

Dogbyte,Please start sentences with capital letters.