Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 123 (8774 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-23-2017 8:48 AM
402 online now:
AZPaul3, Faith, frako, PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD, Tangle (7 members, 395 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Tom Larkin
Happy Birthday: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 814,436 Year: 19,042/21,208 Month: 1,801/3,111 Week: 22/574 Day: 22/38 Hour: 5/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
5960
61
6263
...
66Next
Author Topic:   Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 834 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 901 of 984 (745527)
12-23-2014 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 900 by ringo
12-23-2014 11:28 AM


Re: A Q of authority
t's not a tautology. Obviously, in order for life to evolve as it did the original genome had to contain all the components for it but it also had to have the program to make it happen. A bunch of parts in a toy box will not become a toy until someone, reading the instructions, assembles them. The program contained all the instructions for all future developmental variations (ontogeny) and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications (phylogeny). HOX genes are a case in point.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 900 by ringo, posted 12-23-2014 11:28 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 902 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2014 8:10 PM Rodnas has responded
 Message 904 by jar, posted 12-23-2014 8:28 PM Rodnas has not yet responded
 Message 907 by ringo, posted 12-24-2014 10:46 AM Rodnas has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 902 of 984 (745528)
12-23-2014 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 7:59 PM


Re: A Q of authority
t's not a tautology. Obviously, in order for life to evolve as it did the original genome had to contain all the components for it but it also had to have the program to make it happen.

"had to contain all the components"?

Since there are other possible working models, such as mutations that can provide novel components, you are going to have to do more to establish that your is the only possibility.

I know you are convinced, but aren't you trying to convince others? What is your argument against mutation providing the novel components?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 7:59 PM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 903 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 8:25 PM NoNukes has responded

    
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 834 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 903 of 984 (745529)
12-23-2014 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 902 by NoNukes
12-23-2014 8:10 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Mutations were also programmed. In describing evolution from the earliest life forms to man, on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, e.g., the sudden appearance of the first bird from a dinosaur egg and the sudden appearance of the first placental mammal.

BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 902 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2014 8:10 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 905 by NoNukes, posted 12-23-2014 8:58 PM Rodnas has not yet responded
 Message 906 by JonF, posted 12-24-2014 8:27 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 904 of 984 (745530)
12-23-2014 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 901 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 7:59 PM


chemistry ain't toys
More bullshit.

Sorry but what you try to market is just classic Christian Cult of Ignorance bullshit.

Mix oxygen and hydrogen and you get water. No program needed. No programmer or agent needed. No designer need apply.

Leave water out when the temperature drops below 0C and it freezes and expands. No program needed. No programmer needed. No designer need apply.

Nor is there any need for any preloading. Fortunately genetics includes the ability to create whole new combinations with no designer, no program needed.

Edited by jar, : appalin spallin


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 7:59 PM Rodnas has not yet responded

  
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 905 of 984 (745533)
12-23-2014 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 903 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 8:25 PM


Re: A Q of authority
BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view

The problem is that you are not providing "information that supports" any view. You are just providing the view. If there is some supporting information, by which I mean evidence, please provide a pointer to that. I'd like to read it.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 8:25 PM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 906 of 984 (745552)
12-24-2014 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 903 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 8:25 PM


Re: A Q of authority
BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.

That's not scientific information, it's exceptionally silly fantasy.

Pathetic even by the exceptionally low standards of YECs.

If you think you have something to offer, state your sources and briefly describe the measurements, experiments, and analyses that led to your conclusions.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 903 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 8:25 PM Rodnas has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 13315
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 907 of 984 (745557)
12-24-2014 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 901 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 7:59 PM


Re: A Q of authority
Rodnas writes:

... the original genome had to contain all the components for it but it also had to have the program to make it happen.


The components are the "program".

Rodnas writes:

A bunch of parts in a toy box will not become a toy until someone, reading the instructions, assembles them.


But a box of chemicals will. Just try to stop a box of hydrogen and oxygen molecules from self-assembling into (more complex) water molecules.

Rodnas writes:

The program contained all the instructions....


How do you distinguish the instructions from the components? Are the instructions somehow "written" on the molecules? What is the ink?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 901 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 7:59 PM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM ringo has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 908 of 984 (745560)
12-24-2014 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 899 by Rodnas
12-23-2014 9:38 AM


Re: A Question of reality ... and evidence
Thank you for the info about quotes. ...

You're welcome. I'm going to combine responses to several of your posts so it may seem a little long.

... Sorry, I did not mean to advertise only provide another source material. ...

Seeing as it is your blog then you can present the evidence here and be able to substantiate your assertions yes?

... I don't know that the concept was invalidated and I am presenting the latest scientific proof on the subject which validates it .

It is simple logic: if life is preprogrammed then the program is always followed to always end at the same result.

The evidence against this is multi-fold, but here are a couple of quick examples:

  1. extinctions -- most forms of life have gone extinct. Either the program was bad or non-existent. If bad it was more trial by error than any directed program. Evolution results in a trial by error mechanism -- what is different for it to be programmed?
  2. speciation events -- there are many instances where breeding populations have divided into two or more subpopulations that become reproductively isolated, thus forming new species. Thus you have one branch that may be following a programmed path, but the other branch didn't get the memo and took a different path.
  3. new abilities not in parent population -- instances where some populations develop a new ability that allows use of a different ecology or food source, such as eating nylon or consuming a lactose substrate. Other populations of the same species do not develop the programed ability ... or the new ability is not preprogrammed.
  4. horizontal transfer -- DNA segments transfered from one species to another are random insertions, acting exactly like mutations in providing a species with a different randomly generated set of traits subject to selection.
  5. black mice -- two geologically separate populations evolve black fur and then take advantage of nearby lava outcrops to form breeding populations of black mice. The mutations for black fur are different for the different populations. How does programming explain this?
  6. convergent evolution -- different taxon branches evolving similar behaving and appearing species, for example:

    ... where one is a North American placental mammal and the other is an Australian marsupial.

Your task now is to show how these events can be considered programmed rather than mistakes of programming or non-programmed events.

Message 901: Obviously, in order for life to evolve as it did the original genome had to contain all the components for it ...

... OR it needed a mechanism to obtain new parts.

Mutations and horizontal transfer provide new parts, but they are randomly generated and do not always yield positive new traits for survival and reproduction: many are lethal, many are in nonreproductive DNA segments, only some are useful. A shotgun pointed at a target can hit the bullseye with one or two pellets but not with all pellets.

... but it also had to have the program to make it happen. ...

Curiously what occurs is reproduction is a process that is imperfect and this imperfection results in random different arrangements compared to the original. The 'program' can't even proceed from one generation to the next without making mistakes, random mistakes.

... A bunch of parts in a toy box will not become a toy until someone, reading the instructions, assembles them. ...

Which is falsely comparing living populations with inanimate objects that do not reproduce and do not undergo selection.

In evolution you have two parts that alternate to walk through life -- mutation and selection:

This is a two-step feedback response system that is repeated in each generation and it is like walking on first one foot and then the next. This simple system yields a trial and error approach that matches what we see in the natural history of life on earth.

... The program contained all the instructions for all future developmental variations (ontogeny) and subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications (phylogeny). HOX genes are a case in point.

Yet ends up with more dead-ends and missteps than direct progress ...

Message 903: Mutations were also programmed. ...

What controls the mutations and what mechanism provides the timing for it?

... In describing evolution from the earliest life forms to man, on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, e.g., the sudden appearance of the first bird from a dinosaur egg and the sudden appearance of the first placental mammal.

While 99% of all species that ever lived on earth were programmed to suddenly die off?

The theory of evolution explains the die-offs and the lethal mutations does programming? In order to have a better theory it needs to explain the same evidence in a new way that provides a different approach; the new approach needs to provide a prediction that will differentiate it from the previous theory: if x happens then y will occur by new theory while z occurs by old theory. What is this test?

... on many occasions the book lists a sudden mutation as having been the cause of fundamental evolutionary changes, ...

Sudden on what time scale? Thousands of years or one generation?

The natural history of life shows long periods of transitions in the development of both birds and mammals where some intermediate traits are seen in various species -- some lead to birds or mammals while others do not. Some populations "suddenly" spread because they are better adapted to take advantage of the ecology opportunities. In evolution theory this is known as punctuated equilibrium (or punk-eek). See Differential Dispersal Of Introduced Species - An Aspect of Punctuated Equilibrium for discussion of how radiation of successful evolved species can appear sudden in the geological record.

BTW, I am not trying to convince anyone here, only providing the latest scientific information that supports the non-Darwinian view.

Well so far you have not provided anything new nor that qualifies as latest scientific evidence to support the assertions you have made. If this is what your purpose is, then you need to start providing the objective empirical evidence rather than repeat old claims.

With the standard evolution model I can predict an increase in both speciation and extinction of species in response to the changing global climate: what does your program model predict?

Without a testable prediction it isn't science, and without a prediction that provides a different result than the standard evolution model while failing to explain all the evidence that evolution explains it is an inferior hypothesis.

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 899 by Rodnas, posted 12-23-2014 9:38 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

  
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 834 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 909 of 984 (745628)
12-25-2014 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 907 by ringo
12-24-2014 10:46 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Ringo writes:
But a box of chemicals will. Just try to stop a box of hydrogen and oxygen molecules from self-assembling into (more complex) water molecules.

Here is a quote from Johnson's Programming of Life: "All components of matter arise by spontaneous processes that do not require sequences and codes, whereas all components of life arise by manufacturing processes that do require these entities. It is the sequences and codes that makes the difference between living and dead matter. It is semiosis (symbol translation system) that does not exist in the inanimate world, and that is why biology is not a complex form of chemistry."

Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer.

Sudden on what time scale? Thousands of years or one generation?

One generation.
We are straying from the main issue. You can find answers to your questions at www.urantia.org

I have no idea how anything was programmed; I am reporting on what some experts in the field are saying and that is that the original genome was programmed. Here is what the biologist John A. Davison asserts: "The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg."

Edited by Rodnas, : No reason given.

Edited by Rodnas, : Added content.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 907 by ringo, posted 12-24-2014 10:46 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 911 by jar, posted 12-25-2014 9:02 AM Rodnas has not yet responded
 Message 912 by RAZD, posted 12-25-2014 10:49 AM Rodnas has responded
 Message 913 by dwise1, posted 12-25-2014 11:54 AM Rodnas has responded
 Message 932 by ringo, posted 12-27-2014 11:00 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

    
JonF
Member
Posts: 3799
Joined: 06-23-2003
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 910 of 984 (745631)
12-25-2014 8:44 AM


Back in the day we used readings from the Urantia Book as part of my fraternity's initiation rites. Sonorous, impressive, and total gibberish.
  
jar
Member
Posts: 29141
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.8


(2)
Message 911 of 984 (745632)
12-25-2014 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 6:15 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Here is what the biologist John A. Davison asserts: "The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg."

Yeah, JAD used to try to pedal that here himself. He said lots but never offered any support or evidence. But he was fun.

I miss Ray too.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM Rodnas has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18787
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 912 of 984 (745635)
12-25-2014 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 6:15 AM


Re: A Q of authority
Chemistry does nor require a code but biochemistry does, that's is the fundamental difference and a code requires a programmer.

At what point of adding single elements one at a time to a molecular assembly does it change from chemistry to biochemistry?

Sudden on what time scale? Thousands of years or one generation?

One generation.

Please present the fossil evidence that definitively shows one generation between pre-avian dinosaur and avian dinosaur. Show that the pre-avian dinosaur had no avian features.

Please present the fossil evidence that definitively shows one generation between pre-mammalian reptile and mammal. Show that the pre-mammalalian reptile had no mammal features.

You made the claim you must have the evidence.

We are straying from the main issue. ...

No we are trying to determine if you assertions are pure ant frass or have some faint attachment to reality. The topic is what should be taught in school -- do we have classes on fantasy or classes on science?

If we are going to have classes on fantasy then they need to provide a comparative study of all fantasies.

If we are going to have classes on science then we need to include the actual scientific evidence, theory, predictions and evaluation of the data ... and show how it follows the scientific method:

So what is a tested prediction of your model, one that shows differentiation from evolutionary biology, and how it explains all the evidence ... including the answers to my previous questions.

... You can find answers to your questions at www.urantia.org

Curiously I think this is just you dodging the questions I raised because you cannot answer them and you don't want to admit -- even to yourself -- that you have no answer to these challenges to your assertions.

So I will maintain that the evidence I presented shows your claim to be invalid until you can show otherwise. Consider this a gift for you, a challenge for you to evaluate with critical thinking.

AND we do not debate by referring to a website. You can quote from the website what you feel is the best evidence for your claims and be prepared to defend it.

So far all you have is assertion and claims that are based on assertions. In science you need objective empirical evidence ... and if we are talking about what should be taught in school as science then you need to provide the scientific support, not just more assertions.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added image


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 916 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 2:36 PM RAZD has responded

  
dwise1
Member
Posts: 2864
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 913 of 984 (745641)
12-25-2014 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 909 by Rodnas
12-25-2014 6:15 AM


Re: A Q of authority
We are straying from the main issue.

Yes, you are quite correct in this statement ("Even a broken clock can be correct twice a day.")

The main issue in this topic (which is called a "thread" in some other fora) is, as per the topic title: Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Urantia has no bearing on this topic unless it is your intention that it be taught in the US public schools. Is that your intention? If so, then please state that and point to Urantian policy statements to that effect.

If that is not your intention, then your actual intentions can be far better served by proposing a new topic in which your Urantian beliefs can be discussed. I would recommend that the keyword "Urantia" be included in the topic title so that those forum members with knowledge of, experience with, and/or interest in Urantian claims can become aware of this discussion's existence, which currently is being hidden from sight in an entirely different and unrelated topic.

I would suggest that discussion of the scientific claims made by the Urantia book be a major area of discussion. In familiarizing myself with the subject, I read the criticism that the scientific ideas and "facts" presented in that book are from a 1920s perspective and using scientific knowledge of that time which has now been shown to be incorrect. A number of them are listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/...tia_Book#Criticism_of_its_science, such as your idea of entirely new species arising in a single generation based on de Vries' short-lived idea that has long since been disproven.

... and a code requires a programmer.

You should also review the false "God of the Gaps" theology (eg, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps, What Does "God of the Gaps" Mean?, Science and Christian Apologetics), since that is what you are advocating there. Also, both "intelligent design" and "creation science", the originators of that argument, themselves base their arguments on that same false and highly-dangerous-to-the-user theology.

Also, are we really talking about an actual code here? Or is that just an analogy we use to aid in discussing genetics? Like the "Laws of Nature" which do not actually exist, but rather are human formulations of patterns we humans have noticed in how natural processes are observed to work. Or the sun and moon rising and setting, which we still say despite knowing how false that analogy is.

And before you compare genetics to computer programming code, please read up on Dr. Thomas Ray's TIERRA simulation in which he explicitly discusses the differences.

Also, you should probably read up on genetic algorithms. And on evolutionary theory itself. And on the modern evolutionary synthesis which united Darwinian evolution and Mendelian genetics and which occurred after your book was written. Before the synthesis, genetics was seen as an alternative to Darwinian evolution and a disproof of Darwin, as reflected in the countless 1920's geneticists quote-mined by creationists.

But your first step should be to propose a new topic. Then while waiting for it to be approved, you can catch up on some much-needed reading.

Edited by dwise1, : " and a code requires a programmer." quote that had somehow disappeared


This message is a reply to:
 Message 909 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 6:15 AM Rodnas has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 914 by NoNukes, posted 12-25-2014 12:10 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 915 by Rodnas, posted 12-25-2014 2:34 PM dwise1 has not yet responded
 Message 933 by dwise1, posted 01-04-2015 12:17 PM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 9726
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 914 of 984 (745642)
12-25-2014 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by dwise1
12-25-2014 11:54 AM


Re: A Q of authority
If that is not your intention, then your actual intentions can be far better served by proposing a new topic in which your Urantian beliefs can be discussed.

A whole topic devoted to the purpose of inviting us to a urantia web page? No thanks. Rodnas has already told us that he has no intention of persuading. His purpose is more akin to proselytizing.


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by dwise1, posted 12-25-2014 11:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rodnas 
Suspended Junior Member (Idle past 834 days)
Posts: 15
From: Seattle
Joined: 12-22-2014


Message 915 of 984 (745649)
12-25-2014 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 913 by dwise1
12-25-2014 11:54 AM


Re: A Q of authority
NoNuke writes:

But your first step should be to propose a new topic. Then while waiting for it to be approved, you can catch up on some much-needed reading.

Your first step should be to read Gerard Battail's "Information Theory and Error-Correcting Codes in Genetics and Biological Evolution" (2008) in which the existence of actual programming codes is proposed, explained and justified. Obviously, you have already made up your mind, as it seems the case with others, so I don't see an intelligent, open-minded discussion possible here, just ad hominem put downs. Typical.

The topic here is about creation/evolution, I offer scientific information about creation, it is rejected a priori by ignoramuses like you (read my books), so the discussion ends here.

Happy Holidays.

Edited by Admin, : Fix quote.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 913 by dwise1, posted 12-25-2014 11:54 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 918 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-25-2014 2:48 PM Rodnas has responded

    
RewPrev1
...
5960
61
6263
...
66Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017