|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Not enough room in DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Hi Jpatterson,
I'll answer something similar to Theodoric, albeit a bit more friendly . You will get straight and sharp answers here, but don't worry everybody is cool when you learn to stick around. Now off to the question. You are asking if all the information to grow a human can be comprised in our DNA. If we answer yes, then of course the discussion pretty much ends here. Now if we answer no, then it leads to other questions. Where does the rest of the 'needed' information come from ? If you answer with ''God'', then as Theodoric mentioned you are effectively saying that God personnally intrudes his own established laws of nature, and comes add whatever needs to be added at the right time to complete the lacks in he DNA. Now this option is impossible to rule out (since it involves proving ''God never ...'' which is a universal negative ie. impossible to prove), however, it does not mean this is the correct avenue to take. The other possibility is that the missing information comes from somewhere else, another biological storage for example. But if you want to propose something like this, then you need to identify which part, how it does this exactly and how this renders evolution of species impossible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
What Subbie said, your avatars confused me
Edited by slevesque, : message from wrong account
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
THe NHL talked about putting a team in Las Vegas a couple years ago
But seriously what are you doing as a living in Vegas ? (Ok this is a bit off-topic . I hope Jpatterson will come back to his own thread to continue the discussion) Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined:
|
Wouldn't a smart God have made a universe that works? But no, not according to creationists. For example, according to creationists God wanted a universe with life in it. So (they tell me) he made a universe in which it was absolutely impossible for life to arise. And then he did a miracle to make life. First he made a bicycle with square wheels, and then he carried it to the place where he wanted it to go. That's an interesting question, but put it the other way. Suppose that God had made a universe where life could arise by natural means, ie no need of supernatural intervention. Idem for all the mysteries concerning origins (Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution)Would you not then accuse this God of being misleading, since he made a universe which could have made itself with life in it that could have made itself. I think the universe we live in makes much more sense in this regards. If we live in a universe where life is impossible to be produced by natural means, why then is there life ? The answer becomes that life was therefore produced by supernatural means. (Of course, the crucial premise of this logical deduction, that life can't be naturally produced in our universe, hasn't been proven) The same thought process can be done with evolution. I think that there exists no natural mechanism in our universe that can produce the evolution of species (in the sense of common descent of all species from a unicellular). And so once again the same thought process. If life cannot naturally diversify into species, why are there species ? But imagine a universe (for you, strangely ressembling this one ) where the evolution of species is possible. Would you not then say it is a bit misleading of God to make a world where evolution is possible without him being necessary. In fact, I think I remember you saying similar objections to God's existence since you think we live in such a universe. In other words, a universe where life is impossible, yet there is life; where evolution of species is impossible, yet there are species, is much more consistent with a supernaturally created universe then the contrary. PS. and I hope no one will start arguing over semantics of 'evolution' and 'species'. Try to grasp the general idea I'm trying to convey. PPS. Do you ever go play cards in Vegas Dr.A ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
That's about what deists believe. I don't see any particular problem with that concept of God. Of course, it's very general concept that can fit just any about general definition of God.
Of course I don't speak for Dr Adequate. However, I don't see anything misleading about that that. It would merely suggest that God does not have an overinflated ego, so is acting anonymously because he/she doesn't care about the credits. Now if we want to be specific to the Judeo-christian God, with whom in fact there are eternal consequences if you don't know him. In this situation, I see it as preferable that there are signs of his existence in our universe (regardless of if you judge this as having 'an overinflated ego') It's like half-way between ''no evidence that he exists anywhere'' and ''he shows himself to us everyday to make sure we know he exists''. And I'm sure you once asked the very same question CS just did. Hence the irony, because you brush off the evidence he did give us of his existence in his creation by saying ''what a show-off if he were to do that'' but then at another time you will say ''why doesn't he give us more proof that he exists?''
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Which of these is more impressive: 1. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, breaks them, and pockets every single ball on the break. 2. Someone racks all 15 pool balls, grabs each one individually, and then drops them into the pockets. A natural universe with a Big Bang, abiogenesis, evolution, etc. is scenario number 1. Magical poofing is number 2. Irrelevant which one I find more 'impressive', since I'm concerned about what happened in reality. Don't want to fool myself believing he dropped them in when in fact the went in on the break, or vice versa. But if I take your analogy, and adapt it to the situation. Suppose that all balls are on the table, but there are absolutely no way they could get in the pockets by moving around randomly on the table (suppose no friction). Like Duct tape over the holes or something. Now suppose I come back 15 minutes later and all the balls are in the pockets, but still with Duct tape over them. This would be a 'hint' that someone had come and put them all in. In the same way, a universe were life is impossible to originate, yet in which there is life, is a 'hint' of a supernatural intervention. The contrary wouldn't give you any information, since if you remove he Duct tape both are possible. However with Occam's razor you should not suppose someone put the balls in the hole when actually it is quite feasible that they just went in while moving around.
Is it misleading for my wife to tell me that she grew some flowers in the garden when it turns out that flowers grow naturally from seeds? Irrelevant, since your wife is confined by natural laws and cannot accomplish anything outside of them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
If God created a universe where (for example) humans could evolve from other species without any supernatural intervention, but then, a bunch of deluded humans come along and claim that God made them out of clay, how does that make God a liar? It just means the human authors of various Bible stories were mistaken. Evolution isn't the best example of the three because many believe in it and are still theists. And of course, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, so maybe from your worldview it doesn't make my imaginary God a liar, but of course from mine it does make my real god one.
If God made was involved in human evolution, but covered it up, so that it appeared to be completely natural, now that would be dishonest. If we really were made out of clay, but so as to resemble a creature that evolved, that would be dishonest. It would also be spectacularly unparsimonious. I totally agree.
Oh sure, I agree with that. If God had decided that there would be awful consequences for those who didn't believe in him, but still hid his light under the proverbial bushel, that would be dishonest. That would in fact, be absolutely monstrous. Only a diabolical bastard would be so grossly unfair. Yes, and this is why I believe that God as put enough evidence in this world (from general revelation and special revelation) so that anybody can come to the conclusion that he exists. Or else that would make him a diabolical bastard. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Never heard that claim about Darwin before, would you mind citing your source ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
I'm not all that familiar with Darwin's pre-voyage beliefs. Of course he could not have been Darwinian, but he could have believed in some sort of evolution.
I do know that he brought Lyell's 'principles of geology', so at least at the time of the voyage he was no longer a young-earther. I should probably read a biography of his life I guess, anyone have a good suggestion ?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
He applied uniformitarian interpretations to geological formation he saw, giving dates much higher then 6k years
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Evidence isn't as black and white as you portray it here. Had Darwin been reading a book by Cuvier, he would have applied a catastrophist interpretation to the geological formations he saw.
rarely will evidence demande a strict interpretation, in many cases many hypothesis sometimes very different can be made about something. It all depends on the what approach you take towards it. But we are getting far off-topic so we'll have to stop here (All I wanted originally was some additional information on a minor detail). If anyone wants to continue this then they can start a topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Canadian dollar is on par with the american dollar these days I think. Dunno what that makes in euro however
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
And of course, applying to Lyell's strict uniformitarianism made him make some mistakes. All I was saying is that Subbie overexpressed the ''compelling'' evidence that ''forced'' unto him the idea of uniformitarianism.
The classic example being his hypothesis on what formed the Santa Cruz river. Through uniformitarianism, he thought the it was the product of the erosion of the tides by an ancient sea. When today we know it was formed by meltwater flooding (similar to the channeled scablands), which is much closer to a Cuvier catastrophist interpretation. All I want to say is that subbie put way to much weight on the 'evidence' in Darwin's geological interpretations. Uniformitarianism is a framework first and foremost, in which you interpret the evidence, not a strict logical deduction if the evidence. Just as is catastrophism. In fact, uniformitarianism was the only accepted framework for a long time in geology, as per this quote from Derek Ager (british geologist and anti-creationist):
quote:Ager, D., The New Catastrophism: the importance of the rare event in geological history, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. xi, 1993 Darwin was in this 'uniformitarian wave' just as much as anybody else. He wrote a critique of Agassiz's ice age theory for example, which wasn't uniformitarian but turned out to be true. AbE. But I still do think that if someone wants to continue this discussion, to open another thread. It will be much easier to find back in the future. Better keep things straight. So I won't answer back anything on here anymore Edited by slevesque, : No reason given. Edited by slevesque, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Start a new thread then ....
The OP of this thread is not about Darwin's influences, it's about if DNA can account for the whole formation of a biological system such as a human body.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
slevesque Member (Idle past 4641 days) Posts: 1456 Joined: |
Why? I'm right. Of course you are, I never wanted to force you to do anything.
Quite so. But we seem to have wandered a little from the topic. I think it pusillanimous of you to now complain that our discussion is off-topic at the point when you realize that you're getting your ass kicked. You didn't complain that you yourself were off-topic when you raised the subject --- but now it is off-topic for me to answer you. The moment I asked for some additional info about what Parasomnium I was going a bit off-topic, but I was imagining having a single response linking to where he had read this. It was an informative discussion at the beginning, but as soon as I felt this could turn out to become an argumentative discussion, I immediatly signaled that we should stop the discussion and continue on a new thread if someone wanted to continue it (see post #116). You responded to my post, +added that since the OPer wasn't here, we could just continue on chatting about Darwin's life here. But of course we both know this isn't an 'out-clause' to forum guideline no2 (''Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.'') I responded to your post, and once again reiterated that a new thread was to be made in order to continue the discussion if there was interest in doing so. In other words, my past two successive posts (disregarding no126 about canadian vs euro dollar) clearly stated that we were off-topic, the first one being clearly before any imaginary ass-kicking took place. Since I knew this second mention of it wouldn't do any more impact then the first one, I decided to edit my message as to say that I wouldn't answer anymore on this thread. This was simply in order to put more weight to my warning. I'm sorry you interpreted all this the way you did, although I find it unsurprising that you are giving me worst intentions than what was actually the case.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024