Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence to expect given a designer
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 76 of 373 (644606)
12-19-2011 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Percy
12-18-2011 2:38 PM


Percy writes:
If you think archaeologists are detecting signs of intelligence rather than signs of human activity,
Those two aren't mutually exclusive. Signs of intelligent design are assumed (perfectly reasonably) to be signs of human activity.
Percy writes:
then try to describe how archaeologists detect intelligence and how it differs from merely detecting human activity.
It's effectively a subset of detecting human activity. Largely because we're the only high level intelligent designers known to operate on this planet.
I've already pointed out that archaeologists do not have a specific formula. Think of the observations you yourself can make about the rocks in the picture I posted above. From the picture alone, are they observations that would conclusively eliminate intelligent biological aliens visiting this planet as possible agents who could be responsible for the rocks? At first glance, what is there about them that has to be human?
Of course, even from the limited information in that one picture, we could very reasonably assume that the stonework is human. I certainly would. But that reasonable initial assumption might come at least partially from the fact that we're the only beings capable of such stuff known to have existed on this planet, and we have no evidence at all to suggest there were any other beings of our level of intelligence operating here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Percy, posted 12-18-2011 2:38 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 4:17 PM bluegenes has replied

  
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 77 of 373 (644612)
12-19-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Just being real
12-19-2011 10:14 AM


Just being real writes:
Do you suppose that it is necessary to know every facet of somethings purpose just to be able to infer intelligent design?
No.
Just being real writes:
Could a child who never saw a gun, distinguish an AR-15 military assault riffle from naturally occurring things in the forest? Or would he have to know exactly what it does and why it was made first?
Don't things in forests have "specificity"?
The child actually might be generally aware of purpose in manufactured articles without knowing the specific purpose of that one. Just like we might recognise general purpose behind putting blocks of stone on other blocks of stone without knowing the specific purpose of Stone Henge.
JBR writes:
Well I would say that in the same way an arrowhead sparks an independent recognition response in the archaeologist, the incredibly specific order of base code sequences and arrangements of DNA sparks an independent recognition response in the micro biologists who have cracked that code.
It does?
Just Being Real writes:
There is no fundamental mistake here BG. One could make the argument that a combination lock is not intelligent. The object that uses the specificity to perform basic functions does not need to be aware that it is doing so. However the lock example illustrates how we (the observers) can detect intelligence in somethings design when we see a specific independent recognition response take place. When the correct code is entered into the lock, or the correct code is read in the DNA sequence. It is still recognizable specificity. And thus far we humans have only "observed" specificity form from intelligent sources.
There is a mistake. We have observed what you are calling "specificity" from both unintelligent sources and intelligent sources. Remember that your examples of intelligent designers are always organisms. Your precise observation should be that we have observed signal systems and codes being used by both unintelligent and intelligent organisms. That takes away your reason for associating such things with intelligent design alone.
You can also observe that both intelligent and unintelligent organisms are dependent on the DNA system. So you can make a further observation. "Code" and "specificity" are prerequisites for all known intelligent designers.
From that, you can come up with an inductive scientific law, if you like.
"Specificity" is a necessary prerequisite for intelligence.
Neat, eh?
Incidentally, archaeologists find out things about the past from looking at things in the present. Biologists do this also. You're absolutely wrong in claiming that there are no known examples of beneficial mutations in multicellular organisms.
How extensively did you search the relevant literature before coming up with your conclusion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 10:14 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM bluegenes has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 78 of 373 (644613)
12-19-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Just being real
12-19-2011 11:28 AM


Time to get real
As I pointed out in Message 30 scientists don't use your "specificity" criterion. To be honest, even William Dembski would reject it, since he requires massive improbability in addition to a specification.
quote:
No I just implied that even a child on its own plane operating within its limited and undeveloped level of knowledge and understanding could distinguish between something with characteristics of specificity and something just functioning under natural unguided processes and laws.
But unguided processes and laws allow us to make predictions about the behaviour, which constitute specificity by your own definition. So there IS no distinction. The Gian't Causeway has a specification. The spectral lines of Sodium have a specification. They are produced by natural unguided processes.
And one of the things expected of the natural unguided process of evolution is function. If you accept even the possibility that evolution can work, you have to accept that functional systems might be the result of evolution. So how can the existence of such systems be seen as a reason to reject evolution and accept design without begging the question ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 11:28 AM Just being real has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 79 of 373 (644629)
12-19-2011 4:17 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by bluegenes
12-19-2011 1:16 PM


bluegenes writes:
Percy writes:
...then try to describe how archaeologists detect intelligence and how it differs from merely detecting human activity.
It's effectively a subset of detecting human activity. Largely because we're the only high level intelligent designers known to operate on this planet.
You've expressed it a bit differently this time. This time you've said that archaeologists detect "high level intelligent designers." That's not true, either, unless "high level intelligent designers" is a synonym for human beings. If you look at the Wikipedia article on archaeology, the word intelligent or intelligence doesn't even appear.
I've already pointed out that archaeologists do not have a specific formula.
They not only don't have a specific method for detecting intelligence, they're not even looking for it. The kinds of things archaeologists find can tell us about the intellectual level of achievement of an ancient society, but it can't tell us anything about the intelligence of the people themselves.
All species possess a specific blend of qualities that makes them unique, and biologists or paleontologists or archaeologists can seek out and study the expression of those qualities in nature. Recognizing the signs of a dung beetle tunnel or a Hadrosaur nesting ground or an ancient city is what is done, rather than seeking signs of a given level of intelligent expression.
But probably the most compelling reason that archaeologists do not seek out signs of intelligence is that it doesn't have a rigorous scientific definition, as IDists make clear in debate after debate.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:16 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Straggler, posted 12-20-2011 4:52 PM Percy has replied
 Message 134 by bluegenes, posted 12-21-2011 2:22 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 80 of 373 (644632)
12-19-2011 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Admin
12-15-2011 5:38 PM


My one comment
-Design is recognized by how an object's components are arranged.
-Good design is recognized by whether other designers copy it.
I think design is recognized by how something is arranged, yes. I think pedantic examples do not change this. For example, what makes a wall is how it is put together, not it's parts but how it is arranged. This is the same for all designs unless they require extremely crude simplicity. The position of an antenna for example, it not inherently important, necessary because of the physics involved, but a radio would still be recognized as a design by how it's parts are arranged, very specifically.
Bio-mimetics proves that biological designs are good, as it stands to reason that humans would not use designs from nature if they were not useful. What I mean by "good" is that they are viable and work in a superior way to other solutions.
The example of the bullet train for example, or using the design of the shark, as I mentioned.
I think it is an important point to say that If there is a designer we would expect to see good designs.
The induction of "good" designs is almost limitless.
To say that you can't differentiate between evolution being responsible and a designer, is logically problematic because of the fact that we KNOW, 100%, through logical deduction, that a designer answers for designs, given human design.
But we don't know deductively, that evolution has the power for such specific designs.
For example, the difference between the avian lung and our own might require a hernia.
Even if there is a general picture, and induction of evidence favouring the ToE, this does not address specific designs. You can only speculate that evolution somehow did it, but when we look at a combustion engine we are not speculating that a designer could have somehow did it, we know designers did it.
For me, evolution, as it is proposed, does not have thought nor can it plan or predetermine or come up with a thoughtful contingency in answer to a specific problem and all the arguments in the world will not change the fact that a thoughtful mind can do these things, does have the capacity, and therefore answers the problem neatly.
Again, the only real reason to reject the glaringly obvious facts is denial, in my opinion, given that two basic mechanisms would not be expected to produce high-quality design.
There is no predictive power in claiming that evolution can produce brilliant design, unless we see it produce it in the future. For now, evolutionists can only reason posteriori yet the facts certainly do not dictate that biological evolution should have the power to produce such designs. I think it is more reasonable that a power that more adequately explains the designs, is inferred.
Example;
Designs are designed well given;
- Ideas
- Planning
- An extraordinarily clever contingency for a specific problem
- Predetermination
Evolution does not have these attributes, yet we know from OTHER designs that these attributes are essential for design.
Now of course, evolution could be hit-and-miss, but unless you can show the hit-and-miss examples then it is only speculation, as to whether evolution led to it.
The picture from the fossil record can in no way give a satisfying answer given how fragmented and incomplete that record is. It seems that it is simply by faith that evolution is favoured over the glaringly obvious solution.
At the very and bare least, intellectually it must be conceded that these types of designs qualify as evidence of a designer, because logically, such designs are superior to human designs, and human designs, even though they are lesser designs, REQUIRE designers.
If atheists could admit this then perhaps they would frighten me a lot more than they do, because then I could know that they could be reasonable, but to pretend that nothing in existence supports a designer is not reasonable, given that even in an atheistic universe, chance would produce evidence that would favour a designer.
I don't see any great objective reasonings as to why I should change my mind.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Admin, posted 12-15-2011 5:38 PM Admin has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Coyote, posted 12-19-2011 5:05 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 82 by PaulK, posted 12-19-2011 5:10 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 83 by jar, posted 12-19-2011 5:51 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 84 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 5:56 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 102 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 11:51 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(2)
Message 81 of 373 (644633)
12-19-2011 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
12-19-2011 4:41 PM


Re: My one comment
I think it is an important point to say that If there is a designer we would expect to see good designs.
Knees.
Lower backs.
Routing of waste disposal through the sex organs.
Case closed.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2011 4:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 82 of 373 (644634)
12-19-2011 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
12-19-2011 4:41 PM


Re: My one comment
Let us note that the argument is that there are SOME good designs in nature. (Which is true, but not that surprising given evolution).
It is asserted that a designer could explain these, which is also true, but it is speculation to say that a designer DID do it. And the induction bites back - we can equally well say that all known complex designs are the creation of humans (there are a few exceptions which I won't go into yet, except to say that they don't help Mikey's argument at all)
It is asserted - without evidence - that the "good" designs require forethought not available to evolution. Indeed, nobody has found a definite example of this at all, which is rather surprising if there really were an intelligent designer operating.
Evidence for the power of evolution-like mechanisms and for evolution is ignored. So is the fact that we have no candidate designer, nor any reason to think that a designer WOULD create those specific designs.
In fact if there is a designer it seems that he operates almost exclusively by modifying existing designs. Even to the point of modifying land animals to an exclusively maritime life - more than once! This is exactly what we would expect if evolution is true, but is harder to explain on the assumption of a designer. Human designers go back to start from scratch often enough.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2011 4:41 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:37 PM PaulK has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 83 of 373 (644639)
12-19-2011 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
12-19-2011 4:41 PM


Where's the Designer?
The evidence needed is some evidence that the Designer exists.
Until that is presented and examined, talk of Design is just silly.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2011 4:41 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by mike the wiz, posted 12-22-2011 12:45 PM jar has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(2)
Message 84 of 373 (644641)
12-19-2011 5:56 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by mike the wiz
12-19-2011 4:41 PM


Re: My one comment
To say that you can't differentiate between evolution being responsible and a designer, is logically problematic ...
Also, not what anyone's said, because we can. There are mistakes that evolution must make but a designer wouldn't.
But we don't know deductively, that evolution has the power for such specific designs.
Simulation of evolution, not to mention direct observation, shows that evolution can evolve things just as designers design things.
For example, the difference between the avian lung and our own might require a hernia.
Unless you think that birds are descended from humans, this is irrelevant.
Even if there is a general picture, and induction of evidence favouring the ToE, this does not address specific designs. You can only speculate that evolution somehow did it, but when we look at a combustion engine we are not speculating that a designer could have somehow did it, we know designers did it.
Which is one of the many ways in which an internal combustion engine differs from living things.
Again, the only real reason to reject the glaringly obvious facts is denial, in my opinion, given that two basic mechanisms would not be expected to produce high-quality design.
Your expectations are irrelevant when put alongside the fact that variation and selection do produce high-quality "design".
There is no predictive power in claiming that evolution can produce brilliant design, unless we see it produce it in the future.
Bollocks.
I note, by the way, that you do not apply this reasoning to your invisible designer.
Designs are designed well given;
- Ideas
- Planning
- An extraordinarily clever contingency for a specific problem
- Predetermination
Things that you'd mistake for designs are not-really-designed well given:
- Reproduction
- Variation
- Selection
The picture from the fossil record can in no way give a satisfying answer given how fragmented and incomplete that record is. It seems that it is simply by faith that evolution is favoured over the glaringly obvious solution.
No.
At the very and bare least, intellectually it must be conceded that these types of designs qualify as evidence of a designer, because logically, such designs are superior to human designs, and human designs, even though they are lesser designs, REQUIRE designers.
That is not logical; it's not even coherent.
If atheists could admit this then perhaps they would frighten me a lot more than they do, because then I could know that they could be reasonable, but to pretend that nothing in existence supports a designer is not reasonable, given that even in an atheistic universe, chance would produce evidence that would favour a designer.
Something equally compatible with two hypotheses does not favor one over the other, and if I wanted to frighten you, I'd creep up behind you and shout "BOO!", not degrade my intellect by repeating fatuous nonsense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by mike the wiz, posted 12-19-2011 4:41 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 85 of 373 (644665)
12-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Dr Adequate
12-19-2011 11:51 AM


And the things that you gave as examples of things without "characteristics of specificity"
From a child's vantage point
were, apparently, "naturally occurring things in the forest"
From a child's vantage point
But aren't you meant to be claiming that naturally occurring things do exhibit this vague, ill-defined property?
Perhaps vague to the intentionally obtuse, but yes that is correct. Its like when my seven year old turns on the computer and watches it boot up. He can see it do all kinds of things that it "naturally" was pre-programed to do. Even my seven year old can easily distinguish between those actions, as opposed to when someone is IMiing him on the net. The boot up and basic operation of the system running in the background is all intelligently designed to run a "naturally basic function within the system. But the instant messages however are clearly intelligently being generated from his aunt Val. At his age he may not understand the operating system and how intricately designed it is, but this will come as his plane of understanding and knowledge base develops. Likewise a biologist can go out to that same forest and pick up a tree frog, take it back to the lab and examine its DNA and see high levels of specificity. Therefore he is capable of doing what the child could not. And detect design even within the "operating system."
When I used my child and the AR-15 analogy, I didn't expect for you to stretch my words beyond the breaking point of all congruity. I find it comical that you were waiting with bated breath for my arguments to hide behind vocabulary manipulation and yet you are the first out of that gate.
My statement about "the micro biologists who have cracked that code" was exactly as broad as yours, since we were talking about the same people.
I'll give you that. In the future I'll be more careful to say "MANY" micro biologists...
I'm still waiting for the actual criterion. We need an operational definition. Whether through incompetence or a kind of low cunning, creationist maunderings about "information" are usually too vague to provide one.
Look I'm not like you and trying to trip you up on your own words here. I just want any study that demonstrates how that increase of information from single celled life, to multi-celled, to fins, to lungs to legs, could possibly have came about. Loss of information can sometimes be beneficial to the organisms survival, but it doesn't explain how the increase happened to begin with. Nor do copies, nor copy errors etc. At some point mutations must occur that produce beneficially new never before existed information in the chromosomal DNA. DNA that almost ALL biologists agree is highly specified, and many biologists attribute to a designer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-19-2011 11:51 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-20-2011 4:17 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 103 by Taq, posted 12-20-2011 12:00 PM Just being real has not replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 86 of 373 (644666)
12-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
12-19-2011 12:11 PM


If by "observed" you mean the actual mutation event was witnessed under the microscope...
No, no, of course not, I don't expect anyone to actually witness the event. I agree that would just be silly.
But if you mean that we've never discovered any beneficial mutations then you would be wrong.
I'm not denying that beneficial mutations occur Percy. I am denying that a beneficial mutation has ever occurred that increased the information in the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism. That type of increase would be necessary in order to go from fins to legs, to lungs, and finally to lap tops.
A discussion about the possibility or lack thereof of beneficial mutations would be interesting, but I'm not sure it relates to the topic of this thread. If no beneficial mutations had ever been discovered, would that be evidence of a designer?
Sure it relates and here is how. Most scientists utilize specificity (rather or not they call it that) as the tell tale sign of intelligent design. That is because specificity has only been observed coming from intelligent sources. Interestingly this same property can be observed in the base code arrangements of the DNA of all living things. If no one has proof that this kind of specificity could in fact have arisen by purely random, naturally occurring unguided processes, then we must attribute DNA's origin to the only observations we have made. An intelligent cause. In order for someone to demonstrate that it could have arisen naturally, they have to come up with examples of beneficial mutations occurring that increases the DNA code. Therefore it is directly tied to a discussion on "Evidence to expect given a designer."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 12-19-2011 12:11 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 12-20-2011 7:17 AM Just being real has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


Message 87 of 373 (644667)
12-19-2011 9:49 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by bluegenes
12-19-2011 1:55 PM


We have observed what you are calling "specificity" from both unintelligent sources and intelligent sources. Remember that your examples of intelligent designers are always organisms.
Yes... I'm not following the problem. When detecting specificity we have only observed it FORMING from intelligent biological sources. So we conclude that specificity is an intelligent design feature. Just because unintelligent organisms can make use of specificity does not mean they formed it.
ou're absolutely wrong in claiming that there are no known examples of beneficial mutations in multicellular organisms. How extensively did you search the relevant literature before coming up with your conclusion?.
Very extensively. The problem seems to be that people see me use the word "mutation" and they instantly perceive that I am denying beneficial mutations occur without taking into account the full context of what I am saying. This usually results in a lot of wasted time and me having to repeat myself 5 times before any real discussions on the subject ensues. I am only denying that a beneficial mutation has ever occurred that increased the information in the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism. That type of increase would be necessary in order to go from fins to legs, to lungs, and finally to lap tops.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by bluegenes, posted 12-19-2011 1:55 PM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2011 1:43 AM Just being real has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 88 of 373 (644682)
12-20-2011 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Just being real
12-19-2011 9:49 PM


quote:
Yes... I'm not following the problem. When detecting specificity we have only observed it FORMING from intelligent biological sources. So we conclude that specificity is an intelligent design feature. Just because unintelligent organisms can make use of specificity does not mean they formed it.
Of course that isn't true. Spectral line are produced by any excited atom. The signal of a pulsar is produced with no intelligence. Specificity in your sense is everywhere, produced by unintelligent sources and even the ID movement recognises this.
quote:
Very extensively. The problem seems to be that people see me use the word "mutation" and they instantly perceive that I am denying beneficial mutations occur without taking into account the full context of what I am saying. This usually results in a lot of wasted time and me having to repeat myself 5 times before any real discussions on the subject ensues. I am only denying that a beneficial mutation has ever occurred that increased the information in the chromosomal DNA of any multi-celled organism. That type of increase would be necessary in order to go from fins to legs, to lungs, and finally to lap tops.
Oh, some good old fashioned Creationist dishonesty. The big problem with this argument is that there is no measure of information associated with it, and therefore no way to investigate the claim at all. "There are no mutations that match our secret criteria" is not an argument - it is a deliberately vague assertion. In reality, the process of duplication and diversity increases the information in the genome by any reasonable measure, and we know that that happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Just being real, posted 12-19-2011 9:49 PM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Just being real, posted 12-20-2011 3:25 AM PaulK has replied

  
Just being real
Member (Idle past 3935 days)
Posts: 369
Joined: 08-26-2010


(1)
Message 89 of 373 (644687)
12-20-2011 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by PaulK
12-20-2011 1:43 AM


Spectral line are produced by any excited atom. The signal of a pulsar is produced with no intelligence.
Not sure how spectral lines or pulsar signals qualify as a form of specificity? Remember specificity is a quality or attribute explicitly set forth; as Intended for, applying to, or acting on a particular thing: Something particularly fitted to a use or purpose. In order to test for specificity, an observer must be able to recognize it from a completely independent experience. I must stress that the key to recognizing specificity is the independent patter already existing within the observer or the function of the object. Otherwise any conferred specificity can merely be contrived rather than real.
The big problem with this argument is that there is no measure of information associated with it, and therefore no way to investigate the claim at all.
"Look," I don't know why this is so hard to grasp? according to neodarwinian theory, life evolved from single celled life forms to multi-celled life forms, eventually grew eyes gills, fins, skeletons, and a whole host of organs. Then somewhere along the way that life developed lungs and limbs to walk out of the water. Eventually it evolved into all the different KINDS of life forms we observe on earth today. For these kinds of advances to take place it would require a whole lot of added NEW information to the DNA. I am just asking for one example of that kind of added information taking place. If it happened so much in the past then it must be an ongoing process.
In reality, the process of duplication and diversity increases the information in the genome by any reasonable measure, and we know that that happens.
Note that I never said "just an increase of information." I said an increase of NEW information. Please explain to me how duplicating the same information once or even a hundred times could cause a fish to grow lungs with the ability to breath and put oxygen into the blood stream?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2011 1:43 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by PaulK, posted 12-20-2011 3:40 AM Just being real has replied
 Message 98 by jar, posted 12-20-2011 10:36 AM Just being real has not replied
 Message 181 by mike the wiz, posted 01-03-2012 2:45 PM Just being real has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 90 of 373 (644688)
12-20-2011 3:40 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by Just being real
12-20-2011 3:25 AM


quote:
Not sure how spectral lines or pulsar signals qualify as a form of specificity?
I fail to see how the regular pulsed signal of a pulsar could be seen as anything other than specific. Both are specified in that they fit a pattern that can be predetermined.
quote:
"Look," I don't know why this is so hard to grasp?
It's very simple. There is no way to take a single mutation or even a small series of mutations and work out if they qualifiy or not. And the only way to test the claim is to look at a single mutation, or a relatively small series of mutations and work out if they qualify or not.
quote:
Note that I never said "just an increase of information." I said an increase of NEW information. Please explain to me how duplicating the same information once or even a hundred times could cause a fish to grow lungs with the ability to breath and put oxygen into the blood stream?
And now you are ignoring the fact that I referred to duplication and diversification and stated that it is an increase in information by any reasonable measure. If adding a new useful gene to the genome - even one similar to an existing gene doesn't qualify as an increase in information, what does ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by Just being real, posted 12-20-2011 3:25 AM Just being real has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Just being real, posted 12-21-2011 12:51 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024