Macroevolution, an unexplainable process

Author: IlDiavolo

Posts

Total: 210
#91
Goldtop
Goldtop's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,706
2
2
2
Goldtop's avatar
Goldtop
2
2
2
-->
@IlDiavolo
valuable scientific information

This is exactly what others here have explained to you that which you lack any understanding. What I don't get is why you keep coming back here to humiliate yourself?
Topic's author
#92
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Goldtop
Lol.

32 days later

#93
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
I mean new genetic information should be created because an arm is totally different to a wing.

What do you mean by 'genetic information'? DNA is a molecule, so do you mean that a specimen with a longer DNA molecule has 'more genetic information' than a specimin with a shorter DNA molecule?
#94
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
It's a common creationist argument that DNA contains information, and information by definition implies conscious intent, therefore DNA encoding must be by conscious intent.

The problem with this argument lies in its second premise. Information does not require a conscious mind to create. A prefect example is tree rings. Tree rings contain information about the age of a tree and past climate conditions. Do they require a conscious mind to create? Nope.

DNA contains information in the same sense as tree rings.
#95
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Stronn
Their vague use of the term is the main problem. They like to heavily imply things that they mean rather than outright say things and they use their vague terminology to do so, such as implying that some 'kinds' have more 'genetic information' that makes their physiology more 'complex'. These are all vague and blatantly unscientific phrases which they can redefine at a whim as long as they are allowed to imply definitions rather than being made to outright state definitions.

Actually convincing them to define the above terms with any solid definitions (such as defining genetic information as the length of a DNA molecule in this example) makes demonstrating the falicious nature of their implications as easy as performing a simple Google search.
#96
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you look at Creationist arguments over time, they actually fit into a set of basic types of argument:

1.) Strawmen: “if Evolution is true, why have we never seen a Crocoduck”, “why have we never seen a fly turn into not a fly” and similar aims at ridiculing evolution.

2.) Equivocation: “DNA contains information”, “evolution is just a theory/new information cannot be created”.

3.) Showing one thing - no matter how small - that isn’t fully explained by evolution - disproves evolution. Showing one thing - no matter how small - that is partially explained by creationism - proves creationism.


The sad things is that creationists are generally duped into the belief, then over time if they are interested in the science and evidence and start investigating: they are faced with what must be a tortuous choice of whether to remain creationist, or whether to remain honest. Too many chose the former.


#97
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
DNA contains information in the same sense as tree rings.
But trees don't have a mechanism to read those tree rings and then use the infomation obtained.  The DNA in a cell is read by ribosomes that click along it 3 bases at a time, grabbing the amino acid corresponding to the codon read and adding it to the protein coded for.   There's a bit more to it than passively indicting an annual cycle of growth.


#98
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@Ramshutu
1.) Strawmen: “if Evolution is true, why have we never seen a Crocoduck”, “why have we never seen a fly turn into not a fly” and similar aims at ridiculing evolution.

While arguments of this type are still quite common I think they are at least on a steady decline and will continue to decline as long as education about how evolution actually works continues to spread.

2.) Equivocation: “DNA contains information”, “evolution is just a theory/new information cannot be created”.

Arguments of this type are precisely the kind that I mean when I say that many creationist arguments can be easily dismantled if they are first made to stop using vague terminology. My question to the OP in post 93 is an example of one way to start such a process.

3.) Showing one thing - no matter how small - that isn’t fully explained by evolution - disproves evolution. Showing one thing - no matter how small - that is partially explained by creationism - proves creationism.

That is a more complicated logical fallacy which would have to be addressed some other way such as inquiring into the soundness of the method itself rather than addressing individual arguments made in such a way on their own.
#99
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@keithprosser
But trees don't have a mechanism to read those tree rings and then use the infomation obtained.  The DNA in a cell is read by ribosomes that click along it 3 bases at a time, grabbing the amino acid corresponding to the codon read and adding it to the protein coded for.   There's a bit more to it than passively indicting an annual cycle of growth.

That is precisely why I think it is a problem that creationists are allowed to use vague terminology and implications about meanings and such rather than being made to make actual solid testable claims.

I am sure we agree on that point. The creationist word "kinds" is the most infamous example of this but "genetic information", "complexity", etc. are other examples.

A more important question would be how to show people that such vague terminology leads to logical fallacies. I am sure there are some that would continue to believe regardless but I think many simply don't realize that their arguments use logical fallacies. Many of the top opponents of creationism are former YECs themselves after all!

So what do you think the best approach would be? An indirect and subtle dismantling of the vague terminology itself by first requesting detailed definitions then holding creationists strictly to those definitions would be my recommendation but other options certainly exist.
#100
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@keithprosser
That is a valid distinction, however I don't think the existence of a mechanism to utilize something is necessary for it to be said to contain information. If so, then tree rings do not contain information, which is seems at odds with the common notion.

And when you say that cells read DNA, creationists of course liken this to reading language, when the two processes are utterly different, an example of equivocation.
#101
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Ramshutu
There are a few other common tactics. Out-of-context quote mining and calling evolution a religion come to mind. 
#102
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Yes, "kind" is a good example. I once spent 3 or 4 pages of a forum thread attempting to pin down Ethang on a definition. The closest thing to a definition he provides was "things like family or genus", which are of course two different taxonomic levels.

I suspect many creationists intentionally leave "kind" vague because they know that a rigorous definition would expose their claims to numerous counterexamples, for instance the claim that "a kind only produces the same kind."
#103
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@Stronn
@Ramshutu
@Discipulus_Didicit
If a reationist was interested in listening and learning they wouldn't post on a forum.

They come here to testify their faith.
Topic's author
#104
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
What do you mean by 'genetic information'? DNA is a molecule, so do you mean that a specimen with a longer DNA molecule has 'more genetic information' than a specimin with a shorter DNA molecule?
No. I'm saying that a specimen like an alligator has different "genetic information" than a bird. According to the article I provided, the alligator doesn't have the genetic information to develope feathers, that is why the scientists couldn't induce scales to become feathers. It's clear to me that the physical characteristics of a specimen are contained in the DNA, in this sense the DNA contains "information". Don't you agree?
Topic's author
#105
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
It's a common creationist argument that DNA contains information, and information by definition implies conscious intent, therefore DNA encoding must be by conscious intent.

It's not just information. It's a smart mechanism to pass down information to duplicated cells, or to offspring.

The problem with this argument lies in its second premise. Information does not require a conscious mind to create. A prefect example is tree rings. Tree rings contain information about the age of a tree and past climate conditions. Do they require a conscious mind to create? Nope.

DNA contains information in the same sense as tree rings.
That is clearly a fallacy. Wrinkles in human skin also tell us our age, but this is because people produce less collagen as they age, which leads to a loss of elasticity in the skin and hence the wrinkles. It's just a biological expression that contains information of other kind.
Topic's author
#106
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
 Do they require a conscious mind to create? Nope.

Bear in mind that what the tree rings express can only be deciphered by us, concious and intelligent beings.
#107
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
This information bollocks is just equivocation.

DNA contains information, but unfortunately it’s information that doesn’t require intelligence.

Topic's author
#108
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Oh, no, you again?

C'mon. Stop the junk, please.
#109
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah, I’m sorry you are completely unable to actually address any of the issues I’ve raised - but this says more about you than me.

Its pretty pathetic that you have no response to the key issues raised, and simply return to making the same assertions I’ve already challenged - then pretend as if you didn’t run away and fail to answer the primary questions.

Information, in the strict sense is merely a collection or pattern of things. What you’re doing is “begging the question”, you are implicitly defining information in a way that requires intelligence, asserting that DNA contains information, then feign surprise when you claim that DNA requires intelligence.
Topic's author
#110
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Ramshutu
Information, in the strict sense is merely a collection or pattern of things.

No, it's not "merely a collection",  it's more than that. Otherwise, noise could also be categorised as information which is not true. Noise is just noise.

And going back to the example of the tree rings, or the wrinkles, you will see that it's needed someone with knowledge or some smart mechanism that interpret the data contained in these biological expressions so to obtain the information. I'm not sure if this process is intelligent, but it's at least elaborated and can't appear just randomly.
#111
Ramshutu
Ramshutu's avatar
Debates: 43
Posts: 2,768
6
9
10
Ramshutu's avatar
Ramshutu
6
9
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
Yeah. Let’s stop this now.

Define “information”.

#112
Stronn
Stronn's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 511
2
2
4
Stronn's avatar
Stronn
2
2
4
-->
@IlDiavolo
My point was that there are plenty of examples of information that do not require a conscious mind to create.

Bear in mind that what the tree rings express can only be deciphered by us, concious and intelligent beings.
Yes, but just because it requires a conscious mind to interpret abstract meaning from information does not mean that it takes a conscious mind to create information.

Arguments that DNA requires a mind because there is a mechanism by which it replicates, or because there is a mechanism by which it is coded into protein, and that DNA is thus like language, fail to make a key distinction. Namely, with DNA abstract ideas are not being interpreted. Even if you accept the overly simplistic notion that DNA carries the information for arms and legs and eyes, those are all physical things, not abstract ideas. Just because DNA contains a blueprint for arms and legs and eyes does not mean that it conveys the idea of arms and legs and ideas.

But really, it would be best if you defined what you mean by "information" before proceeding any further.
#113
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@IlDiavolo
No. I'm saying that a specimen like an alligator has different "genetic information" than a bird. According to the article I provided, the alligator doesn't have the genetic information to develope feathers, that is why the scientists couldn't induce scales to become feathers. It's clear to me that the physical characteristics of a specimen are contained in the DNA, in this sense the DNA contains "information". Don't you agree?

This "information" is a string of molecules attached to eachother creating one larger molecule called a DNA molecule.

For example the binary sequence "10011001 11010010 00111001 10000100 00111001" contains information.

In the same way the DNA sequence "AAGCGTCGAAGCTGGGGCTGAATACCATAAAGG" contains information. Each letter here is a molecule that is part of the DNA chain.

So, how can we tell which DNA molecules contain more information and which contain less?
#114
Outplayz
Outplayz's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,193
3
3
5
Outplayz's avatar
Outplayz
3
3
5
-->
@Stronn
I've enjoyed reading through this whole thread and don't take anyone's side really... i'm too ignorant of the science to know exactly who's right or wrong. I am of the opinion evolution is true and it is more how Ram says it... and/or the gradual version of it. I'm a fan of that and can see it working with minimal knowledge overall, but i really don't care... we're here so we're here. But i noticed this:

My point was that there are plenty of examples of information that do not require a conscious mind to create.
And why i am replying to you specifically. If we are examining in this entire thread a physical world or anywhere in this universe we can examine... we are examining this reality. Which seems to follow laws and have reasons to its existence. So when you say this phrase above, sure there are things that don't need a conscious mind to form... but i must ask, how are you so sure there isn't a conscious mind behind the entire universe? This isn't an argument for creationist or any religion, just in general... i know this is off topic, but i'd like to know where you get this knowledge or confidence? Or is it just simply your opinion? 


#115
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
But feel free to show me what I requested. That would put an end to this thread and I will go with the tail between the legs.
I don't think you'd wait for an experiment that demonstrated macro-evolution directly to run its course!  I don't know how many generations arereuired to achieve the level of body-form change you'd call macro-evolution to occur but its probably 'lots'!  Time scales are enormous - do you reaise that early dinosaurs such as plateosaurus (c250 MYr ago) are more distant in time from tyrannosaurus rex (c. 70 MYr ago) than tyranosaurus rex is from us?


 

Topic's author
#116
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
But what I'm asking for is just a coherent explanation about macroevolution. I've already shown an article where a scientist recognises that there is a sort of orthodox thinking in the scientific community about the subject and any critique on this is commonly bashed mercilessly. Isn't it?

If you watch the program "Ancient Alliens" in History Channel, you will determine this program is more believable than the stories scientists keep telling us about how species evolved out of nothing.

Topic's author
#117
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
This "information" is a string of molecules attached to eachother creating one larger molecule called a DNA molecule.

For example the binary sequence "10011001 11010010 00111001 10000100 00111001" contains information.

In the same way the DNA sequence "AAGCGTCGAAGCTGGGGCTGAATACCATAAAGG" contains information. Each letter here is a molecule that is part of the DNA chain.

So, how can we tell which DNA molecules contain more information and which contain less?

I'm not arguing which one has more information. That is irrelevant. What I'm saying is that any species has its own and unique information contained in the DNA.
Topic's author
#118
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@Stronn
Yes, but just because it requires a conscious mind to interpret abstract meaning from information does not mean that it takes a conscious mind to create information.

Who say that? You're confusing information with data. Data is like figures, facts, images, which says not much about an object. Information, in contrast, is the data that is processed, interpreted, organised, and so on, to make it useful and meaninful.

In this sense, tree rings and wrinkles are just data, figures that are there to be used freely. Information is when a higher mind take this "raw information" and process it to use it for particular purposes. So seemingly, you need a conscious mind to create information.

Of course, this doesn't prove God exists. God is just a product of the great imagination of human beings.
#119
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@IlDiavolo
@Discipulus_Didicit
If you watch the program "Ancient Alliens" in History Channel, you will determine this program is more believable than the stories scientists keep telling us about how species evolved out of nothing
I found this.

Topic's author
#120
IlDiavolo
IlDiavolo's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,509
3
2
5
IlDiavolo's avatar
IlDiavolo
3
2
5
-->
@keithprosser
Yeah, it's funny. I don't know why people don't laugh likewise at the theory of evolution.