Jump to content


Photo

Evolutionists: What Have You Devoted To Creationism?


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
91 replies to this topic

#41 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 02 October 2012 - 01:20 PM

I am an electrical engineer. If you easily became tired, and had sores on your skin that do not heal for months, would you come to me for a diagnosis or to a medical professional? Tthe medical professional is trained in the problems you are experiencing whereas I am not. I pointed out the PHD's biochemists as a source because I thought their input on the biochemical roadblock to evolution might be relevant since they are highly trained in biochemistry. What is left to debate is why interdependent biological systems cannot be built by the process of mutation and selection.


Great. I am a software engineer with over 25 years of experience of frustration in trying to make relatively tightly structured systems do the simplest of things and would gladly bet my bottom dollar that the number of PHD biologists that can explain how incredibly complex logic could possibly manifest itself in a glob of chemicals is exactly equivalent to zero. So what does it help to invoke an authority that does not have the skills you so desparately want to believe it has?

If "repair" is simply stopping the loss of cytoplasm, for instance, then recognition of damage may not be required.


So you think stopping a loss is "simple"?

Surely, before stopping a loss of anything then the loss would first have to be recognized. Don't you think? How does a cell know what the "right amount" is? Please explain.

Given your interpretation, what prevents it from being developed?


The lack of a developer.

#42 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 02 October 2012 - 05:43 PM

Great. I am a software engineer with over 25 years of experience of frustration in trying to make relatively tightly structured systems do the simplest of things and would gladly bet my bottom dollar that the number of PHD biologists that can explain how incredibly complex logic could possibly manifest itself in a glob of chemicals is exactly equivalent to zero. So what does it help to invoke an authority that does not have the skills you so desparately want to believe it has?

I assume that you don't really want to make a betPosted Image . Then you haven't actually spoken to any PHD biologists about the problem but are quite assured of the fact that they are unable to handle the logic involved in the problem that biochemistry causes for evolution? Wouldn't that be like me saying that I have seen how frustrating other religions make the simplest things and would gladly bet my bottom dollar that the number of Christians that can explain the complex logic behind the sacrifice of Jesus is exactly zero?

So you think stopping a loss is "simple"?

I don't recall saying that.

Surely, before stopping a loss of anything then the loss would first have to be recognized. Don't you think? How does a cell know what the "right amount" is? Please explain.

No, I don't think that recognition is required. Surely the skinning over of pudding doesn't require that the pudding recognize that it is losing moisture. The skinning over is just a natural response to the loss of moisture, which causes the exposed part of the pudding to be more dense thus slowing down the loss of moisture in the rest of the bowl. Why does the processes in a life form such as a bacteria or even simpler require a recognition of the need for repair?

The lack of a developer.

Does the theory of evolution require the nonexistence of a developer? Could you point out where that is stated in the theory? One of Darwin's books?

#43 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 02 October 2012 - 09:14 PM

Does the theory of evolution require the nonexistence of a developer? Could you point out where that is stated in the theory? One of Darwin's books?


Yes, it does, and yes, I can point out where this is stated. For starters, how about this college textbook:

“The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory" Evolutionary Biology, D Futuyma, p 282

According to this popular and widely used college textbook on evolution, its a "fundamental tenet" that evolution requires the non-existence of a developer. The mutation *has* to be random, period. There can be no programmer allowed.

I do have one question, one engineer to another. As an electrical engineer, perhaps you do hardware design with ASICs or FPGAs. If someone was applying for a role on your team, and they said they would use random processes with blind selection to develop a design, would you welcome him with open arms, or would you say "next candidate please"? Now if you are completely honest you will say the later! The thing is, even die-hard atheist evolutionist believers are smart enough to know not make such an absurd claim in an interview where reality truly does matter, since a job and their livelihood is at stake. Instead they'll leave such claims to forums such as this, or become a professor or high school teacher, since deep down they know its a religious, not scientific, argument.

Can you explain how the DNA 'code' evolved? I mean the actual language, similar to VHDL, or Verilog, or 'C'. What natural processes can generate a system of symbols, syntax, meaning, purpose? How do you explain the fact that we now know that DNA is not only read in one direction, but also in reverse, to describe how to build or regulate a protein? Can you write a book that tells one story when read forward, and another story when read backward? You truly think this type of elaborate system can happen by random mistakes driven by a non-intelligent selection process?

Fred

#44 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 03 October 2012 - 06:51 AM

Yes, it does, and yes, I can point out where this is stated. For starters, how about this college textbook:

“The argument that adaptively directed mutations does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory" Evolutionary Biology, D Futuyma, p 282
According to this popular and widely used college textbook on evolution, its a "fundamental tenet" that evolution requires the non-existence of a developer. The mutation *has* to be random, period. There can be no programmer allowed.

I can see how this statement can lead one to think they are eliminating a designer. However, couldn't this just be a response to the ideas put forth that changes are caused by need rather than changes occur then the better adapted have more offspring. Lamarckian inheritance was an idea that animals evolved based on the stressors placed on their parents. That idea has been shown to be incorrect. In other words, particular mutations do not occur because of stresses on the population. Mutations occur because they just occur. The mutations that help individuals survive better to have more offspring will remain in the population. The cause of particular mutations is not shown to be more than random, apparently. That doesn't mean that the designer couldn't have made a particular mutation occur at a rate that is not statistically significant so it could not be detected above the random "noise" of other mutations. Good mutations will appear random but their effect, when winnowed out by natural selection, does not seem random.


I do have one question, one engineer to another. As an electrical engineer, perhaps you do hardware design with ASICs or FPGAs. If someone was applying for a role on your team, and they said they would use random processes with blind selection to develop a design, would you welcome him with open arms, or would you say "next candidate please"? Now if you are completely honest you will say the later! The thing is, even die-hard atheist evolutionist believers are smart enough to know not make such an absurd claim in an interview where reality truly does matter, since a job and their livelihood is at stake. Instead they'll leave such claims to forums such as this, or become a professor or high school teacher, since deep down they know its a religious, not scientific, argument.

It is strange that you ask me that. I was involved in the NASA ST5 project. The antenna for that satellite was "designed" using random processes. Some general requirements for the antenna (pattern, amplification, directionality...etc) were put into the program along with a set of raw materials in a general configuration. The program made random changes to the antenna configuration, basically making offspring antennas, and tested those changes in simulation against the requirements. Those offspring that got the same or closer to meeting the requirements than the parent antenna got to have offspring antennas of their own. Many generations later, we got an antenna design that looks unusual but met our requirements and was much smaller than a dish antenna with the same amplification.
I have read enough creationist literature to make a good guess at what your objection might be....the program was intelligently designed. Sure it was but it was designed for an output with regard to function but not form. The needed function became the "natural selection" constraints and the random changes were the "mutations" to the antenna form. Dog breeders do this kind of thing to get a dog of the form and temperment that they want. They don't have input into the variations of the dogs they get but they become the selector by only breeding the dogs that get closer to the form they need.

Regarding the hiring question:
Obviously, I would want to hire someone who would take a more systematic approach to design. I really don't think that this analogy applies well to the situation involving the beginning of life. If there was a designer, there was no one else there to do the interview or vet the methodology that the designer decided to use. I could want to be able breathe on Mars without an artificial apparatus, but that won't happen because that is just the way it is. If life evolved and our species is one of the successful ones that remained after evolving from another species, then that is the method which was used, whether by design or by chance. I may want other things to be true but if they are not then they are not. Wanting something doesn't change what is. The question that needs to be answered by science is: "What did happen?" whether we like the answer or not. So far, the answer from science is evolution. So far for me, my research has not convinced me that science is wrong, whether I like it or not.

Can you explain how the DNA 'code' evolved? I mean the actual language, similar to VHDL, or Verilog, or 'C'. What natural processes can generate a system of symbols, syntax, meaning, purpose? How do you explain the fact that we now know that DNA is not only read in one direction, but also in reverse, to describe how to build or regulate a protein? Can you write a book that tells one story when read forward, and another story when read backward? You truly think this type of elaborate system can happen by random mistakes driven by a non-intelligent selection process?

Fred

No sir, I cannot explain exactly how DNA evolved. I don't even know anything about this forward and backward "reading" of DNA. I am not a biochemist or microbiologist. Just because I cannot explain it myself doesn't mean it did not occur. DNA is a chemical structure that reacts as a chemical structure. Did it get put together and become DNA through a process of mutation and selection? Quite possibly. Were those mutations directed in some way by a designer. Frankly, I don't know. If they were, the designer does not want to leave fingerprints. However, you have some changes in your DNA that were not present in the DNA of your mother or father. That has been shown to be true for humans and other species. So, if DNA were produced for the first life form or even if all life was poofed into existence 10,000 years ago, DNA of whole species populations is changing now through mutation and selection. Does that mean that dogs will come to look like cats eventually? I don't know that either. I have a dog that can climb trees, though. Posted Image

#45 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:34 AM

It is strange that you ask me that. I was involved in the NASA ST5 project. The antenna for that satellite was "designed" using random processes. Some general requirements for the antenna (pattern, amplification, directionality...etc) were put into the program along with a set of raw materials in a general configuration. The program made random changes to the antenna configuration, basically making offspring antennas, and tested those changes in simulation against the requirements. Those offspring that got the same or closer to meeting the requirements than the parent antenna got to have offspring antennas of their own. Many generations later, we got an antenna design that looks unusual but met our requirements and was much smaller than a dish antenna with the same amplification.

I have read enough creationist literature to make a good guess at what your objection might be....the program was intelligently designed. Sure it was but it was designed for an output with regard to function but not form. The needed function became the "natural selection" constraints and the random changes were the "mutations" to the antenna form. Dog breeders do this kind of thing to get a dog of the form and temperment that they want. They don't have input into the variations of the dogs they get but they become the selector by only breeding the dogs that get closer to the form they need.


Well I guess that what was used was some sort of genetic algorithm. But being a software engineer that has actually coded genetic algorithms it is annoying to hear evolutionists try to use genetic algorithms as some sort of argument that unguided processes may create something, since genetic algorithms are not unguided. The program you described was not only intelligently designed (as you pointed out yourself), but the program also contained a selection based on what the designer wanted the program to achieve. The selection was designed to try to use a stocastic process to find a good enough solution based on the designers wishes, not very unlike a normal search function but a bit more complex.

So do you wish to suggest that evolution is guided by God or something using the example above with genetic algorithms and dog breeding, or what was your point?
  • gilbo12345 and JayShel like this

#46 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:51 AM

Well I guess that what was used was some sort of genetic algorithm. But being a software engineer that has actually coded genetic algorithms it is annoying to hear evolutionists try to use genetic algorithms as some sort of argument that unguided processes may create something, since genetic algorithms are not unguided. The program you described was not only intelligently designed (as you pointed out yourself), but the program also contained a selection based on what the designer wanted the program to achieve. The selection was designed to try to use a stocastic process to find a good enough solution based on the designers wishes, not very unlike a normal search function but a bit more complex.

So do you wish to suggest that evolution is guided by God or something using the example above with genetic algorithms and dog breeding, or what was your point?


Exactly what I was going to say. Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed, its merely a case of special pleading.

#47 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:52 AM

Well I guess that what was used was some sort of genetic algorithm. But being a software engineer that has actually coded genetic algorithms it is annoying to hear evolutionists try to use genetic algorithms as some sort of argument that unguided processes may create something, since genetic algorithms are not unguided. The program you described was not only intelligently designed (as you pointed out yourself), but the program also contained a selection based on what the designer wanted the program to achieve. The selection was designed to try to use a stocastic process to find a good enough solution based on the designers wishes, not very unlike a normal search function but a bit more complex.

So do you wish to suggest that evolution is guided by God or something using the example above with genetic algorithms and dog breeding, or what was your point?

Now that you brought up God, sure. God could set the parameters and let the program run. This shows that the theory of evolution does not have to exclude God. If you can do it, I assume the God you believe in is capable of something significantly more complex.

Another option, for those not convinced of the existence of God, would be that the environment and changes therein determined which life forms lived and which died. The ones that were left alive would be more in sync with the environment. As time passed, the life forms become so intertwined with the environment that they become part of it and interdependent.

#48 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 03 October 2012 - 10:58 AM

Exactly what I was going to say. Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed, its merely a case of special pleading.


spe·cial plead·ing


Noun:
  • Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
  • Appeals to give a particular interest group special treatment.
That's from dictionary.com.

Since I actually said that the program was designed for a particular outcome, I don't see how special pleading can be applied to what I said. Could you point out which statements I made that caused you to conclude that I was using that logical fallacy?

#49 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 12:21 PM

I suggest you have a look at what I wrote, and then what you wrote...





"Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed"





Therefore your comment that you admitted it is designed IS special pleading since whilst you admit it you don't allow the gravity of such a revelation to interfere with your claims. You merely shrug it off which is exactly the first point of the definition you provided





" Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view"





By having a designed selecting system, which is what you are advocating that by definition defies the modern evolutionary concept of "No design" since the system is (as you admitted) designed which cannot be proxy to an "undesigned" selecting system. Essentially you are trying to compare apples to oranges.





Its all about justification of claims, if the parameters change - a designed system or an undesigned system, then how can you draw parallels between the two? You can't, its the same as if I tried growing one bacteria on one media and another on another media and trying to compare the results... I can't since the media and bacteria used are totally different so there is no common denominator to compare between the two.









Additionally I am waiting for your responses to my post# 38 and post# 39

#50 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 03 October 2012 - 02:06 PM

I suggest you have a look at what I wrote, and then what you wrote...

"Admitting that the program is designed doesn't change the fact that it is designed"

Therefore your comment that you admitted it is designed IS special pleading since whilst you admit it you don't allow the gravity of such a revelation to interfere with your claims. You merely shrug it off which is exactly the first point of the definition you provided.

" Argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavourable to their point of view"



I disagree since I specifically stated that the possibility exists that a designer included the selection parameters when setting up the Earth's evolution program. The selection criteria could be set by the environment if there were no designer.

By having a designed selecting system, which is what you are advocating that by definition defies the modern evolutionary concept of "No design" since the system is (as you admitted) designed which cannot be proxy to an "undesigned" selecting system. Essentially you are trying to compare apples to oranges.



This is the part I don't understand about your objection to the analogy. The changes to the form are random, to a degree but that matches to the fact that mutations to DNA are limited by the chemical structure of the molecule and availability of chemical compounds. The selection criteria are extremely limited in the case of the program but they could be anything. This matches up to the natural selection within the evolution paradigm which determines the life and death of living organisms along with whether those organisms will have offspring.

Its all about justification of claims, if the parameters change - a designed system or an undesigned system, then how can you draw parallels between the two? You can't, its the same as if I tried growing one bacteria on one media and another on another media and trying to compare the results... I can't since the media and bacteria used are totally different so there is no common denominator to compare between the two.


I never stated that evolution HAD to be undesigned. Mutations don't HAVE to be random. They just appear to be random.

Additionally I am waiting for your responses to my post# 38 and post# 39

Frankly, I don't understand your position on the subject. You seem to be saying that the protein correction mechanism in a cell keeps that cell from evolving. However, cells don't evolve any more than individual animals evolve. Evolution occurs in populations by traits being handed down to offspring. There is plenty of evidence of mutations that cause changes within populations of organisms.

My point concerning glycolysis being able to operate without the other two mechanisms was that the cell that utilizes aerobic respiration could have been an offspring from a cell that utilized anaerobic respiration alone. I don't see how that cannot be a possibility given that the other two mechanisms are not absolutely necessary for a cell to survive long enough to produce offspring.

If you are saying that aerobic cellular respiration is an irreducibly complex system and therefore could not have evolved, then I have to disagree. If cells can live and produce offspring with glycolysis alone then how can aerobic cellular respiration be irreducibly complex? The point of cellular respiration is to produce energy for cell functions. If glycolysis can do that without the other mechanisms then they are not necessary for cell function. They may make it more efficient and may make the cell live longer but they are not absolutely necessary for a cell to survive long enough to produce offspring.

#51 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,536 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Pseudo Science Radio.
  • Age: 53
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 03 October 2012 - 04:13 PM

“Lamarckian inheritance was an idea that animals evolved based on the stressors placed on their parents. That idea has been shown to be incorrect. In other words, particular mutations do not occur because of stresses on the population.”


I don’t want to split hairs too much, but your statement above is not a valid explanation of Lamarckism, which is the inheritance of acquired traits. Lamarckism and “adaptive” mutations are two entirely separate mechanisms.

“Mutations occur because they just occur. The mutations that help individuals survive better to have more offspring will remain in the population. “


Not true! If the “noise” of deleterious to neutral mutations is too great, which we know it is by leaps and bounds, there is no mathematical way possible for your statement to be true. Selection can’t select something it can’t see! Remember, selection can only work on the level of the individual, it cannot select mutations. As an engineer, if you want a very good expose of the myth you mentioned, I would strongly encourage getting the book “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” from a highly regarded geneticist, Jon Sanford, a longtime evolutionist who became a creationist because of the powerful evidence outlined in his book. It’s very well documented and a good read for both the layman and the scientist.

“...the program was intelligently designed. Sure it was but it was designed for an output with regard to function but not form.”


Others have sufficiently addressed this, I think you might agree this is essentially glorified trial&error that required intelligence to cull it. Evolution has no such advantage, as you admitted when you wrote: “Dog breeders do this kind of thing to get a dog of the form and temperment that they want.” This is not evolution, which requires selection to be “natural”.

“No sir, I cannot explain exactly how DNA evolved. I don't even know anything about this forward and backward "reading" of DNA. I am not a biochemist or microbiologist. Just because I cannot explain it myself doesn't mean it did not occur. DNA is a chemical structure that reacts as a chemical structure. Did it get put together and become DNA through a process of mutation and selection? Quite possibly.”


I hope you can understand why the above is annoying to us, because in one breath you say evolution is supported by science, and the next breath you say something that is completely unscientific. Because you “can’t explain” it, you unknowingly appeal to the “fairytale of the gaps” argument. People of all stripes quickly recognize design when they see it, be it a building, a painting, a series of prime numbers from space (Sagan’s fictional “Contact” movie), etc. But when it comes to the most elaborately designed objects, namely life, people decide it’s not designed. It’s a religious belief not based in any science.

“Does that mean that dogs will come to look like cats eventually? I don't know that either. I have a dog that can climb trees, though. Posted Image


Interesting factoid about your dog, you might want to take him off of PCP, but anyways… I do know for certain my dog will never turn into a cat, and visa versa, because of the scientific evidence.

Fred

#52 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:40 PM

[/font][/color][/size]

1. I disagree since I specifically stated that the possibility exists that a designer included the selection parameters when setting up the Earth's evolution program. The selection criteria could be set by the environment if there were no designer.



2. This is the part I don't understand about your objection to the analogy. The changes to the form are random, to a degree but that matches to the fact that mutations to DNA are limited by the chemical structure of the molecule and availability of chemical compounds.

3. The selection criteria are extremely limited in the case of the program but they could be anything. This matches up to the natural selection within the evolution paradigm which determines the life and death of living organisms along with whether those organisms will have offspring.


4. I never stated that evolution HAD to be undesigned.

5. Mutations don't HAVE to be random. They just appear to be random.

[size=3][color=#000000][font=Times New Roman][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]

6. Frankly, I don't understand your position on the subject. You seem to be saying that the protein correction mechanism in a cell keeps that cell from evolving. However, cells don't evolve any more than individual animals evolve. Evolution occurs in populations by traits being handed down to offspring. There is plenty of evidence of mutations that cause changes within populations of organisms.

7. My point concerning glycolysis being able to operate without the other two mechanisms was that the cell that utilizes aerobic respiration could have been an offspring from a cell that utilized anaerobic respiration alone. I don't see how that cannot be a possibility given that the other two mechanisms are not absolutely necessary for a cell to survive long enough to produce offspring.

8. If you are saying that aerobic cellular respiration is an irreducibly complex system and therefore could not have evolved, then I have to disagree.

9. If cells can live and produce offspring with glycolysis alone then how can aerobic cellular respiration be irreducibly complex?

10. The point of cellular respiration is to produce energy for cell functions. If glycolysis can do that without the other mechanisms then they are not necessary for cell function.

1. Then if you are admitting that there could be a designer then that is ok.

However as I said you cannot draw correlate between the "percieved undesigned" evolution and a designed computer simulation, for the reasons I have stated. The environment doesn't "set up" anything since it is not sentient... There is no causality of design behind environmental pressures. ie- a fish or its environment doesn't think or design a set of lungs for it to breathe air.


Additionally as an aside, a program runs to the parameters the program is set to do, hence using a program as a demonstration of evolution (or as evidence of it), really is silly since its being programed to do such, hence is not a definitive test of anything.


2. No you cannot compare a designed system with a "supposedly" undesigned one, as I have said they are totally different things and no amount ot mental gymnastics can change that fact.

3. If its limited, then it cannot be anything.... Your logic is self-refuting.

4. Ok, however realise that environmental pressures themselves are not a form of design

5. Go research "jumping genes" then consider that the system for this adaption technique itself would have needed to be designed. In otherwords "jumping genes" cannot be a form of "evolution" since the system by which this operates cannot have evolved itself from itself.

6. What you said has no relevance to what I have said. Yes evolution is believed to be from traits in populations however from where do those traits arise? From the individual and where do they arise in the individual, from the cell. Hence changes within the cell itself is paramount to evolution since everything stems from it. Attempting to look at it from a macro (simpler) view is what was done in Darwins day, you need to look at the details and that is looking at the cell. (As I said before, its very easy to claim evolution when you beleive cells to be simple blobs of jelly, however now that we know that cells are very complex evolution needs to be able to account for this complexity as well as have mechanisms that can work within these complex systems... This is what "Darwins Black Box" is about and I recommend it.

7. Care to give evidence? I have already demonstrated how the supporting functions are necessary and have shown you how glycolysis on its own WILL lead to the death of the cell. Either give evidence or admit that your point here is an unjustified opinion.

Keep in mind that no supporting functions would be allowed since as I have mentioned they would be considered part of the intergrated system. Perhaps find if there is an article which has a population of bacteria with all of its genes relating to metabolism knocked out with only glycolysis remaining, this would be the only form of test one can make for this.

8. Ok, you can.

9. As I have said the cell cannot live on glycolysis alone without other functions to support it.

You will need the citric acid cycle and the electric transport chain, OR another system that utilises the pyruvate product from glycolysis. Since the pyruvate will ferment into lactic acid and decrease the pH of the cell over time, leading to death. Lactic acid is what causes muscle cramps, now consider this... How long would a cell last if it was constantly under "cramp" conditions which increased over time (as its continuing glycolysis since it has no other choice).. Keep in mind that the lactic acid bacteria have mechanisms that transport the lactic acid out, (since it is a waste product)

Additionally the aerobic cell normally operates with the 24-26 ATP from the full cellular respiration, glycolysis only creates a net of 2 ATP... Now here is the kicker. In order for glycolysis to occur you need to have 2 ATP to start the process, 4 ATP will be created, leading to a net creation of 2, as stated before. Now tell me where did this initial ATP come from in order to "kick start" glycolysis?

Ok offspring production, as I have written there are other systems which are irreducibly complex... Cellular reproduction is yet another, and is much harder for the evolutionist to justify.

10. What other cellular functions? Did they "evolve" already?

Also consider what I have said about how each function is irreducibly complex in itself, hence glycolysis itself is irreducibly complex when you consider the enzymes required and the regulators for those enzymes etc.



Finally all this cannot have come about if DNA cannot give the instructions to the ribosome to create all these proteins for use... yet to do so energy is required... yet where is the energy for this if the proteins that create the energy, (not to mention the systems that create those proteins), cannot be created due to the lack of energy in the first place..

#53 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:06 PM

You will need the citric acid cycle and the electric transport chain, OR another system that utilises the pyruvate product from glycolysis. Since the pyruvate will ferment into lactic acid and decrease the pH of the cell over time, leading to death. Lactic acid is what causes muscle cramps, now consider this... How long would a cell last if it was constantly under "cramp" conditions which increased over time (as its continuing glycolysis since it has no other choice)..


At risk of stating the obvious here, cell division (reproduction) does not solve this problem. You cannot claim that the organism simply needs to survive long enough to reproduce as you can in S@xual reproduction. When a cell divides, it would divide the unused pyruvate evenly into the two resulting cells thus making two cells with the same problem as before.

#54 Tirian

Tirian

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 112 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 49
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Sweden

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:08 AM

Now that you brought up God, sure. God could set the parameters and let the program run. This shows that the theory of evolution does not have to exclude God. If you can do it, I assume the God you believe in is capable of something significantly more complex.

Another option, for those not convinced of the existence of God, would be that the environment and changes therein determined which life forms lived and which died. The ones that were left alive would be more in sync with the environment. As time passed, the life forms become so intertwined with the environment that they become part of it and interdependent.


Yes I know that you can be a theistic evolutionist, even though you might end up with some theological problems if you embrace that faith. But the point is that even though it might be theoretically possible to be a theistic evolutionist, it seems that genetic algorithms give you a logical defeater to the belief that evolution and naturalism are both true.

Let me explain.If you believe that evolution can somehow create complex functionality and then you look at all process we know that can achieve the same thing you will notice that there are no unguided or strictly naturalistic process that are able to create the same type of complex functionality that you believe evolution is capable of. So the question becomes what logical reasons you have to believe that evolution is a naturalistic process.

Or in a more logical setup this would become:

Premise1 : All processes that are able to find/create complex functionality is created by or controlled by one or more agents
Premise2 : Evolution is a process that can find/create complex functionality
Conclusion : Evolution is created by or controlled by one or more agents

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,989 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 04 October 2012 - 01:21 AM

At risk of stating the obvious here, cell division (reproduction) does not solve this problem. You cannot claim that the organism simply needs to survive long enough to reproduce as you can in S@xual reproduction. When a cell divides, it would divide the unused pyruvate evenly into the two resulting cells thus making two cells with the same problem as before.


Great point Jay Posted Image

To be honest I didn't even think of this lol

#56 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 October 2012 - 04:31 AM

At risk of stating the obvious here, cell division (reproduction) does not solve this problem. You cannot claim that the organism simply needs to survive long enough to reproduce as you can in S@xual reproduction. When a cell divides, it would divide the unused pyruvate evenly into the two resulting cells thus making two cells with the same problem as before.

Great point Jay Posted Image

To be honest I didn't even think of this lol



Actually I woke up this morning thinking, "that's kinda wrong". Pyruvate buildup would be shared throughout cell division even in a s*xually reproducing organism, and since their life cycle is longer it would make the problem worse. Plus it would have been thought to have been solved by that time in evolutionary history. I guess my point is, there are some negative diseases or build up of toxin in an organism that could be survived due to S@xual reproduction, but this is not the case with pyruvate build up.

#57 Salsa

Salsa

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,231 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 57
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Uppsala, Sweden

Posted 04 October 2012 - 05:21 AM

Wouldn't that be like me saying that I have seen how frustrating other religions make the simplest things and would gladly bet my bottom dollar that the number of Christians that can explain the complex logic behind the sacrifice of Jesus is exactly zero?


Interesting, but what exactly does the sacrifice of Jesus have to do with what we were discussing? If you consider the concept of sacrifice to be something that crumbles under the laws of logic then why not start another thread where you clearly state your case concerning that. I do not in any way consider the sacrifice of Jesus to be illogical and so I would gladly like to hear your arguments to the contrary. But not in this thread.

I don't recall saying that.


Then why did you include the word "simply"?

And why follow it up with such a ridiculously "simple" analogy?

Back in Darwin's day people thought of a cell as something like a blob of jelly, so the idea of comparing its processes with "skimming over pudding" was excusable for them, but hardly for you. If you have any scientific evidence that demonstrates how the incredible complex logic that we observe in a cell could gradually develop then please feel free to present it, rather than trying to boil everything down to something relatively simple.

#58 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:20 AM

1. Then if you are admitting that there could be a designer then that is ok.

However as I said you cannot draw correlate between the "percieved undesigned" evolution and a designed computer simulation, for the reasons I have stated. The environment doesn't "set up" anything since it is not sentient... There is no causality of design behind environmental pressures. ie- a fish or its environment doesn't think or design a set of lungs for it to breathe air.


Additionally as an aside, a program runs to the parameters the program is set to do, hence using a program as a demonstration of evolution (or as evidence of it), really is silly since its being programed to do such, hence is not a definitive test of anything.


2. No you cannot compare a designed system with a "supposedly" undesigned one, as I have said they are totally different things and no amount ot mental gymnastics can change that fact.

Why can't I compare a designed system with an undesigned one? Doesn't that depend on what processes I am trying to study? For instance, if I want to see how much damage a hailstone will do on my newly designed roofing material, is it valid for me to make my own hailstones, calculate the velocity at which hail would strike the ground and then shoot them at my new material or must I wait for a hailstorm because the designed test is automatically invalidated by the fact that it was designed?

Why, exactly, is that genetic algorithm invalid in studying the mechanisms put forth in the theory of evolution, namely mutation and selection? If you say it is simply because the algorithm is designed then you must invalidate every car crash test ever performed.

3. If its limited, then it cannot be anything.... Your logic is self-refuting.

My statement regarding limited parameters meant that the parameters are limited in this case by the designer of the program.

4. Ok, however realise that environmental pressures themselves are not a form of design

Then you believe your designer cannot manipulate the environment to get a desired outcome? Even if the environmental pressures are not designed, they still cause selection.

5. Go research "jumping genes" then consider that the system for this adaption technique itself would have needed to be designed. In otherwords "jumping genes" cannot be a form of "evolution" since the system by which this operates cannot have evolved itself from itself.

This doesn't seem to address my comment about the appearance of randomness in mutation events.

6. What you said has no relevance to what I have said. Yes evolution is believed to be from traits in populations however from where do those traits arise? From the individual and where do they arise in the individual, from the cell. Hence changes within the cell itself is paramount to evolution since everything stems from it. Attempting to look at it from a macro (simpler) view is what was done in Darwins day, you need to look at the details and that is looking at the cell. (As I said before, its very easy to claim evolution when you beleive cells to be simple blobs of jelly, however now that we know that cells are very complex evolution needs to be able to account for this complexity as well as have mechanisms that can work within these complex systems... This is what "Darwins Black Box" is about and I recommend it.

So, cells are complex with self correcting mechanisms. What is it about this complexity that makes you believe it could not have evolved? We already know that the self correcting mechanisms don't work perfectly and mutations happen. I will look for Darwins Black Box...guess I'll have to buy it...not in local library.

7. Care to give evidence? I have already demonstrated how the supporting functions are necessary and have shown you how glycolysis on its own WILL lead to the death of the cell. Either give evidence or admit that your point here is an unjustified opinion.

Keep in mind that no supporting functions would be allowed since as I have mentioned they would be considered part of the intergrated system. Perhaps find if there is an article which has a population of bacteria with all of its genes relating to metabolism knocked out with only glycolysis remaining, this would be the only form of test one can make for this.
8. Ok, you can.

9. As I have said the cell cannot live on glycolysis alone without other functions to support it.

You will need the citric acid cycle and the electric transport chain, OR another system that utilises the pyruvate product from glycolysis. Since the pyruvate will ferment into lactic acid and decrease the pH of the cell over time, leading to death. Lactic acid is what causes muscle cramps, now consider this... How long would a cell last if it was constantly under "cramp" conditions which increased over time (as its continuing glycolysis since it has no other choice).. Keep in mind that the lactic acid bacteria have mechanisms that transport the lactic acid out, (since it is a waste product)

Additionally the aerobic cell normally operates with the 24-26 ATP from the full cellular respiration, glycolysis only creates a net of 2 ATP... Now here is the kicker. In order for glycolysis to occur you need to have 2 ATP to start the process, 4 ATP will be created, leading to a net creation of 2, as stated before. Now tell me where did this initial ATP come from in order to "kick start" glycolysis?

Ok offspring production, as I have written there are other systems which are irreducibly complex... Cellular reproduction is yet another, and is much harder for the evolutionist to justify

This whole discussion started with your claim that biochemistry refutes evolution. You then gave an example of an interdependent system of mechanisms that provided energy to the cell and claimed that their interdependence meant that the system could not have evolved. I pointed out that some bacteria only use glycolysis so the aerobic cellular respiration system is not irreducibly complex and could have evolved from anaerobic cellular respiration. Just because anaerobic cellular respiration requires a mechanism to remove waste products doesn't mean it could not evolve to utilize the waste and get more energy in an environment with oxygen
So far you have not provided an example of an irreducibly complex system. So your main proclaimation that biochemistry refutes evolution has not been shown to be correct. Your statement...you provide the evidence.

10. What other cellular functions? Did they "evolve" already?

The other functions are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Also consider what I have said about how each function is irreducibly complex in itself, hence glycolysis itself is irreducibly complex when you consider the enzymes required and the regulators for those enzymes etc.

So, glycolysis is the actual function that you are stating is irreducibly complex. I didn't get that from the original presentation since it focused on the aerobic cellular respiration and the interdependence of the 3 processes. I can hardly be faulted for thinking that aerobic cellular respiration was the function that you were presenting as irreducibly complex. What is it about glycolysis that makes it irreducibly complex? If you presented the evidence before, could you point out which message it was in?

Finally all this cannot have come about if DNA cannot give the instructions to the ribosome to create all these proteins for use... yet to do so energy is required... yet where is the energy for this if the proteins that create the energy, (not to mention the systems that create those proteins), cannot be created due to the lack of energy in the first place..

There is energy all around. Heat energy from the Sun and from inside the Earth. Many chemical reactions utilize that energy. The chemicals can get mixed together by something as simple as wave action in bodies of water. The proteins don't create energy, they just move it.

#59 jonas5877

jonas5877

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 214 posts
  • Age: 54
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Salisbury, MD

Posted 04 October 2012 - 06:29 AM

Interesting, but what exactly does the sacrifice of Jesus have to do with what we were discussing? If you consider the concept of sacrifice to be something that crumbles under the laws of logic then why not start another thread where you clearly state your case concerning that. I do not in any way consider the sacrifice of Jesus to be illogical and so I would gladly like to hear your arguments to the contrary. But not in this thread.

My point is that you are sure PHD biochemists have any important input to the question of evolution and cellular biochemist but you have never actually talked to one to find out what they know.

Then why did you include the word "simply"? And why follow it up with such a ridiculously "simple" analogy? Back in Darwin's day people thought of a cell as something like a blob of jelly, so the idea of comparing its processes with "skimming over pudding" was excusable for them, but hardly for you. If you have any scientific evidence that demonstrates how the incredible complex logic that we observe in a cell could gradually develop then please feel free to present it, rather than trying to boil everything down to something relatively simple.

I am not a biochemist. If I were one, you would have already stopped talking to me since you would bet your bottom dollare that I would have exactly zero to say on the subject. If you want to know what scientific evidence exists for the gradual development of complex logic (chemistry) in a cell, go ask a PHD biochemist instead of assuming that they don't know squat.

#60 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 04 October 2012 - 08:05 AM

My point is that you are sure PHD biochemists have any important input to the question of evolution and cellular biochemist but you have never actually talked to one to find out what they know.


I am not a biochemist. If I were one, you would have already stopped talking to me since you would bet your bottom dollare that I would have exactly zero to say on the subject. If you want to know what scientific evidence exists for the gradual development of complex logic (chemistry) in a cell, go ask a PHD biochemist instead of assuming that they don't know squat.

Dr Jonathan D Sarfati is a physical chemist who investigated abiogenesis while studying for his PhD in chemistry. He writes:

Evolutionists believe that all life came from a chemical soup. However, while studying for my chemistry degree, I came across many well-known chemical laws that refute such “chemical evolution” theories.23 This is a good example of how a proper understanding of the correct biblical framework results in correct conclusions from the evidence. For example:

  • Many of the important biochemicals would destroy each other. Living organisms are well structured to avoid this, but the “primordial soup” would not be. Sometimes these wrong reactions occur after a cell is damaged, for example, the browning of foodstuffs. This is often caused by a reaction between sugars and amino acids. Yet evolution requires these chemicals to form proteins and nucleic acids respectively, rather than destroy each other as per real chemistry. [CMI Ed. note: see also <a href="http://creation.com/.../article/1618/" target="_blank"> Origin of life: instability of building blocks]
  • Fatty acids are necessary for cell membranes, and phosphate is necessary for DNA, RNA, ATP and many other important vital molecules of life. But abundant calcium ions in the ocean would precipitate fatty acids and phosphate, making them unavailable for chemical evolution. Remember this next time you have problems washing with soap in “hard water”.
http://creation.com/...try-in-six-days


It is the faith of proponents of abiogenesis that "it could have happened somehow" and if they don't want to believe in God, it MUST have happened somehow, therefore in their faith, they imagine that these severe issues could have been resolved in some bizarre conditions. Now I have a lot of faith, but I don't have that much faith. That would be like coming across Shakespeare written in the sand and thinking that it came about through natural causes.

This brings up an interesting question that I have been pondering. What kick starts cell metabolism once all of these parts are in place. Could we kill a cell, and then revive it by putting all the parts back together in just the right way? I doubt it. In my experience, life comes from life. I would say that there is some life force there that is passed on to offspring that is unable to be produced in the lab, and God is the giver of this life.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users