ID/Evolution "New Paper in Bio-Complexity Reveals a Remarkable Coincidence"

[semitope]

Here's the thing Semitope, what you really have a problem with is the fact of common descent. It's not evolutionary theory, per say, that you have a problem with. It's the idea that all life is related and boils down to a universal ancestor. You view humans as special, as created specially by a creator. I'm not sure why you have a problem with being a modified type of 'ape' as opposed to being modified dirt, but you do. So you attempt to bring up problems with evolutionary theory.

there you go again. I don't have an issue with common descent. Its rather insignificant to me unless a discussion goes that far back. I don't have a problem with being a modified kind of ape and honestly, atheists and human behaviour has not shown me that humanity is special. I don't particularly care about that stuff either. My focus was on the differences that separate a human from an ape and the fact that they are not as simple as the current definition of species.

Take this 'paper' you post. It presents a question, why didn't organisms evolve to digest lignin? Perhaps this is a good question a question for scientists, some of which are actually working on it. A quick search of google scholar reveals several hits. The trouble is, we all know that you aren't interested at all in lignin. All you are interested in is debunking evolution or, rather, common descent.

common descent is not an issue as I said. Its a peripheral detail of how many original forms of life all of life is said to have come from. My concern is with the theory and its processes, not imaginary details.

Does this question of yours actually do that?

No, it doesn't. In fact, it's hard to see the relevance at all. It poses no actual problem for common descent. What about one of the various theories of evolution? Well, it seems odd that natural selection didn't enable an organism to select for it, but natural selection is not deterministic, that is, it has no specific goal in mind.

So on both fronts, this 'problem' of yours seems to fail.

well I would say it was a success. You did just say " Well, it seems odd that natural selection didn't enable an organism to select for it" though I assume the word "select" there is a mistake I won't pull a meatros on you. Maybe you will eventually spot enough oddities to break free.

What about as support for ID? Well, as I've pointed out, it can't be used as support for a theory of intelligent design, since there is no theory of intelligent design.

So what is this thread?

It's a waste of everybody's time, just like most of your threads.

The old claim. Exclusion by personal definition so that it does not need consideration

You're referring me to theists as your source of how life arises though on the basis of scientific theory. Why not just admit that science is factually correct in context to its parameters, however you have faith otherwise.

your question was "Can you offer reasoning to an individual as to why they should convert?". Your comment on my reply completely ignores what you asked.

Less than 5% of DNA has anything to do with protein sequencing.

is this what you call faith? Because the junkDNA darwinist myth has been long dead.

"The problem is, there is no other way life arises without evolution as a scientific theory."

You bold this, yet, you cannot offer show me one scientific theory that is in competition with evolution. This is because, you're not basing your rationality on science. You really have no interest in science, you have interest in your own affirmations.

people do not normally claim evolution accounts for life arising. Usually they avoid that issue like the plague. SO how does evolution account for the origin of life?

If God did not exist, hypothetically what would you believe?

you are really bad at asking questions. If i had good reason to think God didn't exist, I would not believe God existed.

Wow, your dishonesty is the only thing that can trumph your arrogance.

ToE:

Idea -> hypothesis -> evidence -> evidence -> confirmation of evidence -> testing evidence -> testing evidence for a LONG time, peer review, thousands of repeats of all tests - > discarding old data, adding new data and repeat from "testing evidence" -> repeat tenths of thousands of times -> add hypothesis, repeat from start a thousand times -> discard old data add new data - >repeat from start a thousand times -> combine data, make theory -> test theory millions of times, both predictions and change data when neccessary -> theory is now robust enough to predict future data, test it a million times -> ToE.

ID:

Creationism -> shot down, religious indoctrination in public schools is unconstitutional -> change name to ID, same idea, god did it, no hypothesis, no theory and no evidence.

Now you don't believe in specieation either? I thought you said that specieation was micro-evolution and you believe in micro-evolution?

Hard to keep track of all your bullsheit, isn't it?

what i said was to illustrate your thought process. I deleted it because I couldn't bother refining it.

What is all that crap you have in your post?

[semitope]

Atheist faith is a misnomer, not believing isn't a belief any more than not collecting stamps is a hobby or bald is a hair colour.

it is not. It relies on less evidence than a theists faith however. Or none at all for the more crafty atheists.

Actually, he is correct, most of the DNA is junkDNA, it doesn't mean that it's actually junk, it just means that it's non-coding DNA (it doesn't encode for protein sequences).

sure

He went into detail and if you had cared to read what he wrote you'd understand that he wasn't suggesting that junkDNA is actually junk, most of the non-coding DNA (or junkDNA, the terms are interchangable) does have biological functions. There is also actual *junk*DNA that has no function, it is a leftover from ancient times.

JunkDNA was coined that as it was assumed to have no function. It was assumed that all non-coding DNA was functionless. The important characteristic was "functionless". I figure that you guys will eventually redefine it to mean that non-coding DNA itself is junkDNA regardless of what it does, but... meh.

Opposition to non-coding, or "junk" DNA is a Discovery Institute talking point.

hmm? Explain this. Is this the mysterious faith PaulG has been talking about?

[Meatros]

there you go again. I don't have an issue with common descent. Its rather insignificant to me unless a discussion goes that far back. I don't have a problem with being a modified kind of ape and honestly, atheists and human behaviour has not shown me that humanity is special. I don't particularly care about that stuff either. My focus was on the differences that separate a human from an ape and the fact that they are not as simple as the current definition of species.

"unless a discussion goes that far back"?

So you accept an old earth and that all life shares a common ancestor?

common descent is not an issue as I said. Its a peripheral detail of how many original forms of life all of life is said to have come from. My concern is with the theory and its processes, not imaginary details.

Okay, so then you do accept an old earth and common descent. It's just the mechanism of speciation. Fine.

well I would say it was a success. You did just say " Well, it seems odd that natural selection didn't enable an organism to select for it" though I assume the word "select" there is a mistake I won't pull a meatros on you. Maybe you will eventually spot enough oddities to break free.

No, it's not a mistake and it's cute that you are trying to come up with jargon such as 'pulling a meatros'. It's called natural selection, indicating that nature 'selects' beneficial traits. You seem to want to anthropomorphize 'select' though - completely missing the entire point of natural selection. In any event, since there are more than just one selective pressures on an organism and there are no guarantees that any organism is going to evolve a specific way, this 'problem' or 'oddity' isn't really a problem for the theory of evolution.

The old claim. Exclusion by personal definition so that it does not need consideration

I'm sorry, but it's true. You have consistently failed to provide a theory of intelligent design - you attempt to ignore the question and evade it. You have no mechanism of change under your worldview (whatever it is now).

So let's say you eventually pose a problem for natural selection, does this mean that 'god did it' is a viable answer?

No, of course not. That would be appealing to ignorance. Does this mean that natural selection is wrong? No, all it means is that there is a question that we have yet to answer.

In short, it's a waste of time to bring up because you aren't actually interested in solving the problem.

[semitope]

"unless a discussion goes that far back"?

So you accept an old earth and that all life shares a common ancestor?

yeah, you have issues.

Okay, so then you do accept an old earth and common descent. It's just the mechanism of speciation. Fine.

issues

No, it's not a mistake and it's cute that you are trying to come up with jargon such as 'pulling a meatros'. It's called natural selection, indicating that nature 'selects' beneficial traits. You seem to want to anthropomorphize 'select' though - completely missing the entire point of natural selection. In any event, since there are more than just one selective pressures on an organism and there are no guarantees that any organism is going to evolve a specific way, this 'problem' or 'oddity' isn't really a problem for the theory of evolution.

you said " Well, it seems odd that natural selection didn't enable an organism to select for it". I assumed it was lignin and that select would then have to be something representing "use as energy source". But sure, if its not an error. But, organisms do the selecting now?

[quote]
I'm sorry, but it's true. You have consistently failed to provide a theory of intelligent design - you attempt to ignore the question and evade it. You have no mechanism of change under your worldview (whatever it is now). [/quote ]

this again

So let's say you eventually pose a problem for natural selection, does this mean that 'god did it' is a viable answer?

not even sure about the first part of that sentence but you figure it out in your head. What would happen if you accepted evolution was impossible?

No, of course not. That would be appealing to ignorance. Does this mean that natural selection is wrong? No, all it means is that there is a question that we have yet to answer.

there are far more significant things than this lignin topic that challege the theory. This is just something to think about IMO.

In short, it's a waste of time to bring up because you aren't actually interested in solving the problem.

by "solving the problem" do you mean trying as hard as possible to explain it in a way fitting to your worldview? You guys have a very strange idea of problem solving, but then again your worldview is filled with problems to be solved

[PaulG]

your question was "Can you offer reasoning to an individual as to why they should convert?". Your comment on my reply completely ignores what you asked.

I believe I already responded by simply saying it is believed that 5% deals direct with protein sequencing in humans. The most critical DNA. JunkDNA is not as valuable, but, does have effects. An Amoeba can have around 700 Billion units of DNA, 200 times more than human genomic information which in part most of which is not required for the amoeba to live. That doesn't mean it isn't important or does not have an effect.

people do not normally claim evolution accounts for life arising. Usually they avoid that issue like the plague. SO how does evolution account for the origin of life?

I think you misread my comment, I stated that life cannot arise, without evolution. I didn't state that life is the result of evolution.

you are really bad at asking questions. If i had good reason to think God didn't exist, I would not believe God existed.

So, why not leave that to matters of faith, and explore science as something secondary to faith? We may not understand God's work entirely, but, it is worth studying God's work is it not? If the Bible is the word of God, then Science is the study of God's work. To know God better it requires the study of Science. Which, in part may be very wrong in the process. We are human afterall. But, discrediting science is discrediting God. Factual information is does not stop faith, because faith requires factual information to override a believe to create faith in the first place.

[psiconoclast]

This whole argument about junk DNA is like arguing about how important font choice, spacing, and page size are for a book.

They are all important, but only the characters/words themselves actually constitute the "data" of a book.

It seems perverse to claim that books are not similar because, although their data (the actual words) is very similar, there is a marked dissimilarity in the font, spacing, pagination, paper choice and binding.

Only tangentially related: although genetic algorithms are not identical to biological evolution, sometimes seeing them in action helps people to "get it".

With that said, I'll just leave this link here.

[semitope]

I believe I already responded by simply saying it is believed that 5% deals direct with protein sequencing in humans. The most critical DNA. JunkDNA is not as valuable, but, does have effects. An Amoeba can have around 700 Billion units of DNA, 200 times more than human genomic information which in part most of which is not required for the amoeba to live. That doesn't mean it isn't important or does not have an effect.

junkDNA is essential.

I think you misread my comment, I stated that life cannot arise, without evolution. I didn't state that life is the result of evolution.

=/

So, why not leave that to matters of faith, and explore science as something secondary to faith? We may not understand God's work entirely, but, it is worth studying God's work is it not? If the Bible is the word of God, then Science is the study of God's work. To know God better it requires the study of Science. Which, in part may be very wrong in the process. We are human afterall. But, discrediting science is discrediting God. Factual information is does not stop faith, because faith requires factual information to override a believe to create faith in the first place.

=/

This whole argument about junk DNA is like arguing about how important font choice, spacing, and page size are for a book.

They are all important, but only the characters/words themselves actually constitute the "data" of a book.

It seems perverse to claim that books are not similar because, although their data (the actual words) is very similar, there is a marked dissimilarity in the font, spacing, pagination, paper choice and binding.

are you trying to say that the only "data" in DNA is the protein coding portion? That would be wrong. Your point would be like saying only the active sites of a protein require data. The very sequence of amino acids (or nucleic acids in the case of DNA) is information that produces the font choice, spacing, and page size.

Only tangentially related: although genetic algorithms are not identical to biological evolution, sometimes seeing them in action helps people to "get it".

With that said, I'll just leave this link here.

a concept does not automatically = reality. Getting it is simply understanding a concept, similar to understanding the plot of a story conjured up by a psychopath.

[psiconoclast]

are you trying to say that the only "data" in DNA is the protein coding portion? That would be wrong. Your point would be like saying only the active sites of a protein require data. The very sequence of amino acids (or nucleic acids in the case of DNA) is information that produces the font choice, spacing, and page size.

Yeah, so it's like comparing an organism's DNA to a PDF file. All of the data (nucleotides in DNA, bytes for the file), even stuff that can be deleted without apparent harm to the end product, is functional in some sense.

The point, though, is that it is not all equally important. In the case of the DNA, the coding information is clearly important (to the creature being described) in a much different way than the non-coding DNA, just like anybody reading a PDF would recognize that a Word document that was largely similar was essentially the same document, despite large differences in the byte arrangement of the two files.

a concept does not automatically = reality. Getting it is simply understanding a concept, similar to understanding the plot of a story conjured up by a psychopath.

What, not even a chuckle? Son I am disappoint.

Some concepts, like math, for instance, are self authenticating - once someone "gets" them, that's all there is to it.

[Meatros]

yeah, you have issues.

Well excuse me for not knowing your positions - you tend to be rather vague. In fact, I could swear you rejected an old earth at one point. However, since you are now saying that you are an old earther and accept common descent, I'll take you at your word.

you said " Well, it seems odd that natural selection didn't enable an organism to select for it". I assumed it was lignin and that select would then have to be something representing "use as energy source". But sure, if its not an error. But, organisms do the selecting now?

Ah, I see - yes I was imprecise, initially I wrote something about a group of organisms and selective pressures, but I decided to be more concise. So yes, my bad on the phrasing, I thought you were referring to my usage of 'select' - my point was that there were no selective pressures on any organisms for digesting lignin.

this again

Until you provide it, all your threads/posts are nothing but fluff.

not even sure about the first part of that sentence but you figure it out in your head. What would happen if you accepted evolution was impossible?

What's wrong with the first part of the sentence? As to your question, what do you mean by 'evolution'? The various natural explanations of changes within gene pools? I can't give a real answer because I do not think your question is very precise. If I accepted that change was impossible, I would no longer have an explanation for how speciation occurs. Biology would cease to make sense, as would reproduction.

I sense that this isn't exactly what you are trying to question though, so can you be more precise?

there are far more significant things than this lignin topic that challege the theory. This is just something to think about IMO.

That's the thing, lignin doesn't challenge the 'theory' (which theory, anyway? Natural selection?). You aren't interested in lignin or any possible answer, so your intent is not for us to merely question biological processes.

by "solving the problem" do you mean trying as hard as possible to explain it in a way fitting to your worldview?

Not at all - i mean you aren't interested in the answer.

You guys have a very strange idea of problem solving, but then again your worldview is filled with problems to be solved

At least we try to address the questions - your worldview doesn't even try to do that (again, no actual theory of intelligent design). In fact, when pressed, you simply evade and then question beg.

You assume that naturalism is false. You present a 'problem', it's shown not to be a problem, and then you retreat to 'I'm just asking questions, trying to make you think' (like a moon hoax denier would - listen to Joe Rogan debate Phil Plait, you exhibit the same strategy).

So how does your worldview solve this 'lignin' problem? It doesn't and it can't because you have no comprehensive theory.

Yet you carp on and on about the deficiencies of scientific reasoning. It's absurd. You've been beaten up so bad rhetorically speaking that all you can do is sit back asking irrelevant questions and then making fun of those of us who actually accept modern science.

How's your blog doing btw? You never answered that question.
What ID books have you read? You never answered that question.
What evolution books have you read? You never answered that question.
What is the theory of intelligent design? You never answered that question.

With regard to 'problem solving', it appears your worldview doesn't even try - you simply want it accepted by fiat.

[Meatros]

What, not even a chuckle? Son I am disappoint.

Some concepts, like math, for instance, are self authenticating - once someone "gets" them, that's all there is to it.

I thought it was good.

[charizardbrah]

I used to eat trees as a kid, parents got pissed

im a result of higher evolution

[BosnianBuilder]

islam is the true religion.

This. If anyone is going to be religious, they should be of islam. Islam is the only religion that worships god as one lol. Christians worship a man, and Jews pretty much worship hellfire.