Posted on 10/20/2005 3:00:56 PM PDT by DoctorRansom
> Ad hominem attacks are rude, if not ineffective.
Indeed they are. But then again, so are lies.
>How are replication errors and retroviruses or even the evolving bird flu examples of completely new, randomly chosen information that has been added?
You're kidding, right? If a DNA strand is being duplicated and a gene is duplicated additional times... BLAM. There's your new information. The addition of new information by retrovirus is obvious.
Why you insist on ignoring the blatantly obvious is difficult to explain by any motives other than political ones.
If a DNA strand is being duplicated and a gene is duplicated additional times... BLAM. There's your new information. The addition of new information by retrovirus is obvious.New, different information. Again, you've only described copies or modifications of existing data.
>New, different information. Again, you've only described copies or modifications of existing data.
Again with the intentional obtuseness. That additional information becomes "new" additional information via either further replication errors or mutations.
This is *really* quite simple to understand.
How can you claim to "speak for those with ears to hear" when you yourself do not hear?
> one has never seen particles change to people over time
Nor has "one" ever seen the murder of OJ's wife. I guess God musta done it!
> Only copies or derivatives of existing genetic code have been observed, as Orion incidentally pointed out
That, I'm afraid, is exactly what I *didn't* point out, especially with regard to retrovirii. This is why I called you out on the whole "lying" thing. You're doing it again.
Where is the snowflake's "order"
Are you saying there is no order in a snowflake's face as correlated to it's other 11 faces?
Snowflakes are created from water vapor molecules captured in random flight. Yet there come to arise twelve faces (six faces with mirrored pairs) that fall into the same order. This is not just order from chaos, but order from chaos repeated 12 times.
And there is information in the snowflake order -- information about the history of the conditions during its creation.
It's pretty clear that order can arise from randomness, as it occurs trillions of times in a snowstorm.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And one simple question, and just HOW does this "order" prove, or disprove evolution?
In fact, based on my limited understanding, no two snowflakes are alike, therefore the "evolutionary" process is not repeatable. Also, they serve no purpose is creating MORE AND MORE order from chaos. Nor do they become more and more complex eventually resulting in the 12 sided abominable snowman :-)
So all in all, this is a cutesy Darwinist sidestep. It does absolutely NOTHING to demonstrate that one snowflake is superior to another, and therefore through Natural selection is repeatable. In fact, the no-two-alike tends to demonstrate that when you have randomness, it is not possible to arrive and greater and greater levels of order.
In the News/Activism forum, on a thread titled Barf Alert: ACLU's 'intelligent design' in Dover case, DoctorRansom wrote:
"How are replication errors and retroviruses or even the evolving bird flu examples of completely new, randomly chosen information that has been added?"
Seems pretty obvious to me. Random changes in DNA create new sequences coding for different proteins. Sometimes these new proteins enable the organism to do something it couldn't do before. And the process doesn't violate thermodynamics because there's a total increase in entropy.
Now, I'd like _you_ to explain how Intelligent Design accounts for things like a mutating flu virus? Does a Designer make new viruses? (Is God using biological warfare?)
What mechanism does the Intelligent Designer use to make changes in the organism's DNA. Be specific. If ID is an actual scientific theory, it has to explain things like this.
Useful "Order" from a Darwinian perspective vs. symmetry are two different things. Just because a snowflake has some measure of symmetry means nothing. It also does not mean that it is "ordered" only that it is symmetrical. In fact, since no two snowflakes are alike, and therefore the process is not repeatable, I would argue that the symmetry is DIFFERENT than order.
It's still water, not a monkey.
"Intelligent Design (or ID) is the controversial assertion that certain features of the universe and of living things exhibit the characteristics of a product resulting from an intelligent cause or agent, not an unguided process such as natural selection. Though publicly most ID advocates state that their focus is on detecting evidence of design in nature without regard to who or what the designer might be, in statements to their constituents and supporters, nearly all state explicitly that they believe the designer to be God (as understood in the Christian tradition)."
So, from that point, what exactly would you teach the children? About who the designer may be? How the designer may have had an influence on creation and evolution? To do that you would have to use books that explain these different Intelligent Designers. Where do we get these books and ideas of these intelligent designers? Well I can think of the Bible right off hand. So now that we're teaching ID we need to teach about the designer and how he designed it. Right? Sounds like Sunday School to me and the students can attend those on their own accord, not forced upon them at public school.
So instead of teaching our kids different "beliefs" on who the designer is and what role this designer played, how about we just say Darwin's theory is a theory and some believe there may be an intelligent designer and it's up to you students to decide what you want to believe in so here in school we will teach biology and the theory of evolution and if you want to learn about Intelligent Design then You need to check the thousands and thousands of different religions and beliefs and come to your own conclusion.
As long as they want to teach the entire package of evolution theology in biology, then they ought to admit the Bible as a textbook. If they want teach speculations on how life evolved from chemical soup and call it FACT or the ONLY explanation, then they ought to have a lab exercise that proves it. If they want to teach speculations that some species evolved from another species, then they ought to have a lab exercise that proves it. Just like a lab that shows chemicals can combine to form more complex chemicals, or a lab that shows you can breed wingless fruit-flies. When evolution theologists stop insisting that their entire religion be taught, then maybe science class will be about science.
So science class would be more scientific if they taught the Bible? Theology is not religion. Biology needs to be taught and Darwin's theory is as close as we come using scientific proof of how the earth and stars were created. It goes into better detail than the Bible about the possible origins of our species.
Nothing above has anything to do with the proper teaching of public school biology. That's the problem with evolution theologists, as I said they want to cram their entire religion down the throats of children.
The coexistence of random correlations and order is no reason for you take make an ad hoc fallacy that one causes the other. The fact that A exists and B exists gives no information that A is the cause of B.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.