A simple case for intelligent design

[leroy]

Yes, destroying is easier, but that is not a concern. Gene duplication is a mutation where entire genes are copied. That enables a enzyme to be continued to be made while variations are "experimented" on. All it takes for a mutation to become part of the genome is a small improvement. Gene duplication allows that. It also leaves a lot of failures behind. That is why so much of our genome is "junk DNA". Experiments that did not work but were not harmful.

Mutations cause variability. That can be regarded as a loss of information. But natural selection reduces variability, which increases information again. In particulgene duplication *and subsequent* divergence adds information.

Actually, we have seen bacteria evolve that can consume nylon, which is a new ability brought about through a mutation. Would you consider that an increase of information?

You misunderstand what happens with mutations. Most mutations in the genetic code have little effect on the proteins the code for. When they do alter the protein it does not mean the enzyme or protein is lost only altered in how it functions. This could make it work better or become less functional. If the mutation helps in survival of the organism it will continue. This has nothing to do with gaining new proteins/enzymes. To create new proteins new insertions of genetic material has to be added, which there are many ways for that to happen. then the new genetic sequence would also be slowly modified and clearly takes longer before a new peptide sequence could form a new protein that has a function. You need long periods of time which we have had in Earths history to create the complexity we have today.

Ok but natural selection doest " try " to create new information nor to create more complex organisms, it only "tries" to produce individuals that would survive. If a loss of information or a decrease in complexity happens to be benefitial natural selection would select it

We have seen examples of new information (increase in complexity) that have been selected by natural selevtion, and we have seen examples of a loss of information that have been selected by natural selection........your burden is to show that the second is more common than the first. You have to show that on average organism are more likely to gain information/complexity rather than loading it.

If complexity on average increases by random mutations and natural selection, then it makes sense to assume that we came from simpler organisms, who became more complex as a result of random mutations and natural selection.

If complexity tends to decrease, then simple bacteria-like organisms, would never evolve in to more complex life forms.


So your burden is not to show that that complexity increases every once in a while, your burden is to show that an increase of complexity is the trend.


To prevent any word games; with complex I mean "complicated" as described by Dawkins in the blind whatch maker.
Dawkins explains the concept of complicated in 3 pages (start reading from this sentence)

So, what is a complex thing? How should we recognize it? .....

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Vf_gKWQ9k1a_XmF4UKD7K

 

[leroy]

the point of the argument seems to have gone over your head.

Well free free to provide a better answer, how do you know that you where not created last Thursday?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok but natural selection doest " try " to create new information nor to create more complex organisms, it only "tries" to produce individuals that would survive. If a loss of information or a decrease in complexity happens to be benefitial natural selection would select it

We have seen examples of new information (increase in complexity) that have been selected by natural selevtion, and we have seen examples of a loss of information that have been selected by natural selection........your burden is to show that the second is more common than the first. You have to show that on average organism are more likely to gain information/complexity rather than loading it.

If complexity on average increases by random mutations and natural selection, then it makes sense to assume that we came from simpler organisms, who became more complex as a result of random mutations and natural selection.

If complexity tends to decrease, then simple bacteria-like organisms, would never evolve in to more complex life forms.


So your burden is not to show that that complexity increases every once in a while, your burden is to show that an increase of complexity is the trend.


To prevent any word games; with complex I mean "complicated" as described by Dawkins in the blind whatch maker.
Dawkins explains the concept of complicated in 3 pages (start reading from this sentence)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Vf_gKWQ9k1a_XmF4UKD7K

You can't even define what you mean by "complexity" so I do not see how anyone can fulfill your request.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well free free to provide a better answer, how do you know that you where not created last Thursday?

That was not the point. You can't learn when asking questions that have nothing to do with your failure.

 

[leroy]

That was not the point. You can't learn when asking questions that have nothing to do with your failure.

Ok so what was the point ? I admit my failure in understanding the point

 

[leroy]

You can't even define what you mean by "complexity" so I do not see how anyone can fulfill your request.

I provided a source by richard dawkins, that explains complexity with details.

What else should I do?......it is obvious that your "strategy" is to avoid providing evidence and avoid your burden by hiding in semantics and word games.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I provided a source by richard dawkins, that explains complexity with details.

What else should I do?......it is obvious that your "strategy" is to avoid providing evidence and avoid your burden by hiding in semantics and word games.

You know that was a failure on your part. Quote the appropriate text and provide a link, that is what you are supposed to do. Until we understand what you mean by your abuse of a term no one can answer you in a satisfactory manner.

 

[leroy]

Quote the appropriate text and provide a link, that is what you are supposed to do. .

That is exactly what I did,

The text is too long to.quote, but I provided a link and the first sentence,

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is exactly what I did,

The text is too long to.quote, but I provided a link and the first sentence,

Not good enough. You expect others to do your homework for you and don't like it when their answers don't match yours. That is why this was a monumental fail on your part.

 

[leroy]

Not good enough. You expect others to do your homework for you and don't like it when their answers don't match yours. That is why this was a monumental fail on your part.

Ok what would be good enough for you?


You what to know what do I mean by complexity, I provided a source that explains the concept in detail, .......what else should I do?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok what would be good enough for you?


You what to know what do I mean by complexity, I provided a source that explains the concept in detail, .......what else should I do?

Nope, you provided a source that disagrees with you. Enough trolling, try again.

 

[leroy]

Nope, you provided a source that disagrees with you. Enough trolling, try again.

So what? I am simply borrowing his definition of complicated.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what? I am simply borrowing his definition of complicated.

Hardly.

 

[Bear Wild]

Ok but natural selection doest " try " to create new information nor to create more complex organisms, it only "tries" to produce individuals that would survive. If a loss of information or a decrease in complexity happens to be benefitial natural selection would select it

We have seen examples of new information (increase in complexity) that have been selected by natural selevtion, and we have seen examples of a loss of information that have been selected by natural selection........your burden is to show that the second is more common than the first. You have to show that on average organism are more likely to gain information/complexity rather than loading it.

If complexity on average increases by random mutations and natural selection, then it makes sense to assume that we came from simpler organisms, who became more complex as a result of random mutations and natural selection.

If complexity tends to decrease, then simple bacteria-like organisms, would never evolve in to more complex life forms.

So your burden is not to show that that complexity increases every once in a while, your burden is to show that an increase of complexity is the trend.


To prevent any word games; with complex I mean "complicated" as described by Dawkins in the blind whatch maker.
Dawkins explains the concept of complicated in 3 pages (start reading from this sentence)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIBBAB&usg=AOvVaw1Vf_gKWQ9k1a_XmF4UKD7K

Natural selection does explain both the simplicity and complexity. Any new changes that give an organism an advantage will be saved and added too. you are not thinking in the correct time frame for things to change. The more complex and changing the environment and the more competition that exists the more complex changes will create an advantage. In more stable environments with low competition for the then less change there is. The other proof is convergent evolution which does not make sense in intelligent design.

 

[Jose Fly]

We have seen examples of new information (increase in complexity) that have been selected by natural selevtion, and we have seen examples of a loss of information that have been selected by natural selection

Yep, so when we look back at the history of life and see both increases and decreases of complexity, we can reasonably say that evolutionary mechanisms were responsible.

your burden is to show that the second is more common than the first. You have to show that on average organism are more likely to gain information/complexity rather than loading it.

Um, no. Remember, this thread is supposed to be you providing a positive case for ID creationism. Shifting the burden to everyone else to justify evolution and claiming victory if we can't is not "making a positive case".

 

[leroy]

Um, no. Remember, this thread is supposed to be you providing a positive case for ID creationism. Shifting the burden to everyone else to justify evolution and claiming victory if we can't is not "making a positive case".

I am not avoiding the burden proof.

My claim are:

1 that specified complexity can only come from a mind

2 And that life is specified and complex

Each of these points is testable and falsifiable. Which of these do you find controversial, so that I can support it?

 

[leroy]

Yep, so when we look back at the history of life and see both increases and decreases of complexity, we can reasonably say that evolutionary mechanisms were responsible.
.

Ok we know that complex multicellular life came from unicelular organisms......how do you know that evolutionary mechanisms (random mutatios and narural selection )
where responsable?

 

[leroy]

Natural selection does explain both the simplicity and complexity. Any new changes that give an organism an advantage will be saved and added too.

Ok so we can say that there are 2 "types" of evolutionary chance;

1 those who add complexity,
2 those who reduce complexity.

.....both types of changes might me positive negative or neutral; if it is positive it would be selected by natural selection.......agree? Yes or no

Do you have any evidence to support the idea that evolutionary changes that add complexity are more common than those who reduce complexity?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I am not avoiding the burden proof.

My claim are:

1 that specified complexity can only come from a mind

2 And that life is specified and complex

Each of these points is testable and falsifiable. Which of these do you find controversial, so that I can support it?

And since you can't even define "complexity" how are people going to deal with this claim?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ok we know that complex multicellular life came from unicelular organisms......how do you know that evolutionary mechanisms (random mutatios and narural selection )
where responsable?

it is a reasonable conclusion to draw since we can at least observe parts of the process. C!aiming that it is the result of magic does not appear to be a very scientific approach to me.