Problems for evolution — squid recodes its own RNA

[Stripe]

What we have here is an appeal to ignorance and begging the question, i.e. "RNA is coded information and since all codes are created by a conscious mind, and there is no natural process that creates coded information, therefore the ability of squid to recode its own RNA is evidence of a Creator." It's just sloppy argumentation.

Perhaps you'd like to quote where I have made that argument. :thumb:

You don't have a brain in this argument. :chuckle:

 

[Mocking You]

Perhaps you'd like to quote where I have made that argument. :thumb:

You don't have a brain in this argument. :chuckle:

Meanwhile, RNA recoding is still a necessarily purposed attribute that the squid possesses, proving problematic to the idea that the ability arose through random mutations and natural selection.

This is question begging.

Random mutations and natural selection could never produce a system so reliant on intent and purpose.

It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

I am saying random mutations and natural selection cannot provide a pathway to a process that relies on design and intent.

This is appeal to ignorance.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
If you like, I can show you a simple dice game that will give you an increase in fitness or stasis depending on the environment.

Want to try it?

Both of us can play games with dice where we set the rules to get the results we want.

Only difference is, yours doesn't simulate reality. Mine starts with an unadapted population, and a specific environment. What happens is that random mutations in the genomes of the individual organisms change their fitness. (you've already said that this is observable)

Then, the system evaluates the fitness of each organism, and only the most fit get to reproduce.

What follows is a period of rapid change in the population, which gradually slows to stasis.

Precisely what you claimed could not happen under such circumstances.

Interestingly, if there is more than one niche open, the population tends to diverge into two populations, each fit for a specific environment.

Again, precisely what we see in nature, but what creationism claims is impossible.



Want to try it?

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA".

 

[Jose Fly]

And I'm still waiting for any creationist to tell us what they mean by "information" in terms of genetics. How are you defining and measuring it? Nucleotide bases? Functional sequences? Whole genes? Something else?

 

[6days]

Both of us can play games with dice where we set the rules to get the results we want.

Only difference is, yours doesn't simulate reality. Mine starts with an unadapted population, and a specific environment.

Only difference is yours doesn't simulate reality. *Mine starts with no dice but i will be generous and give you some energy to create the dice.*

I thought we were playing dice.... Anyways

What happens is that random mutations in the genomes of the individual organisms change their fitness. (you've already said that this is observable)

Ok...yes, that is observable.

Then, the system evaluates the fitness of each organism, and only the most fit get to reproduce.

That is not generally observable. Organisms often will adapt and become *'fit' to specific envioronments, but are often now less fit when the environment changes.*

Also, it is observably false that only the most fit reproduce. It is observable that genetic problems are passed generation to generation causing an overall decline in fitness.

What follows is a period of rapid change in the population, which gradually slows to stasis.
Precisely what you claimed could not happen under such circumstances.

You should have read the peer reviewed article I linked to yesterday discussing that very thing.*

Have your dice appeared yet?

 

[User Name]

Tell us what you believe and why you think it is true. Quit compartmentalizing.

Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts, but when you can demonstrate that the doctrines of MAD or the Trinity can be verified in a lab through scientific analysis, I'll gladly quit compartmentalizing.

The beliefs of YE creationism predate the advent of modern science. YE creationism is derived purely from religion, not from science. There is no way that a modern scientist who had never heard of the Bible could observe the earth and the visible physical universe and come to the conclusion that everything was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

 

[6days]

Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments.

The "program" called evolution, yeah.*

It is the answer to the problem of a finite genome. Mutation and selection gives a finite genome infinite possibilities. Stripe (and you apparently) want God to have pre-designed every possibility into every organism (so it sounds) but reality is far more amazing than that. Why can't you accept that?

You misrepresent our positions. ...perhaps to avoid answering the question which is...Would you agree we have an awesome Creator who designed a program allowing organisms to survive in various environments? *As Christians ...shouldn't it be easy to answer *"yes to that? (No matter what our differences are about common ancestry / common Designer beliefs)

 

[Stripe]

This is question begging.

Nope. Begging the question is where you assume the truth of your idea to generate evidence for your idea — like when evolutionists, when faced with the challenge, claimed that the squid's ability could have arisen by random mutations.

I haven't been presented with a challenge, therefore I have not presented evidence for anything, making it rather silly of you to accuse me of question begging. :chuckle:

This is appeal to ignorance.

Nope. It's a challenge to what you believe. If you cannot present a reasonable explanation for what you believe, I am justified in rejecting your ideas and sticking with what I believe.

You're not very good at this, are you? :chuckle:

Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts.

Nope. Both are either true or not true. You've been sucked into a lie where everything must be compartmentalized. I prefer a wholistic worldview. :up:

When you can demonstrate that the doctrines of MAD or the Trinity can be verified in a lab through scientific analysis, I'll gladly quit compartmentalizing.

Then you've damned yourself to forever live a schizophrenic existence; never able to affirm that a spiritual truth maps onto a physical reality.

The beliefs of YE creationism predate the advent of modern science.

Science is not "modern" or otherwise.

YE creationism is derived purely from religion, not from science.

Nope. It is based on scripture and upheld by the evidence. The benefits of a wholistic worldview. :thumb:

There is really no way that a modern scientist who had never heard of the Bible could observe the earth and the visible physical universe and come to the conclusion that everything was created in six days less than 10,000 years ago.

Plenty of ways, in fact.

 

[6days]

Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts....

Modern science was founded by many who believed science was possible because God's Word is true.*

Science and scientists were created by God, so not mutually exclusive. When God's Word touches on areas of science, it is always correct.

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

It is insane to insist that the RNA arose by random mutation and natural selection.

Your argument doesn't seem to rely particularly on RNA-editing, but rather the existence of any RNA at all. This is hardly a new argument, one that we've personally been over; Your reasoning on the matter begins and ends at personal incredulity.

To make an analogy, it would be like an editor making changes to a book to improve its reception in different markets, but insisting that the material was not written by an author.

Is this not just another Watchmaker Argument?

 

[Daedalean's_Sun]

Adaptation is a 'piller' of Biblical creation also.

Historically, Creationists have thought species immutable.
This view only began to change at the earliest until the 19th century.

 

[CabinetMaker]

Religious beliefs and scientific facts are mutually exclusive concepts,...

I would disagree. I see them as opposite sides of the same coin. The bible deals with matters of why the Earth was created while science deals with the mechanics of how the Earth was created. God tells us why through scripture while our nature by virtue of being created in His image allows us to observe creation and learn about how God handled His creation.

 

[rexlunae]

I did not contest what you said — apart from to call it pedantic.

It's an important distinction.

Where we find meaning conveyed through writing — in every example — we automatically assume an author without ever thinking about it.

That just isn't true. And it begs the question.

It is only when evolutionary theory is challenged that there are suddenly demands that we prove text has an author.

That's entirely a product the context in which we find it. It would be difficult to explain how we could find painted letters on the side of a cave without some intelligent agent to put them there. But we have perfectly reasonable mechanisms for chemical messaging to happen, which we can actually observe in action.

Given the situation, I think it is up to you to prove the non-standard argument that there might be writing without an author.

You laid out a principle that isn't adopted by any of mainstream science. It's up to you to justify it. I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.

 

[6days]

Historically, Creationists have thought species immutable.
This view only began to change at the earliest until the 19th century.

So evolutionism and creationism both evolved at about the same time?
Actually both have existed in some form for a couple thousand years.

 

[Mocking You]

Nope. Begging the question is where you assume the truth of your idea to generate evidence for your idea — like when evolutionists, when faced with the challenge, claimed that the squid's ability could have arisen by random mutations.

Like when creationists say that the squid's ability to do this is evidence of a designer.

Nope. It's a challenge to what you believe. If you cannot present a reasonable explanation for what you believe, I am justified in rejecting your ideas and sticking with what I believe.

I haven't said one way or the other where I fall on this issue, just that your arguments are using logical fallacies. According to you, that means I can reject your argument.

You're not very good at this, are you?

That's question begging.

 

[Stripe]

It's an important distinction.

Not if you were willing to let it slide and just engage with what they plainly meant.

That just isn't true.

:AMR:

You've seen writing that had no author?

And it begs the question.

Nope. You guys really need to brush up on your critical thinking. :up:

We have perfectly reasonable mechanisms for chemical messaging to happen, which we can actually observe in action.

And all those mechanisms will be analogous to the mechanisms that put the writing on the wall.

You laid out a principle that isn't adopted by any of mainstream science. It's up to you to justify it. I don't think you'll get a lot of takers.

Evolutionists love the appeal to popularity. They know they can win that game.

 

[Stripe]

Like when creationists say that the squid's ability to do this is evidence of a designer.

That is not begging the question. A creature that recodes its RNA shows intent. Unless you think the recoding is done according to the will of the individual shrimp, you must concede that its genome gives it the ability to act with purpose.

Quite the opposite of what evolution proposes when it comes to biological changes. :think:

That's question begging.

Only after you've ignored the explanation showing why you're not good at critical thinking.

 

[Jose Fly]

Stripe,

Still waiting for you to explain how "each animal was designed" follows from "squid can recode RNA".

 

[Mocking You]

That is not begging the question. A creature that recodes its RNA shows intent.

Now you are confusing correlation with causation with an appeal to omniscience.