• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Creationist argument about DNA and information

Daniel said:
1. Stereotype Fallacy.

2. I've never made this Nonsensical Claim; In Fact...made the opposite claim :cool:, that there is NO INFORMATION in them...@ ALL.
You must be reading another thread/forum and posting here.

And, we reject "Crystals"... because they don't speak to Functional Sequence/Specific Complexity; Ergo...Straw Man Fallacy, as I've explained to you more than once.

regards
Click to expand...
I apologize. It was a typographical error. I didn't include the not. I will correct my stereotype.

Creationists like to claim there is NO information in crystals. This is incorrect.



A self replicating anything is a functional anything. Self replication is a major 'function' in living things. So anything that self replicates is functioning.

Let me mention the three things necessary for evolution without hypothesizing a previously existing 'life'. Something that evolves has to be SELF REPLICATING. If the self replicator doesn't replicate exactly, but introduces uncorrelated minor variations in the copy, then it is MUTATING at random. If some of these variations replicate and survive more often than others, one has NATURAL SELECTION.

If you have those three things, then you have what a scientist would call evolution. Even minerals could evolve given these three types of processes. Some self replicating mineral structures are still around, although there may have been more in the past. Have you examined any manganese dendrites, recently? :D


Notice that I have defined three types of processes without using the words 'intelligence', 'design', 'life', 'spontaneous' or 'code'.These are five words with which you are equivocating.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one that thinks I may have been placed in a certain posters ignore list?

Even though he won't answer my questions, I will continue to speak to him, as a proxy for whomever may be lurking.

Daniel asks for us to post the TOE. I did just that a couple of pages ago, but will do so again, just in case he missed it.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.

Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology.

The theory has two main points, said Brian Richmond, curator of human origins at the American Museum of Natural History in New York City. "All life on Earth is connected and related to each other," and this diversity of life is a product of "modifications of populations by natural selection, where some traits were favored in and environment over others," he said.
Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/474-contr...m=most-popular

And I will once again bring up ice core samples. Why, because you don't need anything beyond a basic grade school education to understand them, or their significance to this debate.

Dust falls on an ice sheet during the summer months. Fresh snow will cover that layer during the winter months. After time, as the layers pile up, the snow gets compressed into ice, while maintaining the layers intact. Again, this is an observed natural phenomenon. Drilling to a depth of 1620 m in the 1795 m deep Talos Dome SouthEast ice divide in Antarctica, 250,000 layers were recorded. Volcanic debris are found in layers that correspond to known historic volcanic eruptions, thus dating those layers.

http://www.taldice.org/index.php

What is the only logical conclusion a reasonable person can make about that data?

What illogical conclusion does Daniel make about that data?

Logically, this shows that the earth is at least 250,000 years old, which is very much older than even the oldest estimate that an Young Earth Creationist will concede.

Daniel, what is your hypothesis that can explain a young earth with 250,000 layers in an ice core?
 
Darwin123 said:
I apologize. It was a typographical error. I didn't include the not. I will correct my stereotype.

Creationists like to claim there is NO information in crystals. This is incorrect.



A self replicating anything is a functional anything. Self replication is a major 'function' in living things. So anything that self replicates is functioning.

Let me mention the three things necessary for evolution without hypothesizing a previously existing 'life'. Something that evolves has to be SELF REPLICATING. If the self replicator doesn't replicate exactly, but introduces uncorrelated minor variations in the copy, then it is MUTATING at random. If some of these variations replicate and survive more often than others, one has NATURAL SELECTION.
If you have those three things, then you have what a scientist would call evolution. Even minerals could evolve given these three types of processes. Some self replicating mineral structures are still around, although there may have been more in the past. Have you examined any manganese dendrites, recently? :D


Notice that I have defined three types of processes without using the words 'intelligence', 'design', 'life', 'spontaneous' or 'code'.These are five words with which you are equivocating.
Click to expand...

[nitpick]Only if the differential survival is a consequence of the difference between variants. Otherwise you've got GENETIC DRIFT.[/nitpick]
 
Daniel said:
How is your Intelligent manipulation of it in a TEST TUBE, RELEVANT to this discussion in the First Place ?? i.e., it was a Straw Man and Red Herring to the discussion from Jump Street.
Click to expand...

So, because I can light a test tube of hydrogen (*pop*) and end up with water, that somehow doesn't show that hydrogen and oxygen can happily bond to form water in "the wild"? After all, by your reasoning, I intelligently manipulated that hydrogen.

You really are struggling here...
 
Sideroxylon said:
We have overwhelming evidence for common ancestry which gives us licence to speculate on abiogenesis.
Click to expand...


If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".

All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy)--- http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

Or

If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries? :cool:


The "Licence" to "Speculate" :rolleyes: has be revoked due to it's Fallacious character.


regards
 
Daniel said:
If the ancestry is not assumed from similarities, then there is no correlation between similarities and ancestry; ergo, to make the argument you need to make that "assumption".

All you have is a TEXTBOOK.....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Fallacy)--- http://www.logicalfa...the-consequent/

If P then Q.
Q.
Therefore P.

The logical fallacy is that P doesn't necessarily follow from Q.

1. IF Evolution is true: Then Insert any "Darwinian Grab-Bag" Post Hoc Observations (Fossils/Homology/Similarity/Genetic Variation et al)
2. We observe (Post Hoc Observation)
3. Therefore, Evolution is true.

Or

If Common Ancestry is True we will Observe Similarities.
We Observe Similarities.
Therefore, Common Ancestry is True.

1) If I had just eaten a whole pizza, I would feel very full;
2) I feel very full;
3.) Therefore: I have just eaten a whole pizza.

Couldn't I have eaten a 20 ounce Ribeye with Fries? :cool:


The "Licence" to "Speculate" :rolleyes: has be revoked due to it's Fallacious character.


regards
Click to expand...

Wow! So Science has to rely on inductive reasoning! Say it ain't so!
 
Darwin123 said:
I apologize. It was a typographical error. I didn't include the not. I will correct my stereotype.
Click to expand...


Fair Enough; however, your argument is still Kaput.

Creationists like to claim there is NO information in crystals. This is incorrect.
Click to expand...


And....? Now you have to SUPPORT your Ipse Dixit by showing the INFORMATION in crystals....?
"Na'ahh" is not an cogent argument or position.


A self replicating anything is a functional anything. Self replication is a major 'function' in living things. So anything that self replicates is functioning.
Click to expand...


Yes, we are discussing HOW you get those "living things"; Ergo...it's Circular Reasoning (Begging The Question).



Let me mention the three things necessary for evolution without hypothesizing a previously existing 'life'.
Click to expand...


You must First DEFINE what you mean by "evolution" sir; then proceed.


regards
 
yep, he is defiantly ignoring me.

If you can't beat em, join ignore them

Intellectual honesty at its finest.
 
Last edited:
MikeG said:
There must be a fallacy which is based around the YouTube video as evidence in an argument, surely. Anyway, it's a stage all the creationists get to eventually, when they've nothing left to say, and all their arguments are in tatters. Daniel, to give him his due, took longer than most to fall into this pattern of behaviour, but they all do it in the end.
Click to expand...

Reality Check said:
No officially named fallacy but there is argument from ignorance (of English in this case):
10 March 2016 Daniel: A video stating 95% of DNA is junk is supporting the existence of junk DNA :eek:!
Click to expand...

I think it might also be being "ignorant" in the Northern English sense of the word too, which is "being willfully rude and inconsiderate".

Being too rude to post an argument in a suitable format.
 
Son of Inigo said:
Daniel asks for us to post the TOE. I did just that a couple of pages ago, but will do so again, just in case he missed it.

The Theory of Evolution

The theory of evolution by natural selection, first formulated in Darwin's book "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, is the process by which organisms change over time as a result of changes in heritable physical or behavioral traits. Changes that allow an organism to better adapt to its environment will help it survive and have more offspring.
http://www.livescience.com/474-contr...m=most-popular
Click to expand...


So.... "change over time as as a result of changes..." ROTFLOL.

Scientific Theories (Actual REAL Ones) elucidate "The HOW" (mechanisms/process) EXPLICITLY.

This is tantamount to saying The Cause/Mechanism for Hurricanes is..."Weather Changes that Changed". :rolleyes:


Natural Selection, eh?? Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON; Sentience and Intelligence...is "Nature" Alive??

Natural Selection is a "Concept"; Non-Physical/Immaterial.
It's Tantamount to claiming that the "Race for Space" (Concept) was the Mechanism for the Apollo 11 Lunar Module, or Freedom (Concept) developed the Battle Plans for the Revolutionary War.

William Provine Cornell University, Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. NATURAL SELECTION DOES NOTHING….Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty “natural selection” language, and the “actions” of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

Is there something here that's confusing that you need me to elaborate on?

"Natural selection does not shape an adaptation or cause a gene to spread over a population or really do anything at all. It is instead the result of specific causes: hereditary changes, developmental causes, ecological causes, and demography. Natural Selection is the result of these causes, not a cause that is by itself. It is not a mechanism."
Shermer, M., The Woodstock of Evolution (The World Summit on Evolution); Scientific American, 27 June 2005

So if Scientific Theories elucidate "The Mechanism" and according to you... "the mechanism" for evolution (whatever that is :confused:) is "Natural Selection"...and from above we learned that "Natural Selection" is not a mechanism; Therefore.... "Theory of evolution by Natural Selection" is INVALID.

Savvy??



Daniel, what is your hypothesis that can explain a young earth with 250,000 layers in an ice core?
Click to expand...


I've already explained this buffoonery @ length more than 3 TIMES to you personally on more than one thread.


regards
 
Yes, I know he will not see this

Daniel said:
Inductive Reasoning does not Equal....Affirming The Consequent (Formal Logical Fallacy).

regards
Click to expand...

Inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning has its place in the scientific method. Scientists use it to form hypotheses and theories. Deductive reasoning allows them to apply the theories to specific situations.
Click to expand...

http://www.livescience.com/21569-deduction-vs-induction.html

A good general (and short) read if you want to understand what inductive, deductive, and abductive reasoning are, and what their roles in science are.
 
With regards to the self replicating RNA/PNA, we can get that by catalysing the polymerisation of the RNA/PNA monomers.
The catalysation is needed to speed up the reaction to a point that we can observe it under human (and more important funding) timescales NOT to start the reaction as such.

The monomers can be equally created from (an)organic precursors via a catalysed reaction under our best estimates of pre-biotic earth conditions.

Neither requires intelligent input apart from the speed-up to get the reaction to human-speed timescales.
As for the left-right handed thing Daniel mentioned.
First of all, left or right handed monomers preferentially bind to similar molecules, thus creating polymers that will be primarily one handed.
Once you GET a self replicating molecule of either handedness this will rapidly (geologically) deplete that version of the monomers.
However, as monomer formation, like all chemistry, is in an equilibrium, this will be disturbed by this scavenging and will push the equilibrium towards the handedness that is being used by life.
So even IF earth started with a racemic mixture of monomers (which is by no means certain), once a single self replicating molecule appears, this will enrich a single handedness. Again without the input of any outside intelligence.
 
Daniel said:
...

You must First DEFINE what you mean by "evolution" sir; then proceed.

...
Click to expand...

This is patently dishonest! Many posters have defined evolution, linked websites that describe the process and have provided ample evidence for its reality.
 
Daniel said:
.......Natural Selection, eh?? Is a Contradiction in Terms. To be able to "SELECT" you must have the ability to REASON;..........
Click to expand...

You can say this until you are blue in the face, Daniel. You only make yourself look silly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom