tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post4728430491881142722..comments2023-09-25T05:50:59.427-05:00Comments on My Dirty Little Secret: Just Give Us the FactsUrukhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05913837011380611461noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-24461777644362970552010-08-11T12:36:01.951-05:002010-08-11T12:36:01.951-05:00Interesting point. A long line of ancestors strivi...Interesting point. A long line of ancestors striving to overcome competitors and hazards of their environment stands behind each of us. I'll have to remember that.Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-27755461296609590412010-08-11T07:01:35.077-05:002010-08-11T07:01:35.077-05:00People want to feel we are deliberately here, not ...People want to feel we are deliberately here, not an accident.<br /><br />The truth is, we are not an accident, we are the result of millions of organisms struggling to succeed in a competitive environment. We aren't an accident, we're survivors. God is the accident.Ginxhttp://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-29093251291823916772010-08-10T23:32:34.962-05:002010-08-10T23:32:34.962-05:00I remember when I was in middle school, I used to ...I remember when I was in middle school, I used to go to these Christian youth group meetings after school. I recall someone comparing the big bang theory to taking the parts of a motorcycle and putting them in a bag. Now take the bag and shake it up. Will you get a fully intact motorcycle?<br /><br />Nope. Probably not.<br /><br />But, I've come to the viewpoint that such an analogy is not representative of the big bang.<br /><br />I sometimes wonder if the same thing is being done with evolution, now that the idea behind the big bang has more weight behind it these days.<br /><br />I get the sense that randomness is an important idea to people who believe that a designer is necessary for anything complex to come about. But, I don't think we're dealing with total randomness when we examine natural processes.<br /><br />I think many people feel that since we see intelligent life constantly build things like houses, cars, -- you name it-- that everything that has order must have a designer. But, after the big bang, the nature of matter brought into play the laws of chemistry and physics. A wide range of possibilities are apparent, but also a range of limitations as well. I can see how chemistry and physics can be the engines to complex things by way of natural processes alone. People say that they see faces and pyramids in Mars photos. No designer needed to form these objects. Though I will admit, the face probably isn't really a face. We just impose our schema upon the structure and "see" a face.<br /><br />I will admit, this viewpoint will not answer how things happened at the beginning of time, or with the beginning of life on earth. I think better said-- these ideas simply describe what seems to have happened so far from the clues around us.<br /><br />I will try to better understand your points by reading other sources, Joejensen. And I thank you for sharing your perspective so far. I haven't quite heard your point of view before. While I can't put my finger on it, I still have the sense that evolution is not as limited as Michale Bahe claims.Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-44781306913840440782010-08-10T20:43:53.414-05:002010-08-10T20:43:53.414-05:00LOL
So these are the new tactics? "I believe...LOL<br /><br />So these are the new tactics? "I believe in evolution, I just call it something else and really focus on the theogenesis aspect of it all."<br /><br />Another worshipper of the ever-shrinking God-of-the-gaps...Ginxhttp://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-58354812504008683182010-08-09T21:51:48.218-05:002010-08-09T21:51:48.218-05:00Hi Again Uruk,
Your questions:
All ID proponents...Hi Again Uruk,<br />Your questions:<br /> All ID proponents I've read from agree with the fact that evolution takes place. The evolution they, and myself see, is nature choosing from the random changes within DNA. They see the DNA changes as advantageous defects or natural variation within any species. Nature's selections, ultimately maintains life's complexity, or reduces it. This is to be expected when any randomness in introduced in an already functioning system. If you randomly changes letters in a book, eventually the information gets degraded, you never get more information, to do so, would violate information theory.<br /><br />What ID undermines, and proponents take issue with, is the possibility of randomness and selection producing any novel proteins or bio-chemical features, that increase life's complexity. This has never been demonstrated in biology or any other field of science.<br />The exact process that increases the complexity of life, has never been adequately explained in any scientific literature. The randomness hoped for always exceeds the laws of probability. For example, there isn't enough amino acids in the known universe, to randomly connect together a functioning 150 base pair protein, even if given 1000 times the current life of the universe. This fact alone is the main reason so many PHDs signed the dissent from Darwin petition, you can download here http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org/ . <br />The study of intelligent design would be just as fruitful as the study of the design of any historic artifacts, as in archeology.<br /><br />Intelligent design makes no attempt to identify who the designer is, just the detection of design itself. The theory would be just as valid if aliens or robots from the future seeded life on Earth. *Francis Crick also sees the problem of random production of proteins, causing him to endorse and support the SETI project, (would that make him a ID proponent?).<br /><br />I used to be a hardcore atheist, ridiculing those who disagreed. Now, I'm fairly certain life is designed. Christianity dovetails perfectly with my understanding of science, but this doesn't have anything to do with the science of detecting design in nature. No more so than determining whether a possible tool, dug from a pit, or detecting whether an accident scene contains evidence of possible foul play.Joejensennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-70211458349135328732010-08-09T19:54:19.738-05:002010-08-09T19:54:19.738-05:00The proteins that make you are little different fr...The proteins that make you are little different from that of a dandelion. When that dawns on you, let me know.Ginxhttp://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-26839043616278734372010-08-08T22:14:13.140-05:002010-08-08T22:14:13.140-05:00Joejensen, thanks for your reply and for elaborati...Joejensen, thanks for your reply and for elaborating on your point. I'll have to chew on all of that information before I can say anything meaningful in response. I may even find myself reading the book and article you referenced in your comment.<br /><br />In the meanwhile, I'd like to pick your brain some if you have time. I still maintain my viewpoint, but I'm interested in what you have to say and while I may at times sound dogmatic, I want to keep try and open mind.<br /><br />So, please don't interpret the following as an attack, but as honest questions desiring honest understanding:<br /><br />1. Is it safe to say that for yourself, you accept evolution-- just not the idea that life came about by natural causes alone? Would you say that many ID proponents feel the same way?<br /><br />2. If ID doesn't undermine evolution (or does it?), what can studying that idea of Intelligent Design do for biology?<br /><br /><br />3. If there is a designer, does that designer need to be God, in your view? If so, may I ask if you believe in a personal or impersonal God? Are you agnostic or atheist?<br /><br /><br />If I'm imposing with any of my questions, by all means, feel free not to answer any one of them. Opposing viewpoints are welcomed as I admit I could be wrong. I wouldn't be where I am now if I hadn't considered that I might be wrong. So, I do appreciate you comments thus far.<br /><br />And like I said, in the meanwhile, I'll chew on your comments above.Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-83537053567193996212010-08-08T21:56:14.823-05:002010-08-08T21:56:14.823-05:00Thanks for dropping by again. It's been a bit....Thanks for dropping by again. It's been a bit.Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-40944734597012627462010-08-08T18:20:21.282-05:002010-08-08T18:20:21.282-05:00Hi Uruk, thanks for inviting me to elaborate. I a...Hi Uruk, thanks for inviting me to elaborate. I admit I was hasty posting my response to your initial comment and didn't communicate properly, the statement about "superbugs" evolving with exposure to medication. I might be proven wrong with my blanket statement about drug resistance not being the result of more complex genetic information, but so far not. All the examples of drug resistance 'evolving' that I've personally investigated resulted from damage done to working receptor proteins or proteins involved in the transcription/translation functions within the cells etc. This damaged protein happily results in it's inability to dock or interface properly with the drug in question, allowing it to survive. If the drug is removed, the damaged organism is slightly disadvantaged than it's normal cousins.<br />An excellent book written on this very subject is "The Edge of Evolution" by Michael Behe. It chronicals the history of the evolutionary battle between Malaria and Human beings. Each organism evolving different strategies to fight the other. A very clear conclusion results, when looking at all the 'evolution' that has taken place between these two enemies, the survival advantages are the result of damage to the organisms in question. There are clear and simple solutions the virus could evolve making it unstoppable. These don't happen, because it would take more than 3 lucky genetic changes to occur at the same time. In the billions of generations of malarial virus', no such feature has been able to evolve, simply because of it's statistical improbability.<br />The conclusion of the book, is that evolution has a limit, an edge, and it's 3 lucky base pair changes, that's it. So if you look at all of life, and a new feature is needed to enhance the survival of an organism, it must have evolved by 1-2 lucky base pair changes at a time, and these events, by themselves, must be advantageous enough to be retained. If they are neutral, and the hope is another couple of lucky events in the future, it's futile. As neutral genetic features are not retained and subject to the very random events that produced it in the first place. Your average protein is aprox. 150 base pairs long. It's inconceivable that all the proteins we see around us, were all happy accidents. Look at the flagellum motor, try to imagine it being built 2 base pairs at a time, each change an advantage. You'll quickly see the futility.<br />Ken Miller wrote an article to show how this motor evolved. He simply found a bacterial feature possessing genes where half could be considered homologous. He feels this feature could be an ancestor to the flagellum motor. The problem is that the feature has less than half of the 40 genes needed to create a flagellum motor. It is not enough to point to some feature and say it contains homologous genes, then appeal to a million monkeys on typewriters to produce the complexity required to make the most efficient motor on the planet. Ken Miller might accuse and ID advocate of appealing to magic, but I'm saying the same of him.<br />The million monkey argument doesn't work anymore, the production of novel genes and novel complexity must be explained.Joejensennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-38564324377585482692010-08-07T20:50:59.311-05:002010-08-07T20:50:59.311-05:00Nice post.
I agree... they don't understand t...Nice post.<br /><br />I agree... they don't understand the first thing about empiricism. And I think that's where the hang up is. Precisely because they *feel that Creationism is true... their rational demands for there to be facts... but what they overlook is that their faith based convictions have blinded them to one important key event--there are NO facts when it comes to faith-based proclamations which don't exist in reality; and so there can be no fact to justify wanting Creationism taught in schools.AdvocatusAtheistnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-10757661783528539462010-08-07T13:08:26.913-05:002010-08-07T13:08:26.913-05:00Joejensen, welcome and thanks for your comment.
I...Joejensen, welcome and thanks for your comment.<br /><br />If you are still following this thread, would you please expound further on the following statement you made?<br /><br />"To be specific, medication resistance has always been demonstrated to occur, by a REDUCTION of genetic information. Never has medication resistance been the result of more genetic complexity or the production of novel proteins/genes."Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-66539146851269290852010-08-07T11:46:42.054-05:002010-08-07T11:46:42.054-05:00Straw dogs again, it's getting very tiring.
...Straw dogs again, it's getting very tiring. <br />Intelligent Design advocates completely agree with the role random changes produce virus' and bacteria resistant to medication. ID lines up perfectly. The problem is, evolution misrepresents this natural process as being capable of producing novel genetic information. To be specific, medication resistance has always been demonstrated to occur, by a REDUCTION of genetic information. Never has medication resistance been the result of more genetic complexity or the production of novel proteins/genes. It just doesn't happen.<br />As an ID advocate myself, I and many like minded people would prefer MORE education of evolution, with all the evidence, both for and against it's ability to generate novel genetic features.<br />Instead of more strawdog arguments, try to address the mystery of a novel protein, that requires more than 3 simultaneous changes, before it benefits the organism. This is the problem, focus on this. When you do the math, then it dawns on you, life is teeming with novel proteins comprising of hundreds and thousands of "lucky" base pair changes.<br />Do the math, and stop with the wimpy arguments.<br />Joe JensenJoejensennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-39374013757619627792010-08-06T21:21:12.195-05:002010-08-06T21:21:12.195-05:00Sure, you can do the link, Ginx. And yes, I switch...Sure, you can do the link, Ginx. And yes, I switched to Disqus for that precise reason. I didn't mind his comments at first, but I posted something sort of sensitive and he just dumps his spam comments on my post. I dunno, after that I realized I didn't want him having unfettered access to my blog. If he was posting a valid disagreement, then I wouldn't care. But he's just posting mindless crap that has nothing to do with the points we make.<br /><br />Anyhow, go for it.Urukhttp://2nonbelief.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-15173728913546439112010-08-06T21:11:53.286-05:002010-08-06T21:11:53.286-05:00Also, mind if I link to your blog from mine? I fou...Also, mind if I link to your blog from mine? I found out DM was using my site to link through to spam people, so I eliminated the list except for those who agreed to be on it. I figured I'd ask you since you use Disqus for comments now, and people who do that tend to not have spam issues anymore. Might switch myself... not like anonymous comments ever impress me.Ginxhttp://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3547195737073832993.post-84408917431285421302010-08-06T21:09:18.394-05:002010-08-06T21:09:18.394-05:00Are you kidding me?! Creationism explains everythi...Are you kidding me?! Creationism explains everything with the same air-tight answer: "God did it!"Ginxhttp://anythingbuttheist.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com