The Problem with Christians

[Esquilax]

Can we agree that the DNA mutations are random? If not, what is the source of intelligence that guides them?

"Random/intelligently guided" is a false dichotomy. Something can be non-random while still happening without intelligence. In the case of mutations, each and every mutation happens within the framework of those that came before, which is just an inescapable fact of the mechanism of mutation; those mutations that do arise are transcription errors within an attempt to copy a previous gene sequence. That is a constraint upon mutations that prevents them from being totally random, as is the fact that whatever mutations do occur need to result in a viable offspring, for obvious reasons. You're looking at an unguided process, but not a random one; there are limits to what can happen, and factors shaping the results toward certain goals, as I'll get into more below.

For an organism to evolve from one thing into another, a great many mutations have to occur and a huge number of AAs need to be laid down in specific order. It matters not whether natural selection kills off the weak and enables the strong to survive, that isn't relevant to the total number of attempts required to create the AA sequences in the first place. Natural selection occurs "after the fact" ie after the random mutation of the DNA and assembly of new proteins.

After the fact? Not quite, because you aren't looking at your sample size of organisms at the moment of their conception. No, the fossil record that you see, and those organisms that are alive today, have all been filtered through natural selection before you examine them, and in fact are the result of countless generations being filtered through it. Natural selection acts on populations, and any given specimen you care to point to has had its parents filtered through, and their parents, and so on: the natural selection process has in fact been key to deriving the genes that make up that organism, every time you find one.

I'm not claiming that you can scientifically prove the existence of God. Christianity requires faith, it is not a science.

That said, I believe there is enough evidence in the scripture to show that the Bible was written with specific foreknowledge of future events. So for those who have faith there is evidence of God scattered throughout the pages of the text . For those without faith, it's all gobbledigook.  Some of the codes in the Bible are very compelling to me, but they  are nothing more than random chance to you.

... Even if you could demonstrate foreknowledge- rather than retrofitting the text to present day events, as most theists do- you haven't demonstrated that the specific christian god is the cause of that.

One thing I'll never understand is those who mock God. If there is no God I suppose it doesn't matter, but if there is a God and you mock him, what will be your end?

Do you really think it's okay to threaten people with hell, here? You think that's an apt way to argue?

Besides, if there's a god and I don't believe in him, it doesn't matter if I mock him or not, I'm going to the same place. Your god isn't much for nuance, nor is he particularly creative.

Not exactly. If we look at the definition, evolution doesn't qualify as a science. This became this, which became that which became something else is speculation because it has never been observed. Even when using a lab to try and prove evolution, you are still guessing as to what the conditions were millions of years ago. You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

Evolution has been observed. We use our observations of nature to inform our inferences as to the lineages of organisms in the past; that stuff comes from the fossil record, DNA testing, and morphology, you know. It doesn't actually come straight out of our asses. As I pointed out to you before, science is a probabilistic method of drawing evidence-based inferences: it does not, and has never required, direct observation to qualify as science. For example: the orbital period of Pluto is longer than we've known about Pluto, but we're still able to derive the length of it from the evidence available to us. That knowledge isn't un-science just because we've not directly observed it: the method used to figure it out is valid, and no amount of desperate clinging to solipsism, this claim of yours that nothing is real science unless you see it with your eyeballs, is pathetically childish and completely lacking in any understanding of how science actually works.

[robvalue]

Because we've all seen god, right? We all saw god create the universe. Good thing, otherwise I might have doubted it.

[Esquilax]

Because we've all seen god, right? We all saw god create the universe. Good thing, otherwise I might have doubted it.

Religion couldn't exist in the modern era without ridiculous, completely unexamined double standards.

[GUBU]

Can we agree that the DNA mutations are random? If not, what is the source of intelligence that guides them?

The mutations themselves are random, but the process of selection of the most successful mutations is not, because the mutations which survive are the ones which either better adapt the species to the prevailing environment or which do nothing. Plus you've got other factors within evolution such as recombination in species which propagate sexually, which are themselves not random (because sexual animals tend to choose their mates based on physical and mental attributes which allow them to best survive). Some parts of evolution are random, but the process as a whole isn't. And your second question is a sly attempt to shoehorn your god into a gap which really doesn't exist, pity you don't understand enough about biology to realise this.

You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

No we don't. We know evolution happens, we* have observed it in nature, we* have induced it in the laboratory (bonus link). And we obviously exist as a species and individuals (proof: I am sat here on a bank holiday Monday typing a response to one of your idiotic comments). So, there is no faith needed to suppose that the obviously and trivially true is, in fact, true.

*I use the we here in species terms not personally including myself. Unlike you I make no lying claims to being a biologist or any other type of scientist.

[AJW333]

 Despite being more designed than ever before, computers became smaller, simpler, easier to produce with less parts, with simplicity of function being the watchword when it comes to design and interface. They went from room-filling technological monstrosities that required specialized knowledge and tools just to operate, to something you can hold in the palm of your hand, turn on with a single button, and operate with your finger. Outwardly, in terms of mechanics and parts, and inwardly, in terms of software and control options, computers are getting simpler, not more complex

, and this is a trend that can be applied to every piece of technology that people regularly work with: everything about the history of design that you've been exposed to indicates that greater design is accompanied by greater simplicity, greater ease of use, and greater unification and connectivity between devices.

We shouldn't assume that compact means simple,

"In 1971, the first-gen Intel processor sported 2,300 transistors and ran at 740,000Hz. The latest fourth-gen Intel Core processor has 1.7billion transistors and runs as 3,000,000,000Hz." http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/126289-i...in-a-brain

My argument so far has been focused on the complexity of DNA code. If you look at the code used in computers today, it is huge. The first home computers had a capacity of 64kb whereas now, just the operating system on windows 10 alone is 16gb. That is a massive rise in information and therefore complexity. Sure, the end result is ease of use and greater function, but this requires a giant increase in the intelligent design of the software. How many man-hours did it take to develop the windows operating systems?

... So, why the watchmaker argument? Your entire relationship with demonstrable design suggests that complexity does not correlate with design,

That's not what I'm saying. Complexity suggests design because a reduction in entropy is observed.

[LadyForCamus]

Why is it that in the instance of evolution your requirements for scientific proof are unreasonably high, but in the instance of God, you're happy to take it all on faith without a shred of evidence? How do you justify demanding evidence for one and not the other?

I'm wondering if I am going to get an answer to this...

[IATIA]

You refuse to accept evolution because you cannot watch it happen over millions of years, yet if we were able to show evolution in a lab, you would refuse to accept it because it was not natural.

Not exactly. If we look at the definition, evolution doesn't qualify as a science. This became this, which became that which became something else is speculation because it has never been observed. Even when using a lab to try and prove evolution, you are still guessing as to what the conditions were millions of years ago. You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

You never actually took or showed up for a science class in school, did you?  And no need to respond to this, because it is obvious from your posts that the only science you know is cut/paste or paraphrase from a creatard site and any attempt to convince us otherwise would be futile at best.

[AJW333]

Entropy. A wristwatch represents a huge reversal of randomness and disorder. Just to make the stainless steel casing requires a huge amount of directed energy. To assemble all of the parts requires ordered, sequential and intelligent construction.

Entropy applies to closed systems, which the earth is not. The earth receives energy from outside on a literally constant basis. In terms of the universe, we can't even tell if it is a closed system, but on the off chance that it is, there's nothing within the description of entropy that disallows the possibility of small- which is what stuff happening on a single planet would be, on the scale of a universal closed system- increases in order within a net increase of disorder... and bear in mind that we're talking about molecular disorder anyway, which isn't altered just by pushing together certain collections of molecules so that they do stuff on a macro-level while remaining the same on a molecular one.

And would you even consider life to be a decrease in disorder anyway, considering what life tends to do? Are you seriously suggesting that life is more orderly than a lifeless rock floating in space?

So basically, you recognize design because you misunderstand how entropy works. Great.  

If we look at entropy from an informational point of view we have;

"in data transmission and information theory, a measure of the loss of information in a transmitted signal or message."

Given that living systems with DNA have shown a progressive and very large increase in information, we can say that evolution requires entropy to be reversed in a step by step fashion over millions of years. If you want to deny that this is the result of design, you can cry "open system,"  but how does the application of heat and cosmic rays,  plus the occasional space rock add to the pool of information within the DNA?

[robvalue]

No need to deny anything. Nothing has been demonstrated. No need to say things haven't been designed; just to point out there is no evidence that it has been. You're continuing to employ the argument from ignorance, which I explained right at the start.

Pointing at my car and saying how slow it is does not show you have the fastest car on the block. Design does not win by default, even if you managed to discredit current theory. Where is the design hypothesis? Oh that's right, there has never been and probably will never be one, because it's not science.

In this case, you're pointing at the fastest and most reliable car on the whole lot, and making observations about why it would actually be slow, while revealing you know next to nothing about cars in general. Your car is nowhere to be seen, while you tell us it goes at 8 million miles an hour.

All you've displayed is a knowledge of pseudo-science, rubbish put out by creationists to try and embarress genuine science. You would do well to study these subjects properly, instead of reading apologetics.

[AJW333]

You have to have faith that evolution happened the way you think it did.

No we don't. We know evolution happens, we* have observed it in nature, we* have induced it in the laboratory (bonus link).

I am fully accepting of the fact that species will adapt to their environment and to threats to their survival. Genetic variation and the appearance of random and occasional positive mutations isn't an issue either. But to take isolated cases of such occurrences as proof that simple cell bacteria evolved into fish, dogs, birds crocodiles and humans is a completely different argument. On the one hand you have small changes to the genetic code that don't change the identity of the organism, and on the other you have a complete change of one organism into a completely new species. You're arguing apples and oranges here.