For Christians (or anyone else) who deny Darwinian evolution.

[Cod]

Who the hell is Andy?

A. Person.

Thanks

Does Andy cry himself to sleep at night?

[I_am_not_mafia]

Being precise and defining our terms is an extremely important part of any dialog. 

True and it's good to see a theist actually try defining precise terms rather than rely upon equivocation. But you are also using the age old theist trick of framing the debate to try and limit the options when it is not warranted. I refuse to keep to your arbitrary limitations. The theory of evolution accounts for all three of the aspects that you describe. They are not three different definitions of evolution, just three aspects that you describe wrongly as definitions. And be aware that it's not a hypothesis, it's a theory. That means that it came about to explain the evidence. The evidence came first. The theory has been tested repeatedly and used in practice.

A simple thought experiment. If Andy believes that our current dog breeds evolved from domesticated wolf ancestors, does Andy believe in evolution? I think it is clear he does. 

If Andy believes in something evolving then how could Andy not also believe in evolution? This is a pointless thought experiment. It's a tautology. If true then true.

But, does he believe that simplicity begat complexity through natural selection acting on random mutations? Does he believe in common ancestry of all living things? We don't know.

The answer to that is whether Andy actually understands evolution. But as Cod says, who the hell is Andy? Why should it matter what one person understands and believes. What matters is what is understood in the scientific literature. This is again the theist trick of trying to frame the debate and to limit the range of answers.

So, it is very obvious that belief of one aspect of evolution does not entail belief in all of them. 

So? The theory of evolution is not a belief. It is an explanation for the evidence. The truth of a description of reality does not depend on who believes in that description. What matters is whether the explanation matches the evidence, whether it is falsifable, reproducible and can be tested. Reality does not change depending on how much people understand.

Regarding your last paragraph, tell me, is the science settled on the following?

a. How complex organs/traits evolved without any survival benefit until they were complete (please give examples of partially formed non-functioning abilities found in nature today)

Irreducible complexity is flawed. It is understood quite well how complexity develops over time. You are the one claiming that complex organs and traits evolved without any survival benefit until they were complete. No evolutionary scientist claims that, only creationists making strawman debates.

b. How are biological networks to have evolved? 

Yes.

c. Why doesn't DNA support the "tree of life"?

Who says it doesn't? Again this is only what creationists claim. I don't even know what this statement could possibly mean.

d. Why there is a glaring lack of fossil records/intermediate forms.  

Again only creationists claim that there is a glaring lack of fossil records / intermediate forms and they will always claim that no matter how many are found. Very few fossils are made. If we find a missing link then this creates two other missing links that they can claim are a glaring lack. We have plenty of evidence from the fossil records.

e. Junk (non-coding) DNA, originally thought of as the leftovers of mutations/transcription errors, yet we continue to discover purposes for it. 

Junk DNA does not disprove the theory of evolution. The neutral gene theory explains that actually junk DNA opens up new areas of search space and can allow for complexity to develop over time. Also see point f.

f. Why natural selection is not enough for traits with a low selection coefficient...yet we have them.

Because there is no benefit in getting rid of those traits and no cost to keeping them so they hang around, like with junk DNA.

I realize there is a theory for every one of these items. My point is, they are not settled, we have no examples, and certainly cannot replicate them in a lab. They remain best guesses. 

Utter bollocks. Again this is you as a religionist claiming this but with no reason to do so. If there is a theory for everyone of these points as you say, then by the scientific definition of theory there is evidence for it. A scientific theory is not a best guess. You do not understand the scientific method, or evolution.

So, if you wish to believe in all three definitions of evolution, it is because you believe in naturalism not because the science is compelling.

No, I believe in the scientific method. I am also familiar with the evidence for the theory of evolution, which includes all three of your definitions (which aren't scientific definitions).

[Godscreated]

 No it's not you've been fooled and/or brainwashed into think it can be tested and it's only a theory.

 Mutations are a loss of information not a gain, the loss comes from what is already there and it's actually not loss, it's replaced by something else already there. No new info at all, period.

I learnt this from the scientific literature where papers are written based on reproducible evidence. I have used this to practical effect myself for many years.

If you start with a completely randomised population of genotypes then using only the crossover operator you will end up with a far less varied population over time, even if you do not have a fitness function acting as selective pressure. Only the mutation operator can increase the information content of the genotype.

You need to know this to understand how to design your genetic algorithm and how to set your mutation rate.

You on the other hand Godscreated are just reading this from creationist authors who do not understand the theory of evolution and wish it did not exist.

It is clear that neither you nor the creationist authors you parrot even understand the well defined concept of information.

 Those creation scientist you like to refer to as not understanding evolution know are great deal about it, many were atheist and evolutionist that just couldn't reconcile it with the information that was available. Many of the scientist that work for the Creation ministries are hired from secular universities where they were taught evolution and not creation science. All these scientists have PHD's and I have personally seen debates between an evolutionary scientist and a creation scientist, I guess I do not have to tell you who came out on top of the debates, I will say this the evolutionary scientist didn't stand a chance, after two debates he gave up and hasn't had one since that I know of.

Yes I repeat what they say, they are the highly educated ones and what I read I agree with them, if I didn't I would say so. I'm not one to be lead around by the nose you could ask anyone in my church and they would tell you the same thing. By the way no new information can be added to DNA and without that no new kind can evolve. A mutation is a step backwards even some of the other atheist have said this.

GC

[Edwardo Piet]

A. Person.

Thanks

Does Andy cry himself to sleep at night?

Yes. Poor bugger broke his Buzz Lightyear. THE Buzz Lightyear.

[Godscreated]

 A hypothetical is not reality now is it,

A hypothetical may represent reality, it may not; you can judge nothing about whether it is realistic simply because I referred to it as a hypothetical.

You were the one who said I wasn't dealing with reality and the only thing I was dealing with was your hypothetical, you were the one who judged it as something that wasn't real, not me.

and you don't like it when I'm right, sorry but right is right and C can never be,

I like it even less when you're not right and only think you are.

That says nothing about me actually being wrong and I still say C can't be.

not enough info for C.

You're just restating your original claim which the example disproved.  If you don't have an actual reason why a series of mutations can't reverse the process which resulted in a loss of information, you're effectively claiming that "it can't be because it can't be."  That's just dogmatic denial.  If you have no justification for why you believe this cannot occur other than to quote the alleged law that the example put into question, then you're just begging the question.  And that's a fallacy.  Which means that there is no credible reason to believe your conclusion is true.

In other words, you're still wrong, though you're inventing new ways to be so.

[/quote]
 
  The example is a hypothetical as you said, it is something you made up and have no proof that it will work. I stated that when B lost the information, which you insisted I do, C could not be because the information is lost and no mutation can bring it back, that would be adding info to DNA and that isn't possible. My original statement was the info wasn't lost in B that it was dormant, but you insisted that I couldn't do that because it didn't follow your unfounded hypothetical. I've breed and been involved in breeding Rottweilers for many years and they are still dogs and not only that they are still Rottweilers. We breed out certain things we do not want in the breed, yet they keep popping back up after hundreds of breedings, the info was never lost it just wasn't dominate until the right dogs were breed and bang there is that old thing we were trying to breed away into a recessive gene that wouldn't rear it's ugly head. We even have data bases with dogs to help us to breed out traits we do not want to have such as the white patches that come up on their chest from time to time, this gene is hundreds of years old and try as we may it is still rearing it's ugly head, even in the highest quality Rottweilers.

GC

---

 I knew you were going to get mad. I didn't refer to you now did I, it was others of your kind I referred to. No discussions in hell,

GC

I'm not mad; in fact, I feel sorry for you.  I hope that you don't waste the rest of your life on nonsense.

  I do not waste my time on nonsense, I deal with what's absolutely real. If you were not mad then why the shouting?
GC

[Jehanne]

I'm not mad; in fact, I feel sorry for you.  I hope that you don't waste the rest of your life on nonsense.

  I do not waste my time on nonsense, I deal with what's absolutely real. If you were not mad then why the shouting?
GC

Why do you think that I am "shouting"?  I admit that I was trying to emphasize an important point awhile back, that's all, namely, I would never ask anyone not to read something.  As for what's "real", I am going to start a new thread on it here soon; just look for it.

[I_am_not_mafia]

 Those creation scientist you like to refer to as not understanding evolution know are great deal about it, many were atheist and evolutionist that just couldn't reconcile it with the information that was available. Many of the scientist that work for the Creation ministries are hired from secular universities where they were taught evolution and not creation science. All these scientists have PHD's and I have personally seen debates between an evolutionary scientist and a creation scientist, I guess I do not have to tell you who came out on top of the debates, I will say this the evolutionary scientist didn't stand a chance, after two debates he gave up and hasn't had one since that I know of.

Of course it looked like that to you because you don't understand the theory evolution by natural selection. You do not understand what science actually is. Nor do you want to because you want your fantasy to be true. Debates are not a useful way of determining fact from fiction and only really serve as entertainment. This is why science relies on papers and presentations. Disingenuous religionist tactics like a gish gallop, arbitrarily limiting the debate and equivocation don't work if you have time to explain. This is why religionists fail when they try to peddle their fantasises on these forums. Most of the creationists on the lists that religionists like to show off have PhD in other areas. I have a related PhD and use the theory of evolution every day. It works in practice. Religionist explanations have no practical purpose.

For all the creationists you can show me, there will be even more genuine scientists that do believe in evolution. Project Steve is an excellent example of this.,

Project Steve pokes fun at this practice and, because "Steves" are only about 1% of scientists, it also makes the point that tens of thousands of scientists support evolution.

By the way no new information can be added to DNA and without that no new kind can evolve. A mutation is a step backwards even some of the other atheist have said this.

You're just blindly continuing to assert the propaganda that you wasted your time reading and not answering  my question about information and data . If you did then I could show you why you are wrong, so I shall repeat the question. Or if you want I can give you the peer reviewed papers that explain how mutation adds new information to a population. Because at the moment it looks like you don't even understand what information is, and if that's true then why would anyone listen to you on how it applies to the genotype?

Which string contains the most data and which contains the most information?


String A:

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000


String B:

123456789012345678901234567890


String C:

ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ1234

[Pat Mustard]

Gc throws around the word information, and I am pretty sure he has no idea how scientists discuss this, especially in an evolutionary context.

One thing that Theists frequently do is conflate Claude Shannon's ideas about the transmission of information, which he bases on a rigorous scientific framework, with Kolgomorov's ideas, again rigorously tested, on information content.

I get that this shit is difficult, but it is there to be learnt.

And we go from their to the 'language' canard about DNA/RNA.

And none of this addresses proto-cells in a pre-biotic work, before evolutionary biomass occurs.

Weird thing, even evolutionary processes can occur then too.

You too can research this stuff.

I'm guessing gc thinks William Dumbski's complex specified information is an actual thing rather than a bunch of meaningless words invented to make the creatard lie look scientistical.

[Crossless2.0]

 Those creation scientist you like to refer to as not understanding evolution know are great deal about it, many were atheist and evolutionist that just couldn't reconcile it with the information that was available. Many of the scientist that work for the Creation ministries are hired from secular universities where they were taught evolution and not creation science. All these scientists have PHD's and I have personally seen debates between an evolutionary scientist and a creation scientist, I guess I do not have to tell you who came out on top of the debates, I will say this the evolutionary scientist didn't stand a chance, after two debates he gave up and hasn't had one since that I know of.

GC

You’re right. You don’t have to tell us who “won” the debates because your opinion of who won is irrelevant and meaningless. You see, that’s the thing about peer-reviewed scientific literature in the relevant professional journals: points aren’t awarded for rhetoric or for how many uninformed bystanders side with an argument. You ever stop to wonder why it is that such public debates are the preferred method of disseminating creationist talking points, as opposed to extended written debates in which each side can take the time to unpack each aspect of the argument point by point (much less — oh, you know — actual scientific papers)?

In any case, I assume there must be transcripts of these debates. Perhaps you can post links to them so we can see the actual argument, rather than accept your characterization of them?

[I_am_not_mafia]

I've breed and been involved in breeding Rottweilers for many years and they are still dogs and not only that they are still Rottweilers. We breed out certain things we do not want in the breed, yet they keep popping back up after hundreds of breedings, the info was never lost it just wasn't dominate until the right dogs were breed and bang there is that old thing we were trying to breed away into a recessive gene that wouldn't rear it's ugly head. We even have data bases with dogs to help us to breed out traits we do not want to have such as the white patches that come up on their chest from time to time, this gene is hundreds of years old and try as we may it is still rearing it's ugly head, even in the highest quality Rottweilers.

It's precisely because the white patch is produced by a recessive gene that it's difficult for you to breed it out. It means that you could be propagating the genes for this trait throughout your population of dogs without realising it. And not all genes are recessive. If they were then we wouldn't have to call it a recessive gene, we'd just call it a gene. If it was a dominant gene then it would be easy to get rid of.

What this should be telling you is just what kind of time scales are involved with the evolutionary process. Religionists always make an unfounded assumption that natural processes work on timescales relative to their lifetime yet they have no basis for making this assumption.

And ironically, having recessive genes helps a species avoid becoming trapped in evolutionary dead-ends because the genes can persist in the population without lowering the fitness of the carrier, yet can prove beneficial if the environment changes later on.

I'd just like to finish by saying that pedigree dog breeders are evil scum who breed populations of unhealthy dogs fated to either suffer from birth or have a short life span. And they do this merely for their own arbitrary aesthetic satisfaction.

Just let dogs be happy, healthy dogs and stop using some kind of canine eugenics to breed fucking short lived freaks destined to suffer.