The Problem with Christians

[AJW333]

"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,

If DNA mutations are the result of copying errors, then we should see very few large-scale changes to the DNA. So how would that account for the proposed evolution of thousands of wildly different organisms from the same source of primitive unicellular organisms? How on earth do you get from a simple bacteria with a tiny number of proteins to a human body which makes 100,000 of them, when all you are doing is copying existing DNA? My figures of 1:10^500 to make a single human protein look even more remote given that the DNA is actively fighting against the formation of anything different to what is already extant. Add to this the problem that the majority of uncorrected mutations take information out of the DNA,

"By examining the homologous protein sequences, de Jong and Rydén (1981) observed that deletions of amino acids occurred about four times more frequently than insertions [5]. Deletion events also outnumbered insertions for processed pseudogenes [6-9]. Deletions are about twice as frequent as insertions for nuclear DNA, and in mitochondrial DNA, deletions occur at a slightly higher frequency than insertions [10]. Deletion events are also found more common than insertions in both mouse and rat [11-13]." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671719/

---

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...

My requirements are not unreasonably high. If you want to say something is fact, it has to be proven, otherwise call it hypothetical.

If you look at the complex interdependent systems that occur in nature and especially the human body, it is obvious that it has been designed. DNA is a 3000,000,000 piece code that could not have formed through random processes. Complex codes do not create themselves. So if the evidence indicates design, then there must be a designer. The evidence for God is in the complex design of living things, so the more we know about the complexities of life, the more evidence there is for the existence of God.

Now I realize that you will maintain implacable opposition to the idea that any living thing in this world is designed and that is your choice. I just don't see it as a logical one.

---

What are the odds of one entity being three persons, do you think?  

1+1+1 = 1

xtian math.  Probably taught at schools where the degree comes from sending in cereal box tops.

How can a single entity be made of multiple parts? It isn't hard.

The board of a company is a single entity made up of multiple persons.

---

What if the designer is non-sentient, and is the universe itself?

Not sure how non-sentient creates sentient. That isn't what we see in this world.

---

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?

If you stop being wrong, you may become right!

Entropy is entropy. Not information.
The term entropy can be applied to information as you pointed out, but that's not the physical entropy to which you allude when you desire to make "change of entropy" always positive.
Know where the analogy fails and you may come to realize how wrong you've been.

Living beings have become more complex at the expense of energy. Energy that mainly comes from the sun. And the sun is increasing the entropy of the solar system much more than any local dip in entropy on the surface of this planet.
That's it. Stop trotting out your ignorance of what entropy is and how it works.

What I asked was how the application of heat and cosmic rays, plus the occasional space rock add to the pool of information within the DNA. Any answers?

Sounds simple. But is it?

"If the human brain were a computer, it could perform 38 thousand trillion operations per second. The world’s most powerful supercomputer, BlueGene, can manage only .002% of that." https://www.quora.com/If-the-human-brain...mputer-Why

So how does genetic mutation account for the fact that each one of these operations is intelligent and has a specific purpose?

LOL!
Does your brain work like a computer, now?
A good deal of it is dedicated to vision analysis - how many computers out there can see and recognize stuff like our brains can?
And, in parallel, process sound, smell, touch, balance, sense of self, keep track of where all our parts are and what they're doing.... keep track of the requirements of our own bodies.... and think.
Not to mention all the memory. How many neurons are dedicated to memory storage, recall, updating, etc?
Also... redundancy and poor evolutionary design... There are brains out there with more neurons per sq-inch than our own... we could be even better.

The point is that somehow we got from pond slime to a brain that has the the computing power (even if not utilized) of 38 quadrillion applications per second and none of it by design! There's a LOL for you. I'm starting to think this evolution thing is some kind of magic power guiding the forces of nature to go from random lifelessness to ever increasing complexity, all along representing absurdly large reversals in local entropy.

Science depends on precision. If a claim cannot be verified by testing and observation, it should not be declared to be fact, it should be declared to be hypothetical. But this isn't what evolutionists do, they declare all too often, with absolute certainty that a whole train of radical species developments occurred with certainty.

Well.... maybe, if you were to read the actual scientific papers, you'd find that the language employed is much more in line with "we think that", "this could be", "it looks like", "the analysis suggests", etc...

That isn't the kind of language used too often around here.