RE: How do we identify design?

RE: How do we identify design? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Science & Origins

Message

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 10:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Like 'species', it is not that I don't 'count' certain things as mutations, it is that 'mutation' is such a broad and arbitrary term that it really tells us nothing scientifically. I prefer to talk about specific changes to genomes, and how those changes affect the organism. Science is better when it is specific. I will grant you that mutation has been used by people to mean any change in phenotype, but we have all been specific here. Any change in DNA sequence is a mutation. This includes insertions, deletions, and substitutions. I have also tried to establish that the difference in phenotype between divergent species is due to a difference in DNA. Would you agree with this?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 11:01:57 AM)
quote: I will grant you that mutation has been used by people to mean any change in phenotype, but we have all been specific here. Any change in DNA sequence is a mutation. This includes insertions, deletions, and substitutions. Well, I have agreed the term encompasses all those things, among other things, as I described above; I simply don’t find the term particularly useful. quote: I have also tried to establish that the difference in phenotype between divergent species is due to a difference in DNA. Would you agree with this? Sure; the difference in all organisms is a difference in DNA.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 2:38:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Is a specific change to the genome a change in the DNA sequence which composes the genome? How does that differ from the definition of mutation which Method and I spoke of? I don't understand why you call it broad or arbitrary. A mutation is a change in a DNA sequence. That is narrow, not broad. It isolates the word "mutation" to one and only one kind of change: a change in a DNA sequence. And thus, it is not arbitrary either, for one can examine any DNA sequence to determine whether it is the same or different from another. In particular, one can sequence the DNA of a parent and follow it through several generations noting the changes. How is this arbitrary? It is the same or it is different. Yes or no. Nothing arbitrary about it. If I had a lamp and I wanted to 'change' the bulb, I could do it a number of ways - I could take out the old bulb and put in a new one (perhaps a more energy efficient bulb to save on energy) or I could simply smash the bulb with a hammer, or I could flip the switch to turn the light on or off. All three are 'changes' to the light bulb - all three are not the same sort of changes. The same is true of a 'mutation'; the word describes the change to a gene sequence, but the sorts of change vary widely. Of course there are all kinds of mutations. So what? That is true of any generic term. There are all sorts of automobiles and many ways of travelling. So, is a specific change in the genome a change in the DNA sequence of the genome? Is that a mutation? If not, why not?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 2:41:39 PM)
quote: Of course there are all kinds of mutations. So what? That is true of any generic term. There are all sorts of automobiles and many ways of travelling. So, is a specific change in the genome a change in the DNA sequence of the genome? Is that a mutation? If not, why not? I thought I was fairly clear there. 'Change' means nothing. Everyone agrees a change to the genome will change an organism. It is the sort of change that is in question.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 3:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: Of course there are all kinds of mutations. So what? That is true of any generic term. There are all sorts of automobiles and many ways of travelling. So, is a specific change in the genome a change in the DNA sequence of the genome? Is that a mutation? If not, why not? I thought I was fairly clear there. 'Change' means nothing. Everyone agrees a change to the genome will change an organism. It is the sort of change that is in question. No "change" does not mean "nothing". "Change" means something is different--in this case a sequence of nucleotides. Indeed, your reluctance to answer the question directly raises more questions. First, again, what is a change to the genome? Do mutations change the genome? Can they change the genome? Can the genome be changed without a mutation? In fact, since you raised the term, what is a "genome"? As I understand it a genome is a sort of ideal model of the genetic map of an organism, but does not cite every variation which occurs in every gene in the existing gene pool. But the individual differences among co-members of the same species are due to differences in the actual DNA sequence of individual genes. The fact that I have blue eyes and my children have brown eyes does not mean we have different genomes or even different genes, but that we have differences in the genes that influence pigmentation in the eye. So one must distinguish between changes to genes and changes to the genome itself. Polyploidy changes the genome, but since it is a chromosomal change rather than a sequencing change, I don' t think it is considered a mutation (I stand to be corrected on that.) A gene duplication would be an example of a change to the genome that is also a mutation. And OTOH, many changes in DNA sequences do not change the genome. They only change the way genes are expressed in different individuals. In fact, often, they don't even do that. Mutations in non-coding DNA do not usually generate individual differences. Nor do synonymous mutations. So to answer a question about the definition of a mutation in terms of changes to the genome is really not to answer the question at all. Mutations may or may not affect a genome. They may or may not affect coding genes. What they do affect is a DNA sequence. That is not nothing. It is a change that is observable. What the impact of that change will be, is, of course, a matter of great interest. But that is a separate issue from defining what a mutation is. Is your flip from "mutation" to "genome" an attempted evasion of the original question?

swan42 -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 3:57:05 PM)
quote: First, again, what is a change to the genome? Do mutations change the genome? Can they change the genome? Can the genome be changed without a mutation? I like to keep in mind that we couldn't even begin to ask these questions until about two decades ago and we couldn't even begin to answer these questions until about one decade ago. 10 years from know we'll have an entirely new class phylogenetic of questions to explore. In the meantime, ID proponents won't be able to keep up with the details enough to engage in discussion. I think this means the "problem" of discussing evolution with those that lack the prerequisite education background in an intelligent manner will only become more difficult.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 4:06:33 PM)
quote: I like to keep in mind that we couldn't even begin to ask these questions until about two decades ago and we couldn't even begin to answer these questions until about one decade ago. 10 years from know we'll have an entirely new class phylogenetic of questions to explore. In the meantime, ID proponents won't be able to keep up with the details enough to engage in discussion. I think this means the "problem" of discussing evolution with those that lack the prerequisite education background in an intelligent manner will only become more difficult. Actually, we have been talking about mutations since the 1920s (80+ years), and the essential concept has changed little since then. I am not sure how that would be 'hard' to keep up with.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 4:23:03 PM)
quote: No "change" does not mean "nothing". "Change" means something is different--in this case a sequence of nucleotides. Indeed, your reluctance to answer the question directly raises more questions. You know, I have answered the question numerous times; don’t confuse your inability to comprehend answers with my supposed ‘reticence’ – I am not responsible for your ignorance here. quote: First, again, what is a change to the genome? Do mutations change the genome? Can they change the genome? Can the genome be changed without a mutation? Answered previously, but a change is an alteration of a previous state, yes, yes, depends. quote: In fact, since you raised the term, what is a "genome"? The sum of the encoded hereditary information. quote: So to answer a question about the definition of a mutation in terms of changes to the genome is really not to answer the question at all. Mutations may or may not affect a genome. They may or may not affect coding genes. What they do affect is a DNA sequence. That is not nothing. It is a change that is observable. What the impact of that change will be, is, of course, a matter of great interest. But that is a separate issue from defining what a mutation is. Is your flip from "mutation" to "genome" an attempted evasion of the original question? You are starting to babble now. If you have run out of useful things to say about the subject, just say so.

swan42 -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 4:23:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: I like to keep in mind that we couldn't even begin to ask these questions until about two decades ago and we couldn't even begin to answer these questions until about one decade ago. 10 years from know we'll have an entirely new class phylogenetic of questions to explore. In the meantime, ID proponents won't be able to keep up with the details enough to engage in discussion. I think this means the "problem" of discussing evolution with those that lack the prerequisite education background in an intelligent manner will only become more difficult. Actually, we have been talking about mutations since the 1920s (80+ years), and the essential concept has changed little since then. I am not sure how that would be 'hard' to keep up with. That's a completely head-in-the sand attitude. In the 1920s it did not require much disbelief to disbelieve evolution or to argue against it. The essential concept has changed little, but the details have changed by enormous degrees. The essential concept is easy to argue against in the 1920s when the details were not well understood, but today it grows increasingly more difficult to argue against the essential concept with each passing decade, as the details become increasingly understood.

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 5:33:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud Well, I have agreed the term encompasses all those things, among other things, as I described above; I simply don’t find the term particularly useful. I would suggest that for this thread we limit the term to mean a change in DNA sequence. Does that sound good? quote: Sure; the difference in all organisms is a difference in DNA. Would you also agree that the mechanism which replicates DNA for gametogenesis produces changes in DNA sequence which are independent of fitness?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 5:45:25 PM)
quote: That's a completely head-in-the sand attitude. In the 1920s it did not require much disbelief to disbelieve evolution or to argue against it. The essential concept has changed little, but the details have changed by enormous degrees. The essential concept is easy to argue against in the 1920s when the details were not well understood, but today it grows increasingly more difficult to argue against the essential concept with each passing decade, as the details become increasingly understood. The way you put things here is a bit odd. What 'disbelief' did one have to have to disbelieve evolution? Does that statement even make sense, to have disbelief to disbelieve something? Do we now have belief to believe it? I think the case for evolution was much better then than it is today - back then, for all we knew, the cell was just a little blob of protoplasm with a few simple structures in it. It didn't require much 'belief' to believe it could develop into ever more complex structures and systems through a series of incidental modifications. Now we know even the simplest cell is a complex information driven nano-machine factory. It requires great faith first to believe it could occur naturally at all, and then be modified through a series of incidental and incremental changes. So the growing evidence weighs against faith in evolution, and those who miss this are the ones who truly have there heads in the sand. It is time for evolutionists to catch up to information theory and bio-engineering.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 5:48:40 PM)
quote: I would suggest that for this thread we limit the term to mean a change in DNA sequence. Does that sound good? How about if we consider specific changes that are known to actually occur? Then we can speak with some knowledge, and admit when information isn't available? quote: Would you also agree that the mechanism which replicates DNA for gametogenesis produces changes in DNA sequence which are independent of fitness? It certainly may.

swan42 -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 6:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud The way you put things here is a bit odd. What 'disbelief' did one have to have to disbelieve evolution? Does that statement even make sense, to have disbelief to disbelieve something? Do we now have belief to believe it? I use 'disbelief' here as a noun that is a quantifiable measure of how much one believes in something. It would be very useful to read the historical arguments over evolution. The Creationism proponent typically lacks the scientific background to communicate and just "disbelieves." Before 1953: Mendel, Darwin Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes over time. Bob the Creationist: I don't believe that, what's a gene anyway? Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in Biology, and we don't know yet exactly what it is. After 1953: Watson, Crick Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes by changing DNA over time. Bob the Creationist: I've know about genes because I'm red-green color blind and I payed attention in biology class, but I don't believe that. Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Micro-Biology and we don't know yet exactly how it works yet. After 1975: Sanger, Maxam, Gilbert etc. Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genomes by changing genes by changing DNA over time. Bob the Intelligent Designer guy: I've know about DNA because and I payed attention in micro-biology class, but I just don't believe that. Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Genomics and we don't know yet exactly how it happened. I claim that with each step of discovery, the number of Bobs available to discuss the details declines by some percentage.

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/3/2008 10:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud How about if we consider specific changes that are known to actually occur? Then we can speak with some knowledge, and admit when information isn't available? I wasn't aware that specific mutations could not occur. I am unaware of any base in any genome that can not change through imperfect replication, even if it results in the death of the organism. I am also unaware of any indel event that can not occur. It's a bit like watching a card game for 5 minutes and claiming that specific card combinations are the only combinations possible. If I watch the WSOP on ESPN and do not see four of a kind after watching for 5 minutes can I conclude that such a combination is impossible? Would I be justified in not allowing anyone to claim that four of a kind is possible and unavoidable if given enough time?

Agahnim -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 8:37:13 AM)
I don’t have a problem with this current discussion, but I would like to eventually get back to the argument I was making here before, since this debate over the meaning of the word “mutation” is sort of a side-track from it. Method, do you agree with my own point as I described it in post #99?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 9:56:20 AM)
quote: I use 'disbelief' here as a noun that is a quantifiable measure of how much one believes in something. It would be very useful to read the historical arguments over evolution. The Creationism proponent typically lacks the scientific background to communicate and just "disbelieves." Before 1953: Mendel, Darwin Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes over time. Bob the Creationist: I don't believe that, what's a gene anyway? Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in Biology, and we don't know yet exactly what it is. After 1953: Watson, Crick Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genes by changing DNA over time. Bob the Creationist: I've know about genes because I'm red-green color blind and I payed attention in biology class, but I don't believe that. Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Micro-Biology and we don't know yet exactly how it works yet. After 1975: Sanger, Maxam, Gilbert etc. Bill the Evolutionist: Evolution has a mechanisms, and its mechanisms changes genomes by changing genes by changing DNA over time. Bob the Intelligent Designer guy: I've know about DNA because and I payed attention in micro-biology class, but I just don't believe that. Bill the Evolutionist: It's something you learn in this new field we call Genomics and we don't know yet exactly how it happened. I claim that with each step of discovery, the number of Bobs available to discuss the details declines by some percentage. As a previous evolutionist, I am more than familiar with the "historical arguments", of which your comic book versions are the usual mischaracterized tripe. I would say if anyone is misinformed here about such arguments, it would be you, as you have proven by failing to record accurately the actual arguments made.

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 2:58:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Agahnim I’ve pretty much already described what I’m looking for in post #93. Jhud more or less acknowledged in post #61 that there’s no way to determine whether or not specific mutations would have provided an advantage to an animal that lived in an unknown past ecosystem, so it’s incorrect to claim that some of these mutations were definitely harmful, and couldn’t have been favored by natural selection. From what I have read Jhud has not offered any evidence that these mutations were harmful. That claim continues to be unsupported. quote: What I’m looking for from him now is an explanation, taking into account everything we’ve discussed so far, of why we can’t predict these known processes would work together in order to produce evolutionary changes. We should all be careful not to shift the burden of proof. I think it is very fair to say that no evolutionist knows what the specific order of mutations were that lead to a specific modern phenotype such as the bats wing. I think such a claim would be impossible to support barring time machines. The problem is that ID takes it one step further. ID claims that such changes would be IMPOSSIBLE (or so improbable as to be practically impossible) through blind mechanisms such as random mutations (with respect to fitness), selection, and divergence through speciation. But what we do observe is offspring who carry mutations not found in the previous generation. We also observe that these mutations either spread, become static, or disappear within the population over time. Some of these shifts are observed to be caused by selective pressure from the environment. This is quite different from any comparison to human artifacts. When you put two arrowheads in a dark room together you don't see a third arrowhead pop out a few months later.

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 4:51:08 PM)
quote: From what I have read Jhud has not offered any evidence that these mutations were harmful. That claim continues to be unsupported. How would one determine whether imaginary mutations are harmful?

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 5:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud How would one determine whether imaginary mutations are harmful? DNA differences between species are not imaginary. How did you determine that these changes were harmful?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/4/2008 10:56:34 PM)
quote: DNA differences between species are not imaginary. How did you determine that these changes were harmful? The way those differences occurred are imagined by evolutionists. I never said the differences were harmful.

Method -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/5/2008 1:08:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud The way those differences occurred are imagined by evolutionists. I never said the differences were harmful. The production of mutations is an observed phenomenon, not imaginary. Are you saying that organisms only recently started producing mutations through imperfect replication?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/5/2008 10:54:23 PM)
quote: The production of mutations is an observed phenomenon, not imaginary. Are you saying that organisms only recently started producing mutations through imperfect replication? No, I am saying mutations interdependent and independent structures allowing for new capabilities like those found in a bat are in the evolutionary view the product of imaginary mutations.

drj11 -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/5/2008 11:08:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud quote: The production of mutations is an observed phenomenon, not imaginary. Are you saying that organisms only recently started producing mutations through imperfect replication? No, I am saying mutations interdependent and independent structures allowing for new capabilities like those found in a bat are in the evolutionary view the product of imaginary mutations. Imaginary designers intervening with their invisible tendrils is much more likely [8\|]. If you were half as skeptical about ID and creationism as you are towards evolution, you might be worth listening to. However, your bias seems to totally override any critical thought you have on these issues. You simply seem to want to be the anti-anti-hero. Can you honestly tell us that ID and creationism have substantial evidence in their favor that would lead a reasonable person to conclude those 'theories' are more substantiated than evolution?

Jhud -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/5/2008 11:23:48 PM)
quote: Imaginary designers intervening with their invisible tendrils is much more likely . If you were half as skeptical about ID and creationism as you are towards evolution, you might be worth listening to. However, your bias seems to totally override any critical thought you have on these issues. You simply seem to want to be the anti-anti-hero. Can you honestly tell us that ID and creationism have substantial evidence in their favor that would lead a reasonable person to conclude those 'theories' are more substantiated than evolution? I think that the existence of information driven nano-machinery should lead any reasonable person to consider the existence of a designer, barring spectacular evidence to the contrary, yes.

gluadys -> RE: How do we identify design? (6/5/2008 11:40:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Jhud I think that the existence of information driven nano-machinery should lead any reasonable person to consider the existence of a designer, barring spectacular evidence to the contrary, yes. But why ID rather than theistic evolution? After all TE is as much wedded to a designer as ID is.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI