Search This Blog

Sunday, September 16, 2012

Here's a whopper! "Of course DNA isn't random, any more than river drainage patterns or volcaic eruptions are random. But that doesn't mean any of those things are intelligently designed. The laws of physics and chemistry produce non-random patterns too."

After four lies have been debunked today, time to correct a misunderstanding.   I will not say the commenter was lying this time, he is simply ignorant.  So we can correct that!

No, DNA and the specified information inside is not a naturally occurring "non-random pattern"  and we'll address this in two ways.   First to demonstrate that the information in DNA is specific and intentional.  Second to demonstrate that "random" patterns are actually not random, but predetermined by God to express numerical sequences. 


There was a lot to chew on in my last post and I think that some people will not have read down to this so I am presenting it alone with a very short introduction.   


"There are thus various examples where design makes positive predictions, but Darwinian evolution coincidentally makes the exact opposite prediction. Design proponents do not argue against evolution merely because that is what proves design, but because in these special cases, the falsification of evolution also entails a matched positive prediction of intelligent design theory, because intelligent design predicts the exact opposite of evolution. We thus detect intelligent design through findings its positive predictions based upon the way we understand intelligent agents to operate." - from article, below

 

Dear readers - Evolution was an hypothesis that Charles Darwin admittedly put together using the work of many other researchers, including Blyth and Wallace and Hutton.   The problem with Evolution is that it is entirely backwards.   It is like someone trying to explain gravity and suggesting that gravity causes a ball to roll uphill.   But we know that, in normal circumstances, balls roll downhill and that is what we find in organisms.   Organisms are losing genetic information and picking up harmful mutations along the way over time.   Darwin had it backwards, it is devolution that is operating in organisms today and we will see as science investigates the cell further that the impossibility of the ball rolling uphill will become more and more obvious!

FAQ: How do we Detect Design?




The Short Answer: We detect design by looking for the tell-tale signs that an intelligent agent acted. Intelligent agents tend to produce specified complexity when they act. We can then seek to detect design by looking for that specified complexity. Using an "explanatory filter" helps us to use normal logic to infer where design was a cause involved in creating an object. Design also could makes other predictions which can also help us to detect design.

The Long Answer:

When intelligent agents act they produce specified complexity. We know this because we understand that when intelligent agents act, they use choice. An essay by William Dembksi lays out in detail how we can understand the products of intelligent design by examining how designers work:





To see why CSI [complex-specified information] is a reliable indicator of design, we need to examine the nature of intelligent causation. The principal characteristic of intelligent causation is directed contingency, or what we call choice. Whenever an intelligent cause acts, it chooses from a range of competing possibilities. This is true not just of humans, but of animals as well as extra-terrestrial intelligences. A rat navigating a maze must choose whether to go right or left at various points in the maze. When SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) researchers attempt to discover intelligence in the extra-terrestrial radio transmissions they are monitoring, they assume an extra-terrestrial intelligence could have chosen any number of possible radio transmissions, and then attempt to match the transmissions they observe with certain patterns as opposed to others (patterns that presumably are markers of intelligence). Whenever a human being utters meaningful speech, a choice is made from a range of possible sound-combinations that might have been uttered. Intelligent causation always entails discrimination, choosing certain things, ruling out others. Given this characterization of intelligent causes, the crucial question is how to recognize their operation. Intelligent causes act by making a choice. CSI is a reliable indicator of design because its recognition coincides with how we recognize intelligent causation generally. In general, to recognize intelligent causation we must establish that one from a range of competing possibilities was actualized, determine which possibilities were excluded, and then specify the possibility that was actualized. What's more, the competing possibilities that were excluded must be live possibilities, sufficiently numerous so that specifying the possibility that was actualized cannot be attributed to chance. In terms of probability, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly improbable. In terms of complexity, this means that the possibility that was specified is highly complex. All the elements in the general scheme for recognizing intelligent causation (i.e., Actualization-Exclusion-Specification) find their counterpart in complex specified information-CSI. CSI pinpoints what we need to be looking for when we detect design. (Intelligent Design as a Theory of Information by William Dembski) In summary, Dembski notes that intelligent agents can choose from one of many competing possibilities. If the choice made is unlikely to occur and sufficiently complex, then we can attribute that choice to design. This comes from our understanding of how intelligent agents operate--not from a negative argument against evolution. In The Design Inference, Dembski lays out a three-part "user-friendly" explanatory filter which we can use to detect intelligent design:






The Explanatory Filter

This explanatory filter recognizes that there are three causes for things: chance, law and design. The premise behind the filter is the positive prediction of design that designers tend to build complex things with low probability that correspond to a specified pattern. In biology, this could be an irreducibly complex structure which fulfills some biological function. This filter helps ensure that we detect design only when it is warranted. If something is high probability, we may ascribe it to a law. If something is intermediate probability, we may ascribe it to chance. But if it is specified and low probability, then this is the tell-tale sign that we are dealing with something that is designed. In these high information-situations, intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer also emphasizes why intelligent design is the right explanation:





"Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation … chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause. For this reason, the biology of the information age now requires a new science of design. (Stephen C. Meyer, Mere Creation, pg. 140).

"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."  (Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs)

"Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter."(Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer (Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Intelligent design is thus a cause sufficient to produce the high levels of information, i.e. irreducible complexity, found in biology. Intelligent design is not merely a negative argument against evolution, but is inferred because of its positive predictions of how we understand designers to operate.
There are other examples of mutually exclusive predictions of design and descent, as is explained in the tables below. In each example, intelligent design is inferred because it makes positive predictions that match the evidence, despite the fact that descent makes the exact opposite prediction (which is not met by the evidence).

Inferring Intelligent Design using its Positive Predictions:





Table 1. Ways Designers Act When Designing (Observations):
(1) Take many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
(2) Rapidly infuse any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
(3) 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
(4) Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).





Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found.
(2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
(3) Genes and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms.
(4) The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".





Table 3. Predictions of Darwinian Evolution (Hypothesis):
(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.
(2) Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.
(3) Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
(4) The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".





Table 4. Comparing the Evidence (Experiment and Conclusion):
Line of Evidence Prediction of Darwinian evolution Prediction from intelligent design Data Best explaining hypothesis:
1. Biochemical complexity High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures are commonly found. Design.
2. Fossil Record Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series. Forms will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. Forms tend to appear in the fossil record suddenly and without any precursors. Design.
3. Distribution of Molecular and Morphological Characteristics Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms. Genes, DNA sequences, and functional parts will be re-used in different unrelated organisms. Genes and functional parts often are not distributed in a manner predicted by ancestry, and are often found in clearly unrelated organisms. Design.
4. Biochemical Functionality The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." The genetic code will NOT contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA." Increased knowledge of genetics has created a strong trend towards functionality for "junk-DNA"; examples of DNA of unknown function persist, but function may be expected or explained under a design paradigm. Design.

There are thus various examples where design makes positive predictions, but Darwinian evolution coincidentally makes the exact opposite prediction. Design proponents do not argue against evolution merely because that is what proves design, but because in these special cases, the falsification of evolution also entails a matched positive prediction of intelligent design theory, because intelligent design predicts the exact opposite of evolution. We thus detect intelligent design through findings its positive predictions based upon the way we understand intelligent agents to operate.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Also, random patterns are NOT random.   The Universe is designed to produce patterns that can be identified as non-random expressions of mathematical progressions.  Random is NOT random.

Fractals, Fibonacci Numbers, Patterns, Design...All of the Universe attests to a Designer God.

Words and music.   Words first!

Fractals

Hidden Beauty Revealed in Mathematics

by Jason Lisle, Ph.D.

Featured In

This Issue

Did you know that amazing, beautiful shapes have been built into numbers? Believe it or not, numbers like 1, 2, 3, etc., contain a “secret code”—a hidden beauty embedded within them. Numbers have existed from the beginning of creation, yet researchers have only recently discovered the hidden shapes that the Lord placed within them.1 Such beauty defies a secular explanation but confirms biblical creation.

The strange shape in Figure 1 is a sort of “map.” Most maps that we think of are representations of something physical, like a roadmap or a map of a country. But the map in Figure 1 does not represent a physical object; instead it represents a set of numbers. In mathematics, the term “set” refers to a group of numbers that have a common property. For example, there is the set of positive numbers (4 and 7 belong to this set; -3 and 0 do not).

A few decades ago, researchers discovered a very strange and interesting set called “the Mandelbrot set.”2 Figure 1 is a map (a plot) that shows which numbers belong to the Mandelbrot set.

What do these images mean?

Figures 1 & 2
Figures 1 & 2 (click to enlarge)
A “set” is a group of numbers that all have a common property. For example, the numbers 4 and 6 are part of the set of even numbers, whereas 3 and 7 do not belong to that set. The Mandelbrot set is a group of numbers defined by a simple formula which is explained in the In-Depth box in this article. Some numbers belong to the Mandelbrot set, and others don’t.

Figure 1 is a plot—a graph that shows which numbers are part of the Mandelbrot set. Points that are black represent numbers that are part of the set. So, the numbers, -1, -1/2, and 0 are part of the Mandelbrot set. Points that are colored (red and yellow) are numbers that do not belong to the Mandelbrot set, such as the number 1/2. Although the formula that defines the Mandelbrot set is extremely simple, the plotted shape is extremely complex and interesting. When we zoom in on this shape, we see that it contains beautiful spirals and streamers of infinite complexity. Such complexity has been built into numbers by the Lord.

The Mandelbrot set (Figure 1) is infinitely detailed. In Figure 2, we have zoomed in on the “tail” of the Mandelbrot set. And what should we find but another (smaller) version of the original. This new, smaller Mandelbrot set also has a tail containing a miniature version of itself, which has a miniature version of itself, etc.—all the way to infinity.

The way to find if a number belongs to the Mandelbrot set is to put it through a particular formula (the details are shown in the In-Depth box in this article). In this way, we can check every possible number to see if it belongs to the Mandelbrot set, and then plot the results on a graph. We color the point black if it does belong to the Mandelbrot set; we give it a different color if it does not. For example, in Figure 1 we can see that the numbers 0 and -1 are part of the Mandelbrot set, whereas the number 1/2 is not.
Evolution cannot account for fractals. These shapes have existed since creation and cannot have evolved since numbers cannot be changed.
The Mandelbrot set is a very complex and detailed shape; in fact it is infinitely detailed. If we zoom in on a graphed piece of the Mandelbrot set, we see that it appears even more complicated than the original. In Figure 2, we have zoomed in on the “tail” of the Mandelbrot set. And what should we find but another (smaller) version of the original; a “baby” Mandelbrot set is built into the tail of the “parent.” This new, smaller Mandelbrot set also has a tail containing a miniature version of itself, which has a miniature version of itself, etc.—all the way to infinity. The Mandelbrot set is called a “fractal”3 since it has an infinite number of its own shape built into itself.

In Figure 3, we have zoomed into a region called the “Valley of Seahorses.” By zooming in on one of these “seahorses” we can see that it is a very complex spiral (see Figure 4). If we continue to zoom in, the order and beauty continue to increase as shown in Figures 5 and 6. As we zoom in yet again, we see in Figure 7 another “baby” version of the original Mandelbrot set at the center of the intersecting spirals; it appears virtually the same as the original shape, but it is 5 million times smaller.

Where did this incredible organization and beauty come from? Some might say that a computer produced this organization and beauty. After all, a computer was used to produce the graphs in the figures. But the computer did not create the fractal. It only produced the map—the representation of the fractal. A graph of something is not the thing itself, just as a map of the United States is not the same thing as the United States. The computer was merely a tool that was used to discover a shape that is an artifact of the mathematics itself.4

God alone can take credit for mathematical truths, such as fractals. Such transcendent truths are a reflection of God’s thoughts. Therefore when we discover mathematical truths we are, in the words of the astronomer Johannes Kepler, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him.” The shapes shown in the figures have been built into mathematics by the Creator of mathematics. We could have chosen different color schemes for the graphs, but we cannot alter the shape—it is set by God and His nature.

Evolution cannot account for fractals. These shapes have existed since creation and cannot have evolved, since numbers cannot change—the number 7 will never be anything but 7. But fractals are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. The Christian understands that there are transcendent truths because the Bible states many of them.5 A biblical creationist expects to find beauty and order in the universe, not only in the physical universe,6 but in the abstract realm of mathematics as well. This order and beauty is possible because there is a logical God who has imparted order and beauty into His universe.

Infinite Complexity?

This sequence of images (Figures 3–7) shows what happens as we continually zoom in on a very small region of the Mandelbrot set. We start by zooming in on the highlighted region of the Mandelbrot set called the “Valley of Seahorses” (Figure 3). By zooming in on one of these “seahorses” we can see that it is a very complex spiral (Figure 4). We continue to zoom in (the region is indicated by the grayscale inset) in Figures 5, 6 and 7. Figure 7 shows a “baby” Mandelbrot set; it is virtually identical to the original shape, but it is 5 million times smaller.
Figure 3
Figure 3 (click to enlarge)

Figure 4
Figure 4 (click to enlarge)

Figure 5
Figure 5 (click to enlarge)

Figure 6
Figure 6 (click to enlarge)

Figure 7
Figure 7 (click to enlarge)

In-Depth

The formula for the Mandelbrot set is zn+1 = zn2 + c. In this formula, c is the number being evaluated, and z is a sequence of numbers (z0, z1, z2, z3…) generated by the formula. The first number z0 is set to zero; the other numbers will depend on the value of c. If the sequence of zn stays small (zn ≤ 2 for all n), c is then classified as being part of the Mandelbrot set. For example, let’s evaluate the point c = 1. Then the sequence of zn is 0, 1, 2, 5, 26, 677… . Clearly this sequence is not staying small, so the number 1 is not part of the Mandelbrot set. The different shades/colors in the figures indicate how quickly the z sequence grows when c is not a part of the Mandelbrot set.

The complex numbers are also evaluated. Complex numbers contain a “real” part and an “imaginary” part. The real part is either positive or negative (or zero), and the imaginary part is the square-root of a negative number. By convention, the real part of the complex number (RE[c]) is the x-coordinate of the point, and the imaginary part (IM[c]) is the y-coordinate. So, every complex number is represented as a point on a plane. Many other formulae could be substituted and would reveal similar shapes.

Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder and is a popular author for Answers in Genesis-USA. Dr. Lisle uses his knowledge of the heavens and his biblical perspective to proclaim the handiwork of God in lectures, including Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.

Proof of God Using Math Without Words




Thanks to Scott Keltner of Eudora, Kansas, says the writer of Marv's Blog.  Marv is the author of









You think I am going to quit because of resistance?   Are you kidding?  Dare to live challenging the norm, dare to think critically and to think for yourself!  Eternity beckons and I intend to push the envelope
watch it bend!


The Ruling Paradigm holds tight to Darwinism, a concept that is not only ludicrous but also incredibly boring.  God as a concept is Wonders, and wonders are what He has created!  When this world is ended I will join God and we'll ride the spiral to the end and may just go where no one's been!

Laterilis from Lateralus by Tool

"black then white are all i see in my infancy
red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me
lets me see
as below, so above and beyond, i imagine
drawn beyond the lines of reason
push the envelope
watch it bend

over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
withering my intuition, missing opportunities
and i must feed my will to feel my moment drawing way outside the lines

black then white are all i see in my infancy
red and yellow then came to be, reaching out to me
lets me see
there is so much more and beckons me to look thru to these infinite possibilities
as below, so above and beyond, i imagine
drawn outside the lines of reason
push the envelope
watch it bend

over thinking, over analyzing separates the body from the mind
withering my intuition leaving opportunities behind

feed my will to feel this moment, urging me to cross the line
reaching out to embrace the random
reaching out to embrace whatever may come






NCSE and talkorigins and Darwinists in general? Thought Police.   

Important sites like Creation.com and brilliant individuals like Ian Juby and even small fry like me?

We are the Resistance!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For those unsure of Mandelbrot a youtube for the Valley of the Seahorses and also the infinite continuation of the Mandelbrots below and the description of the formula here...from wikipedia.


"The Mandelbrot set is a particular mathematical set of points, whose boundary generates a distinctive and easily recognisable two-dimensional fractal shape. The set is closely related to the Julia set (which generates similarly complex shapes), and is named after the mathematician BenoƮt Mandelbrot, who studied and popularized it.


More technically, the Mandelbrot set is the set of values of c in the complex plane for which the orbit of 0 under iteration of the complex quadratic polynomial zn+1 = zn2 + c remains bounded.[1] That is, a complex number, c, is part of the Mandelbrot set if, when starting with z0 = 0 and applying the iteration repeatedly, the absolute value of zn remains bounded however large n gets.


For example, letting c = 1 gives the sequence 0, 1, 2, 5, 26,…, which tends to infinity. As this sequence is unbounded, 1 is not an element of the Mandelbrot set. On the other hand, c = i (where i is defined as i2 = −1) gives the sequence 0, i, (−1 + i), −i, (−1 + i), −i, ..., which is bounded and so i belongs to the Mandelbrot set.


Images of the Mandelbrot set display an elaborate boundary that reveals progressively ever-finer recursive detail at increasing magnifications. The "style" of this repeating detail depends on the region of the set being examined. The set's boundary also incorporates smaller versions of the main shape, so the fractal property of self-similarity applies to the entire set, and not just to its parts.


The Mandelbrot set has become popular outside mathematics both for its aesthetic appeal and as an example of a complex structure arising from the application of simple rules, and is one of the best-known examples of mathematical visualization..."


28 comments:

Jon W said...

Arguments based on lies are themselves lies. Dembski's claims are lies, therefore so are yours as well.

radar said...

I should have been keeping track of the 50 worst Jon W lines. Dembski's "claims" are supported by testing and peer-reviewed papers, even the Darwinist-leaning groups. What is more likely is that you do not even comprehend his arguments so you cannot think of anything intelligent to say. Ugh. Epic fail.

Anonymous said...

Have those three simple questions been answered yet? Or is Radar still running away?

radar said...

Don't you mean, has that one question been answered yet or are all the Darwinist commenters running away?

I will keep posting your failures to answer that one question. I am not running, you are.

I asked the question, none of you can answer it and that question will be there until you do. I will keep posting on it and proclaiming to the world that you cannot do it. So if you like it that way, you will get it consistently until you quit running away.

Anonymous said...

I predict that Radar will not be able to answer the following three questions and will use all kinds of excuses (including derision) to get away from them:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information. Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.

Go ahead, Radar. Make my day!

Anonymous said...

OK. Let me end this charade. Let me answer this question for all "darwinists" everywhere, Radar. There is no natural source of information. You win. And, please, use this admission to claim victory over all darwinists everywhere, as I speak for them, too. This is the final stroke, the last nail has now sealed the coffin and "darwinism" is officially dead, as you proclaimed and predicted! Congrats!

Now that your question has been answered, please answer anony's questions above.

lava

radar said...

Lava,

I will make a post of it for the world to see.

Jon W said...

Yes, Dembski's claims are lies.

Dembski claims that a) evolutionary theory makes four predictions; and b) all four predictions fail because the things predicted are not actually found. His four alleged "predictions of evolutionary theory" are:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.
(2) Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.
(3) Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
(4) The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Claim #1 is a lie because evolutionary theory doesn't actually make that prediction.

Claim #2 is a lie because the fossil record does contain gradual transitional series.

Claim #3 is a lie because genes and functional parts do in fact reflect shared ancestry.

And claim #4 is a lie because we do find a lot of discarded genes, pseudogenes, and junk DNA, from deactivated genes like GULO in primates to degraded telomeres and centromeres that indicate ancient chromosome-fusion events.

radar said...

Jon W said...

Yes, Dembski's claims are lies.

Dembski claims that a) evolutionary theory makes four predictions; and b) all four predictions fail because the things predicted are not actually found. His four alleged "predictions of evolutionary theory" are:

(1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will NOT be found.

(2) Forms will appear in the fossil record as a gradual progression with transitional series.




(3) Genes and functional parts will reflect those inherited through ancestry, and are only shared by related organisms.
(4) The genetic code will contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".

Claim #1 is a lie because evolutionary theory doesn't actually make that prediction.

Darwin had no clue as to the remarkable sophistication of the organism. You had better reread his output. He was operating under the mistaken thought that cells were simple.


Claim #2 is a lie because the fossil record does contain gradual transitional series.

Even several Darwinists have admitted that there are few if any fossils found that could be called transitional. They are all fully-formed creatures (when we have enough of them to know). We do not find any fossils with actual transitional parts. Darwin himself said there should be a continuum of constantly changing organisms in the fossil record and if not his hypothesis would be wrong.

Claim #3 is a lie because genes and functional parts do in fact reflect shared ancestry.

Not actually. Close examination of organisms has shown that even if the features on the outside look similar, the actual construction of the organism in the womb destroys that claim. Plus the tree of life became a field of unrelated plants as it became apparent (to give one example) that the eye had to start from scratch in at least ten different organisms. Or you can be logical and agree that these organisms have a common designer who uses similar designs in the way He saw fit.

And claim #4 is a lie because we do find a lot of discarded genes, pseudogenes, and junk DNA, from deactivated genes like GULO in primates to degraded telomeres and centromeres that indicate ancient chromosome-fusion events.

You are living in the past here. We keep finding more functionality in the so-called "junk DNA" and the list of functions performed by that DNA keeps growing. Just as vestigial organs are now a myth, junk DNA will be as well. Yes, there will be a few mutations and they will be harmful and that is what will kill us all off if we were to stay around for a few thousand years more, which is unlikely.

radar said...

By the way, Bill Dembski is not a creationist in the standard sense. His own views as expressed in "The End of Christianity" (meant to express where Christianity was heading rather than predicting its demise) are those of a man who knows his own field exceedingly well but is not a Biblical scholar. He makes many mistakes concerning what the Bible states, which leads him to an illogical conclusion. He has done great work in the ID world but is not a YEC. I gave his interview a platform to illustrate a few points.

One of the points is that ID research is real, operational science which has destroyed the underpinnings of Darwinism, which is why they scream "religion" and claim that ID is YEC in sheep's clothing. Humorous that they use a Biblical illustration to make a point. The point is wrong. Bill Dembski cannot teach at a Christian seminary because of his odd views of Christianity. Several of the ID camp are not Christians, but rather agnostics and Muslims and Jews and secularists.

So he represents operational science and not YEC. Operational science is where Darwinism has failed. The attempt to use whatever methods possible to get just one "upward" mutation out of fruit flies has been abandoned. Scientists are still trying with bacteria but so far every new shout of victory proves to be false and the admission of failure is a whisper.

The obviously onerous "Arsenic Bacteria" boasted about by NASA in Science magazine and other places (a stupidity in itself since NASA is supposed to be a space agency) actually even offended secular scientists for its obvious falsehoods.

" A group of scientists, led by microbiologist Rosie Redfield at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, Canada, have posted data on Redfield's blog that, she says, present a “clear refutation” of key findings from the paper.

“Their most striking claim was that arsenic had been incorporated into the backbone of DNA, and what we can say is that there is no arsenic in the DNA at all,” says Redfield." - http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=study-fails-to-confirm-existence

Yes, YEC and ID scientists also quickly found that the false claims made in 2010 had no substance.

Same with the nylon and citrase bacteria situations. One was an ability already built into the genetic material of bacteria and was discovered after mankind invented nylon. The other was a partially broken system that allowed bacteria to subsist on citrase but made it unlikely to survive in normal surroundings. It was a missing piece.

If you had a big box truck and a tree landed on it and crunched the box part so that it was only eight feet high, the back door would be warped and unusable and that box end would be partly flattened and unable to hold as much stuff. Probably the back end would be wider and it would be harder to drive. But you could drive under very low bridges usually impassable for trucks.

So scientists manage to squash the back end of trucks(analogy for what they do with bacteria), drive them under low bridges and claim "evolution in action." In fact the truck would be far less able to carry much cargo and much less useful except for a very few low bridges. Most bridges are designed to allow trucks to drive under them, naturally, because mankind is usually logical. Same with these mutated bacteria. They lose features and functionality and have far less chance of survival in the wild. They are mistakes, not improvements.

Jon W said...

Radar, your lack of clue would be more amusing if it wasn't so sadly complete.

"Darwin had no clue as to the remarkable sophistication of the organism. You had better reread his output. He was operating under the mistaken thought that cells were simple."

Non sequitur.

"Even several Darwinists have admitted that there are few if any fossils found that could be called transitional. They are all fully-formed creatures (when we have enough of them to know)."

Of course they are. Are you really stupid or ignorant enough to expect anything else? Every organism, of every species, is tested by Nature. Nature gives no mulligans, no instant replays, no second chances. Every organism must survive and reproduce, or it fails the test. Every organism is fully formed according to its own genes. But every organism is also fully formed in a slightly different way from its parent(s). In those differences lie the raw material for descent with modification.

"We do not find any fossils with actual transitional parts. "

Yes, we do: feathers, wings, jaws, limbs and limb joints, more subtle details of anatomy...

Jon W said...

"Close examination of organisms has shown that even if the features on the outside look similar, the actual construction of the organism in the womb destroys that claim. Plus the tree of life became a field of unrelated plants as it became apparent (to give one example) that the eye had to start from scratch in at least ten different organisms."

More lies. Or more likely, more stupid misunderstandings. Evolutionary theory does not predict that organs like eyes would appear only once. In fact the various types of eyes used by various types of organisms is a good example of evolutionary theory at work: each is derivable from a basic light-sensing organelle, and each represents a just-good-enough solution to the omnipresent problem of how to sense light.

Jon W said...

"We keep finding more functionality in the so-called "junk DNA" and the list of functions performed by that DNA keeps growing."

In SOME of the 'junk DNA.' But other stretches of DNA are still junk, and as far as we know have been junk for thousands of generations. One classic example is the disabled GULO gene in primates. Other examples include the deactivated telomeres and centromeres on human chromosome #2; the many bits and pieces of endogenous retroviruses in vertebrate genomes; the genes for teeth in modern birds; and (the one I find most impressive) the fact that many troglobitic animals still have the genes for eyes, although they have no functional eyes and eyes wouldn't do them a bit of good where they live.

radar said...

Jon Woolfs vocabulary - "lies" = facts. You continually call me a liar and always fail to back it up. You ducked the information question, cannot deal with LOB or 2LOT and you have no real-time experimental evidence to support your worldview.

The FACT is that Darwin himself said that the fossil record did not show the transitional fossils he would expect but he assumed over time that would change as more fossils were found. Unfortunately for Jon and Chuck, no continuum of evolving organisms is found, just fully-formed varieties of animals, some which have gone extinct, some who have varied greatly and some who are quite unchanged.

Darwin expected a tree of life, so to speak and that is obviously not the case. IF evolution was true, which it obviously is not, there would have to be dozens of new life forming independent of other new life forms and rather than one tree of life we would have a field of grasses and shrubs.

The development of even one eye is amazing, but consider that one of the most sophisticated eyes known to ever exist belonged to the trilobite, which is Cambrian so no time to "evolve" that one.

What evolution may or may not "predict" doesn't matter because it is always wrong. There is no natural source of information. Life cannot come from non-life. No fossil has been found that has been proved to be a transitional form. No lab experiment done since Darwin published his first book has shown an upward evolution of any organism, just variations and mutations that are a loss of functionality.

In the world of real science, Darwinism only exists in the brains of Darwnists. Evidence for Darwinism is all conjecture and speculation and fairy tales.

Meanwhile ID science has demonstrated that organisms are designed and so well designed that we copy THEM! Yes, man is still learning from the designs of God.

radar said...

Jon, you throw around a lot of terms but have no basic understanding of the cell or reproductive processes. Of course we are not surprised to find that cave fish might still have some genetic sequence remnants for eyes, but natural selection tended to weed out fish with working eyes because:

1) Operating eyes do no good in pitch dark conditions so there is no selective advantage.

2) Operative eyes would be prone to injury and infection and therefore be detrimental to survival of that organism.

3) Organisms that have no eyesight have other senses focused more intently on their surroundings, so blind cave fish are not using any portion of their brains trying to get a visual image of black so they are free to concentrate on the senses they do have.

Sigh. Yes, there are some parts of DNA that are just broken codes and etc, which is expected as life has been around for over 6,000 years and mutations tend to accumulate. But much of the "junk DNA" has been proven to be essential to life and we'll probably find that more of it will also be discovered to be operable and useful.

Natural selection is only going to work if you have organisms with genetic material within them and a system to reproduce that combines aspects of the father and mother so that variations from the code contained in those organisms can produce differing feature sets. This is a design feature of life, giving the basic kinds "choices" depending upon the environment.

We have bears living at the North Pole and at the Equator. We have multiple varieties of the same kind but some live in salt water, some in fresh water, some in brackish water and some, like the Salmon, spawn and are born in fresh water and then live in salt water.

There are tubeworms and other marine life surrounding both superheated deep-sea "Smokers" and surrounding polar seeps. Some forms of life live on methane or sulpher rather than being dependent on the Sun and carbon cycle for their sustenance. Every single organism, even those that split rather than mate, use DNA.

For those of you who are not zealous Naturalists, that should be enough for you to at least investigate Intelligent Design and cellular operations and reproduction and actual rock layers and actual fossil rather than just swallow the same old fairy tales.

Jon W said...

Radar, your arguments would really benefit from some actual knowledge of the subject.

"The FACT is that Darwin himself said that the fossil record did not show the transitional fossils he would expect but he assumed over time that would change as more fossils were found."

Which it has. Remember, when Darwin wrote On the Origin of Species, palaeontology was in its infancy. We didn't even know about Archaeopteryx yet. Today, we have dozens if not hundreds of transitional forms, from old archy to Beipiaosaurus to Tiktaalik to Diarthrognathus.

" IF evolution was true, which it obviously is not, there would have to be dozens of new life forming independent of other new life forms and rather than one tree of life we would have a field of grasses and shrubs."

Gibberish. Nothing in evolutionary theory requires or even suggests there were multiple abiogenesis events.

"The development of even one eye is amazing, but consider that one of the most sophisticated eyes known to ever exist belonged to the trilobite, which is Cambrian so no time to "evolve" that one."

The Cambrian Period started 542 million years ago. Multi-celled life has at least another 100 million years of history prior to that.

As with Dembski, you know nothing of the science you're trying to criticize, and so you succeed only in displaying your own ignorance.

radar said...

Jon, you are brainwashed. You corroborating evidence for your statements? Nowhere to be found. One by one transitionals have been cast aside for not being actual transitionals and that certainly includes our old friend Archy.

Before the Cambrian period there is basically nothing, then suddenly all life forms all appear at once. It was the FLOOD, dude! There would not be enough room for all the living and dead animals and plants if life had been around for millions of years.

We know the human population statistically graphs back to about the time of Noah's Flood.

We know our Sun would have been hostile to life 200 million years ago (were it so) and will be hostile 200 millions years from now.

We know the Moon is moving away from Earth so it would be literally sitting on the surface of the planet while Darwinists think life was growing up on Earth?

The measured magnetic poles and geothermal activity of planets and moons in the Solar System require a young age for the Solar System, probably no more than 100 thousands of years. Creationist scientist Russell Humphreys accurately predicted these magnetic fields before the first space missions to examine the planets began and so far he is right every time!

radar said...

Jon, you are brainwashed. You corroborating evidence for your statements? Nowhere to be found. One by one transitionals have been cast aside for not being actual transitionals and that certainly includes our old friend Archy.

Before the Cambrian period there is basically nothing, then suddenly all life forms all appear at once. It was the FLOOD, dude! There would not be enough room for all the living and dead animals and plants if life had been around for millions of years.

We know the human population statistically graphs back to about the time of Noah's Flood.

We know our Sun would have been hostile to life 200 million years ago (were it so) and will be hostile 200 millions years from now.

We know the Moon is moving away from Earth so it would be literally sitting on the surface of the planet while Darwinists think life was growing up on Earth?

The measured magnetic poles and geothermal activity of planets and moons in the Solar System require a young age for the Solar System, probably no more than 100 thousands of years. Creationist scientist Russell Humphreys accurately predicted these magnetic fields before the first space missions to examine the planets began and so far he is right every time!

Jon W said...

There are days, Radar, when I think you're a pleasant and generally intelligent chap who's just been misled by listening to the wrong sources.

There are others days when I think you should consider yourself blessed that breathing is an autonomous function.

This is one of the latter.

" One by one transitionals have been cast aside for not being actual transitionals and that certainly includes our old friend Archy."

False.

"Before the Cambrian period there is basically nothing, then suddenly all life forms all appear at once."

Also false. There are lifeforms in rocks below the Cambrian, and it isn't true that all lifeforms appear at the Cambrian boundary. All Early Cambrian organisms are marine and all are invertebrates. There are no fish until late in Cambrian time, and no bony fish until the Ordovician.

"There would not be enough room for all the living and dead animals and plants if life had been around for millions of years."

Memento, homo, quia pulvis est, et in pulverem reverteris.

Nature is the ultimate recycler.

radar said...

Jon, you are simply restating the Darwinist propaganda to the point I have to suspect you have never actually done much study of the subject.

Every single basic lifeform is found in "Cambrian" rocks without exception. Most are bottom-dwelling sea creatures because this is the bottom layer of the Noahic Flood. There are scant traces of fossils before the Cambrian. But then again there were about 2,000 years of life before the Flood.

Meanwhile, you are completely wrong about transitional fossils. Transitionals as Darwin envisioned them would be organisms with new systems partly developed and surviving somehow while becoming useful. Also he expected a continuum of fossils because he believed in uniformitarianism and millions of years.

But the fossil record is catastrophic in nature and the fossils found are organisms that were apparently fully functional. There is not one fossil that can be proved to be an absolute transitional in all the recorded specimens. There are a few dubious ones.

Remember, the vast majority of fossils are from the early days of the Flood,

Jon W said...

"Every single basic lifeform is found in "Cambrian" rocks without exception. "

Define 'basic lifeform,' please.

" But then again there were about 2,000 years of life before the Flood."

But there are no highly complex lifeforms from pre-Cambrian rocks. No land lifeforms either. No plants. No vertebrates. No dinosaurs, no birds, no mammals. No tetrapods of any kind, in fact. No men, despite the alleged presence of a highly advanced planet-wide civilization.

"Transitionals as Darwin envisioned them would be organisms with new systems partly developed and surviving somehow while becoming useful."

No. That's what you think a 'transitional form' should be. But Darwin was smarter than you are ... not that that's very difficult, I admit ... and he understood that every organism had to be fully functional, whether it was transitional or not. Any evolutionary changes had to happen in such a way that every step in the sequence was somehow more fit than the previous step.

radar said...

There is no possibility of evolution happening without selecting out favorable features formed by mutation and that means these mythical organisms that were functional but had developing-but-not-yet-functioning parts had to to be part of a continuum of organisms captured in time...if Darwin's hypothesis be true.

Those organisms do not exist in the fossil record. This is because the Flood and post-Flood era produced all those sedimentary rocks with all those fossils. Because evolution is a preposterous concept and Darwin was completely wrong. Unlike you, though, if he was alive today he would view the fossil record and admit that he'd been wrong.

Darwin wanted evolution to be true, badly wanted it to be true, but he would not have gone so far as to lie to make it true. He believed Lyell's lies. He hoped mutations would be building blocks to build new creatures. He would now admit that over 150 years of failed experiments and tests and a fossil record that screams "catastrophism" to anyone who is not a brainwashed Naturalist means that his hypothesis was flawed.

We do not know how smart Darwin was, actually. He took the bulk of his material from others and he was actually a naturalist who collected specimens and also collected the thoughts of others and cobbled them together into an hypothesis that was plausible in 1960 and ludicrous by 1960. Now it has gone from ludicrous to malignant. Darwinism is like a cancer on science, taking away resources and damaging careers and deflecting young scientists away from the rest, a drag on our resources and completely irrelevant to operational science.

radar said...

As to why there is not much of anything in pre-Cambrian rocks? God decided to destroy the world that was and replace it. The tectonic plates that had been the surface of the original land mass were subducted and new surfaces emerged from within the Earth, bringing water and minerals and heat that produced amazing phenomena like the massive blooms of diatoms - foraminifera and coccolithophores - capable of producing the White Cliffs of Dover.

There would not be any fossils expected below the Cambrian rocks, which are the bottom layer of the Flood. We would expect primarily bottom-dwelling sea life and the Cambrian rocks are primarily filled with such organisms and yet every basic life form is found in Cambrian rocks. So why does life go from nothing to everything at once? Catastrophic Flood!

Jon W said...

"organisms that were functional but had developing-but-not-yet-functioning parts"

One more time: evolutionary theory doesn't predict any such thing.

" God decided to destroy the world that was and replace it."

Special pleading. Not science. You lose again.

radar said...

Take away special pleading and Darwinism is nonexistent.

No, the Bible is the best supported ancient historical document in the world by a huge margin. The Bible asserts that a world-wide flood was caused by God to destroy the world and start over with organisms preserved in the Ark (built to modern ship-building optimal specs, by the way) and those that could withstand the slightly longer than one year flood event. I am using historical documentation.

Besides that, John Baumgardner's hypothesis of rapid plate subduction was supported by taking temperature readings in the magma below the surface where the "cold" rock would have gone and there is an area of anomalous cooler temperature that would be explained by rapid plate subduction during the Flood but would be inexplicable otherwise. Therefore another piece of evidence supporting the Flood.

But then the sedimentary rocks are evidence for the Flood anyway. Those who know them are foolish for defending Darwinism when they see all the evidence for catastrophism around the globe. I know you drink the Darwin Kool-Aid, Jon, but that doesn't mean the readers need to do it as well.

So thanks for giving me the next topic for discussion!

radar said...

"Jon W said...

Arguments based on lies are themselves lies. Dembski's claims are lies, therefore so are yours as well."


Jon has not shown any Dembski lies, but I can point to lies by Haeckel and Lyell and Thomas Huxley and Philip Gingerich so that means that one finger you point at me is exponentially pointing back at you.

Anonymous said...

"There would not be any fossils expected below the Cambrian rocks, which are the bottom layer of the Flood"

Um, if the Flood scenario were true, we would expect an IMMENSE amount of fossils at the bottom of the Cambrian rocks (or wherever young Earth crationists would situate the flood layer), including all modern life forms.

And yet the evidence we find shows us the opposite.

radar said...

" Anonymous said...

"There would not be any fossils expected below the Cambrian rocks, which are the bottom layer of the Flood"

Um, if the Flood scenario were true, we would expect an IMMENSE amount of fossils at the bottom of the Cambrian rocks (or wherever young Earth crationists would situate the flood layer), including all modern life forms.

And yet the evidence we find shows us the opposite."


No, we don't. The Cambrian explosion of life forms is even recognized by Darwinists. The Cambrian is the bottom of the Flood layers and contains representatives of all basic life forms. Some of these life forms have remained largely unchanged since the Flood. One which was wiped out by the Flood, the trilobite, had one of the most sophisticated eyes found in all of creation.

Your statement is like saying that the Sun is not hot or that water is not wet. The Cambrian sedimentary layers are full of fossils. You need to get out into the field and see for yourself, I suppose.