[_ Old Earth _] Questions about ID

[BobRyan]

The "point" is that all those mutations in each generation STILL result in "stasis" --


Biggest problem for evol -

The crock is STILL the crock! (pun intended)

 

[Snidey]

The "point" is that all those mutations in each generation STILL result in "stasis" --


!

No, they don't.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

The "point" is that all those mutations in each generation STILL result in "stasis" --


Biggest problem for evol -

The crock is STILL the crock!

You would make Hovind smile in his cell.

 

[Rick W]

All I asked for was a few examples of mutations adding components to the original DNA string to form a more complex result than the original.

 

[Snidey]

I cannot think of a mutation that does not fit that criteria.

 

[Rick W]

So mutations don't produce a more complex result?

 

[Snidey]

They frequently (always?) do, depending on what you mean by "complex result"

 

[Rick W]

They frequently (always?) do

Point out a few examples doing that.
You know... here's the original form and here's the mutated one with increased complexity.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

They frequently (always?) do

Point out a few examples doing that.
You know... here's the original form and here's the mutated one with increased complexity.

Define your criteria.

 

[Rick W]

What do evolutionists mean when they say that by mutation complexity is increased?

 

[Rick W]

Heck with it.
I suppose the question, "Can you provide a few examples of a mutation increasing complexity?" is too complex.
Oh well. :smt102

I'll not watse any more of my time.
Have a good discussion.

 

[VaultZero4Me]

Heck with it.
I suppose the question, "Can you provide a few examples of a mutation increasing complexity?" is too complex.
Oh well. :smt102

I'll not watse any more of my time.
Have a good discussion.

It is very complex.

This question can be a very loaded question unless you have very well defined parameters. Context is everything when speaking on information loss/gain. ID'rs have used this for a while to play games.

Now from this post, you do not indicate that you actually wish to learn, but I will provide you with a resource none the less in regards to complexity.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... rtid=18257

 

[Snidey]

Heck with it.
I suppose the question, "Can you provide a few examples of a mutation increasing complexity?" is too complex.
Oh well. :smt102

I'll not watse any more of my time.
Have a good discussion.

Is this serious? ANY mutation could be said to make an organism more genetically complex by definition. In fact, I'd like to see an argument that explained how mutation would lead to less genetic complexity.

But you just asked about "complexity," which on its own is not a scientific term and has no specific meaning unless you define it. It is not that your question is complex as much as it's so vague that I don't know what you're asking for at all.

 

[Rick W]

But you just asked about "complexity," which on its own is not a scientific term and has no specific meaning unless you define it.

Many sites/forums I've seen an evolutionist use that term without question or demand for definition. But when someone else asks a question using the same terms then these are unscientific, misleading, loaded or without scientific basis.
Nobody attempts to answer the question and this is the same point it always comes down to.
Define information
Define complexity
Define function
Define mutation
Define increase
Define definition
Define question
Define answer
on and on and on

It's all a smoke screen anyway, a song and dance.
The only thing I can be concluded is there is no answer for none is given.
:smt102

 

[Snidey]

Usually it is implied what complexity means when it is used in context. You have used it out of context. While you seem to be unaware of the basic science, referring to "frog" and "fish" as being a "class" while insisting that a member of one class should be able to become another without even once referring to the actual taxonomic definition of class, you also insist that it is the evolution proponents that are confused.

When you said:
"All I asked for was a few examples of mutations adding components to the original DNA string to form a more complex result than the original."

THAT was a situation where I could infer what you meant by complexity - the complexity of the DNA itself. If you do not realize how a mutation of DNA between generations could lead to more complex DNA, you simply don't understand the process, and a simple WIki of mutations should fill you in on the basic types and how they work: an insertion "add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA." That should pretty clearly make the DNA strand more complex.

There's no smoke screen or song and dance. It's a complicated topic, and if one does not use terms properly it can often be unclear what exactly is being referred to. You insist it is us who should understand what you mean when you refer to complexity, but your unwillingness to fill us in has made it clear that you aren't quite sure, either.

 

[Rick W]

... a simple WIki of mutations should fill you in on the basic types and how they work: an insertion "add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA." That should pretty clearly make the DNA strand more complex.

...if one does not use terms properly it can often be unclear what exactly is being referred to.

"That should pretty clearly make the DNA strand more complex"

There you go. That's what I'm looking for.


"an insertion "add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA."

Yes, of course.
Do insertions occur naturally in nature? If so what are some examples?

 

[Barbarian]

There are a number of ways that complexity can be measured. First thing to note is that mutations don't make individuals more complex; they make populations more complex. The individual is stuck with the genome he has.

Let's take a simple example. Monkeys have RNAses that help break down components of the leaves they eat. A gene duplication (these happen frequently) allows one copy of an RNAse gene to mutate slightly to make it more effective at a given substrate.

Now the monkey population has two different genes where there was one before. I do not see how this could not be an increase in complexity.

But I'd be pleased to see your calculations.

 

[Rick W]

Snidey,
You're rather quiet. Would you have anything to add to Barbarian's response?

 

[Snidey]

Not really, nothing more has been put on the table for me to address. I guess I would like to indicate that yes, genetic mutations occur in nature and insertion is one of them.

 

[lordkalvan]

1. I have already conceded that even the ORTHODOX (i.e most strict of the Jewish sects) have caved in to Darwinian doctrine.

No, you claimed that Orthodox Rabbis who had 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine' supported your exegesis of Exodus 20.

No -- here again I see that we have "failure to communicate".

The argument is that Orthodox Rabbis WHO DO teach Darwinism -- are ALSO the same group that admit from a linguistic POV that the term YOM used in Exodus 20:8-11 is provided in a context meaning 24 hour -- literal day JUST LIKE we see Jews today observing that SAME 7 day cycle.

I also argue that they readily place tradition HIGHER than the text of scripture so it does not matter to them that the text itself is locked-in to a 24 hour time line.

We keep coming back to these two points as if they were never stated. I find that confusing.

I have yet to see you substantiate either of these two points by quotation, reference or citation. I have quoted and cited rabbinical and secular scholars who argue that the 'days' referred to in Genesis are not actual, literal 24-hour days as we know them. Some of these scholars predate the formulation of evolutionary theory. Therefore they cannot have 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine' and their arguments cannot be driven by this assumption.

[quote:3f352]And again, are you suggesting that biblical scholars of Talmudic times and the Middle Ages, who as I have shown disagree with the literal days of Genesis interpretation that you cling to, 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine'? Your argument is absurd.

1. Nobody has been able to make the case that Darwinism was taught in the dark ages -- did you do it?? If so I missed it.[/quote:3f352]
That was not my question. You have persistently implied that any biblical scholar who disagrees with your conclusions about the length of creation week days has 'caved in to Darwinian doctrine'. I have pointed to biblical scholars whose conclusions about the length of creation week days predate the formulation of evolutionary theory and argued that their conclusions, which are clearly different from yours, suggest that your conclusions are therefore not as incontrovertible as you claim. You have never addressed my argument, but rather prefer to continually refer to those whose conclusions are a consequence of their having 'caved in to Darwinist doctrine'. My question was directed towards trying to understand why you think Medieval and Talmudic scholars would have reached the conclusions they did.

2. The challenge was to "exegete Exodus 20:8-11" in your reponse above you appear to "admit" that not only did you refuse to do it -- but you gave no source at all that attempted to exegete Exodus 20:8-11...

Is this your way of agreeing with me on Exodus 20... to simply jump into Genesis 1 "instead"??

As I have explained why I believe exegesis does not lead to incontrovertibly objective conclusions, exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 becomes a pointless exercise. Are you sure that you understand exactly the mind(s) of whoever compiled Exodus 20 2,500 years ago? Are you sure that you know exactly what they intended when they wrote of the seven days of creation and the seven days of the week? Of course you aren't; you are only sure that you are right.

[quote:3f352]2. I have asked that you show "actual exegesis" of the Exodus 20:8-11 takes so IT can be "seen" to make your case... you steadfastly refuse to do that -- preferring to "talk around that point" instead.

L.K. said
You make some assumptions here. You assume that exegesis provides a value-free tool for determining absolute meaning; I have explained fully and with reasons why I believe this is not so.

Did you SHOW exegesis failing? Did you provide anything other than "assertion upon assertion" that the objectivity in the Exegetical method does not work?[/quote:3f352]
How can you determine whether exegesis fails when you provide no criteria by which you can judge its success? The entire weakness of your argument rests upon your assumption that exegesis results in objective understanding. It doesn't. It presumes that objective understanding results; you have yet to provide any evidence to support such a presumption.

Did you even show one of your "sources" condemning Exegesis?

Not necessary. I only showed that those biblical scholars to whom I referred come to differing conclusions about the length of the creation week days from you. This in and of itself strongly suggests that exegesis is not the decisive tool you wish it to be.

And why do you refer to the biblical scholars I have quoted and cited as "sources"? Are those quotation marks meant to imply that they are phantoms I have created solely to counter your arguments, that they are as illusory as those evolution-accepting Orthodox Rabbis who fully accept your exegesis of Exodus? As I have provided you with ample information to check the scholars I have referenced, I regard your quotation marks as something of an insult to my honesty and would ask you to acknowledge this and withdraw them.

In other words -- did you provide actual evidence? Facts?

I have supported by arguments fully. Where is your evidence? Where are your facts? Exegesis alone provides neither of these.

[quote:3f352]You also assume that I think your exegesis of Exodus 20 is absolutely wrong; I do not, I only believe that it is not persuasive and that other understandings of biblical text can be derived by biblical scholars whose knowledge and learning is at least the equal of yours

If you have someone doing a sound exegetical presention of Exodus 20 SHOWING that we are free to bend the text on the whim of darwminism REDFINING the term for DAy -- in MID-Sentence as Darwinism "so desperately needs" -- then show it.[/quote:3f352]
I only need to show that biblical scholars have reached conclusions different from yours to support my doubts as to the certainty that can be derived from exegesis. I leave you and these scholars to argue the fine points of interpretation.

So far you have given no source at all dealing with the text of Exodus 20:8-11 with anything close to "exegetical objectivey" (an objectivity that you condemn yet provide no alternative for).

I have not condemned exegetical objectivity; I have only pointed out that I believe it to be illusory and to ask you what evidential grounds you have for believing that it provides such objectivity. Clearly the alternative to exegesis is to look for evidence external to the text in question that provides support for that text.

[quote:3f352], as I have demonstrated. Why should I believe your conclusions over and above theirs?

Well -- #1 -- because I SHOW in vastly superior form of argument that EVEN the OPPOSING side agrees with me on the exegetcially derived MEANING for "yom" in Exodus 20:8-11 "in Context" and so far all you (and all your sources so far) have done is avoid Exodus 20:8-11 while you claim to have solved the problem.[/quote:3f352]
I have yet to see you support the first part of your claim with anything other than assertion. As to the second part of your claim, I have never argued that I 'have solved the problem'; I have only tried to show that your claim to 'have solved the problem' is by no means as soundly rooted as you seem to think it is.

Kind of like you condemn the objectivity of the exegetical method then offer nothing in it's place as a superior method of interpretation.

Again, I only point out that the exegetical method only presumes objective understanding and does not guarantee it. Again the 'superior method of interpretation' is to look for evidence external to the text that supports the conclusions we draw from the text.

Bob said

3. You also provide no example of anyone ELSE exegeting Exodus 20:8-11 showing THE TEXT to conform to the usage you need to make of it. All you show is that there are those who agree with your need to spin it -- but so far no source at all showing your argument IN the Text of EXODUS 20 (from either you or any of your sources showing that the TEXT was intented to be bent in such a darwinist fashion).

[quote:3f352]L.K
I make no usage of Exodus 2; I only contest your certainty about it.

Indeed - you have avoided Exodus 20:8-11 just like Exodus 2 (though I have never pointed to your argument being stuck in Exodus 2... only Exodus 20).

Why do you keep avoiding the text - quoted time after time -- SHOWN to contradict your darwinism ... All you do is "claim" that you coulda solved the problem in Exodus 20 if only you had a source that would do it for you... and even then you give no source at all able to do it.

Was I supposed to "not notice"??[/quote:3f352]
You were supposed to notice the arguments I am making that address the reasons why I believe your certainty about the objective meaning that can be derived from exegesis is built on shaky foundations.

Your solution to the glaringly obvious problem that you have in Exodus 20 is of the following form.

1. Do not quote Exodus 20
2. Do not read it and deal with what it says
3. Do not provide any source that references it and SHOWS how Darwinism survives it.
4. Condemn the objectivity found in Exegesis.
5. Appeal to sources commenting on everything BUT Exodus 20 to make your case about Ex 20.

1. Why should I quote Exodus 20? Do you think I disagree that the words on the page exist?
2. If by 'deal with what it says' you mean 'agree with my interpretation of what it says', I have given you ample reasons for why I am unhappy with the certainty of your interpretation.
3. This is irrelevant rhetoric. Exodus 20 is not evidence against evolutionary theory; it carries no scientific evidential weight whatsoever.
4. Please try to understand all the arguments I have made about why I do not have your confidence that exegesis provides objectivity. If you do not understand these, you understand nothing about where I am coming from in this discussion.
5. The references I have given you and the arguments I have made have been directed towards supporting the conclusion that Exodus 20 provides no objective certainty as to its relevance to the actual length of the days of creation week.