Creationists and DNA

[Collecemall]

Hi,

I'm new here and have read through a few of the "debates" but haven't found what I'm looking for. I thought perhaps someone can point me to what I'm interested in so that I don't have to spend weeks reading. I'm looking for the Creationist explanation to the DNA evidence we have for common ancestry. Since I've found that depending on which Creationist you ask you get extremely varied answers to any given question I was hoping someone here could point me to a discussion that covered what you would consider the basic position they hold. Admittedly I'm not extremely educated in science. I had biology related classes three times in high school and then again in college so I'm not illiterate but super technical studies with statistical models etc. are beyond my current grasp. I'm not opposed to seeing that sort of stuff I just wanted to give an idea of my comprehension and education level so I don't get responses that I won't understand and you end up having wasted your time.

Thanks guys!

 

[Rumraket]

Hi,

I'm new here and have read through a few of the "debates" but haven't found what I'm looking for. I thought perhaps someone can point me to what I'm interested in so that I don't have to spend weeks reading. I'm looking for the Creationist explanation to the DNA evidence we have for common ancestry. Since I've found that depending on which Creationist you ask you get extremely varied answers to any given question I was hoping someone here could point me to a discussion that covered what you would consider the basic position they hold. Admittedly I'm not extremely educated in science. I had biology related classes three times in high school and then again in college so I'm not illiterate but super technical studies with statistical models etc. are beyond my current grasp. I'm not opposed to seeing that sort of stuff I just wanted to give an idea of my comprehension and education level so I don't get responses that I won't understand and you end up having wasted your time.

Thanks guys!

There is no single creationist position on DNA. Some will simply ignore it, others will attempt to rationalize it away with "what we see is what the designer wanted", still others will try to claim the data is actually incongruent with evolution. Then there's the "common design, common designer" position which holds that when we see genes or proteins in different species that are similar(though not identical), this is because the same designer is re-using his designs in different organisms and just tweaking them slightly and so on. It all depends on the individual creationist and the specific case.

They are extremely hard to pin down on a specific model that explains all the peculiarities of the DNA data set, because they don't actually have one. Their entire approach can still basically be summarized as them sitting back, looking at the data, and then coming up with elaborate ad-hoc rationalizations about how their designer could have been operating to create the patterns that we see. What you will never see is a creationist make a strong, quantifiable prediction with a rigorous metric for falsification.

So basically, it's "what we see is what the designer wanted". So when what we see doesn't make sense from a design-perspective, they will respond with the fits-all "we can't know or comprehend the mind of god with our limited imaginations".

 

[Rumraket]

We had a pretty lengthy argument with a creationist on this site, previouly, about DNA evidence and the creationist position (there is no single one, so our interlocutor engages in all manner of ad-hoc rationalizations to independent lines of evidence).

I have greatly benefitted from reading discussions such as these myself in the past, so I guess this could be useful to you:

ERVs Independent and identical integration sites.

Unfalsifiable Phylogeny.

 

[abelcainsbrother]

Hi,

I'm new here and have read through a few of the "debates" but haven't found what I'm looking for. I thought perhaps someone can point me to what I'm interested in so that I don't have to spend weeks reading. I'm looking for the Creationist explanation to the DNA evidence we have for common ancestry. Since I've found that depending on which Creationist you ask you get extremely varied answers to any given question I was hoping someone here could point me to a discussion that covered what you would consider the basic position they hold. Admittedly I'm not extremely educated in science. I had biology related classes three times in high school and then again in college so I'm not illiterate but super technical studies with statistical models etc. are beyond my current grasp. I'm not opposed to seeing that sort of stuff I just wanted to give an idea of my comprehension and education level so I don't get responses that I won't understand and you end up having wasted your time.

Thanks guys!

Me being a creationist can probably help you.As we believe DNA because it is a genetic code has been decoded by humans and it has letters in it that proves intelligence designed it or God.Like if you pick up a book and see letters in it even if you cannot understand the language you can tell it was written by intelligence,well it is the same thing with the genetic code in DNA.

 

[Rumraket]

Hi,

I'm new here and have read through a few of the "debates" but haven't found what I'm looking for. I thought perhaps someone can point me to what I'm interested in so that I don't have to spend weeks reading. I'm looking for the Creationist explanation to the DNA evidence we have for common ancestry. Since I've found that depending on which Creationist you ask you get extremely varied answers to any given question I was hoping someone here could point me to a discussion that covered what you would consider the basic position they hold. Admittedly I'm not extremely educated in science. I had biology related classes three times in high school and then again in college so I'm not illiterate but super technical studies with statistical models etc. are beyond my current grasp. I'm not opposed to seeing that sort of stuff I just wanted to give an idea of my comprehension and education level so I don't get responses that I won't understand and you end up having wasted your time.

Thanks guys!

Me being a creationist can probably help you.As we believe DNA because it is a genetic code has been decoded by humans and it has letters in it that proves intelligence designed it or God.Like if you pick up a book and see letters in it even if you cannot understand the language you can tell it was written by intelligence,well it is the same thing with the genetic code in DNA.

*facepalm*

Here's a scanning tunneling microscopic image of DNA:

Will you be so kind as to point out these letters you speak of?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Me being a creationist can probably help you.As we believe DNA because it is a genetic code has been decoded by humans and it has letters in it that proves intelligence designed it or God.Like if you pick up a book and see letters in it even if you cannot understand the language you can tell it was written by intelligence,well it is the same thing with the genetic code in DNA.

DNA letters are just shorthand for specific types of nucleotides.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nucleotide

Letters are no more inherent in DNA than they are in audio frequencies.

 

[Collecemall]

Thank you Rumraket. I'll check out those discussions. I figured your explanation was the case but I thought if there were something you could point me toward it. If anyone else has something else to add I'm happy to look at that as well.


Abel,

I don't mean to intentionally be an ass but I specifically didn't ask creationists for a reason. I admittedly don't know enough to join in the debates. Unfortunately you don't realize you're in the same boat.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Abel,

I don't mean to intentionally be an ass but I specifically didn't ask creationists for a reason. I admittedly don't know enough to join in the debates. Unfortunately you don't realize you're in the same boat.

:lol:

Nice.

 

[Mugnuts]

I do mean to be an ass...0 points for reading comprehension regarding this topic Mr. ACB.

Welcome newcomer, if you want something to help you out regarding creationist claims and DNA, then check out this guy
https://m.youtube.com/user/C0nc0rdance

 

[Collecemall]

Thank you for the info Mugnuts.

I was a bit confused when I started looking at some of his videos. I was thinking they would be from Creationists. It seems he refutes much of their "science" quite well though. I was particularly interested to see his work regarding "Dr" Harrub. Someone I know uses apologeticspress articles to try and convince people about science issues (genetics and their link to homosexuality and evolution typically). While I know to laugh at anything presented from there I now have a source that refutes him without me having to do it myself. One of the recent ones he sent me was coauthored by some guy with a PHD in rhetoric. I thought that was an appropriate choice of study for someone working in apologetics. So thanks again for helping with something you couldn't have known about.

 

[Mugnuts]

Typically regarding creationists using DNA as evidence to there position comes in a misrepresentation of the term 'information'. By twisting it make it sound like it literally is some sort of message from a/the creator in regards to it's 'complexity' it all comes down to a form of special pleading fallacy. Knowing the refutation to the specific fallacy is the key to destroying such arguments, and subsequent dismissal of it.

The role of DNA is best explained with an evolutionary model in regards to the way it changes over time yet leaves the marks of those changes throughout the lineages of each each specific form of life. Thrusting a creator/designer in between the lines just doesn't fit what that evidence shows. You will see that the question brought to the creationist is to insert their model to explain the facts. They never come up with one...

The truly only way to insert a designer into it would be to say that it was 'created' at the very beginning of life's start and made the DNA complete with the evolutionary mechanism for change over time allowing it to have a naturalistic way to reproduce and mutate on its own every step of the way. That however is not really science as it is unfalsifyable. It really wouldn't be a good creationist argument because it rules out 'special creation', and admits to evolution happening, however at least that would be a start getting the creationist to make this sort of acceptance.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Typically regarding creationists using DNA as evidence to there position comes in a misrepresentation of the term 'information'. By twisting it make it sound like it literally is some sort of message from a/the creator in regards to it's 'complexity' it all comes down to a form of special pleading fallacy. Knowing the refutation to the specific fallacy is the key to destroying such arguments, and subsequent dismissal of it.

You hit the nail on the head with that. I am going to link the best takedown of the argument "DNA equals information" I have ever come accross.

​

 

[Mugnuts]

Didn't the serial killer Dennis Rader (BTK Killer) sign his first letter BTKMD, then shorten it to BTK? As in bind, torture, kill, murder, death. Not sure if I read that or am just choosing to see this...

 

[Collecemall]

Thank you everyone. ERV's are a bit over my head at the moment but this helps me to know what I don't know which is a lot.

 

[dandan]

Typically regarding creationists using DNA as evidence to there position comes in a misrepresentation of the term 'information'. By twisting it make it sound like it literally is some sort of message from a/the creator in regards to it's 'complexity' it all comes down to a form of special pleading fallacy. Knowing the refutation to the specific fallacy is the key to destroying such arguments, and subsequent dismissal of it.

You hit the nail on the head with that. I am going to link the best takedown of the argument "DNA equals information" I have ever come accross.

​

I
In fact I made a video reply to that argument long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMW
:lol:


I apologize if my English sucks but I made my best effort.


Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

 

[Prolescum]

Anti-creationist? That's a new one. There's nothing quite like bolstering one's persecution complex by discrete, incremental changes in terminology.

sent from my Commodore Amiga 500

 

[SpecialFrog]

In fact I made a video reply to that argument long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMW
:lol:

The video link appears broken.

Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern


Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

This definition seems incoherent -- and ignores the definitions used by information theory -- but perhaps the video explains it better so I will await a fixed link.

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

Surely this is an argument from ignorance.

No one claims to know precisely how DNA first originated. Such an explanation essentially a component of an abiogenesis claim. There are hypotheses which are plausible given the time scales, which is all that is needed to accept that a naturalistic origin is more parsimonious than a supernatural one.

You can't assert that your supernatural explanation is correct just because a natural one does not yet exist. You have to prove that no natural explanation is possible first.

 

[dandan]

Anti-creationist? That's a new one. There's nothing quite like bolstering one's persecution complex by discrete, incremental changes in terminology.

sent from my Commodore Amiga 500

Because if I would have used “evolutionist” instead of anti-creationists, you would have argued that evolution doesn’t deal with the origin of genetic information. Should I use the term naturalist for the next time?

 

[dandan]

In fact I made a video reply to that argument long ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6wkbLgTMW
:lol:

The video link appears broken.

Basically the “problem” with the argument is the ambiguity of the term “information” so I simply decided to define information as:

Series of codes (or units) organized in a complex, and independent pattern

Then I defined what I meant by complex, independent and pattern


Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

This definition seems incoherent -- and ignores the definitions used by information theory -- but perhaps the video explains it better so I will await a fixed link.

Obviously aticreationists disagree, but they never present their testable and falsifiable premises that support a naturalistic origin of DNA

Surely this is an argument from ignorance.

No one claims to know precisely how DNA first originated. Such an explanation essentially a component of an abiogenesis claim. There are hypotheses which are plausible given the time scales, which is all that is needed to accept that a naturalistic origin is more parsimonious than a supernatural one.

You can't assert that your supernatural explanation is correct just because a natural one does not yet exist. You have to prove that no natural explanation is possible first.

-At least in my computer the link is working properly.
-Ok, I call it information, you can give it another name, which of the premises you think I wrong and why?
-I am not arguing that DNA had a supernatural origin, I said that DNA came from a mind, this mind may or may not be supernatural (that would be an other topic)
-That is my point, the problem is that you already “know” that DNA came from a natural mechanism, no amount of evidence will convince you for the opposite. You reject ID by default.

 

[WarK]

Then I made my argument
Premise 1: what I call information can only come from a mind
Premise 2: DNA is what I call information
Therefore DNA came from a mind

I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed but isn't your argument basically "it is so because I say so"?

-At least in my computer the link is working properly.
-Ok, I call it information, you can give it another name, which of the premises you think I wrong and why?
-I am not arguing that DNA had a supernatural origin, I said that DNA came from a mind, this mind may or may not be supernatural (that would be an other topic)
-That is my point, the problem is that you already “know” that DNA came from a natural mechanism, no amount of evidence will convince you for the opposite. You reject ID by default.

You've given no evidence. Not even a single coherent argument.