Explaining speciation to a creationist

[leroy]

How old do you think the earth is?

If you accept that the earth is 4.5 billion years old then that process over time is all you need to arrive at the diversity of life we see today. With variation and selection plus time you get evolution. There is no magic ingredient that makes it impossible to happen.

If you believe that they earth is 6 to 10 thousand years old, how do you explain the diversity of species that we see? We have 3000 (or so) species of snake how would we get this from the 2 individuals from the ark? Ignoring the more complicated genetic problems we are looking at a rate of speciation of one speciation event every 2 years on average. This would require much faster and explosively diverse evolution than any legitimate scientist would ever propose. In denying the science, you propose that evolution happened at an insane rate in a short time.

Again, the fact that organisms change doesn’t imply that changes are “unlimited” nor that everything is possible, the fact that variation occurs doesn’t automatically prove that we all have a common ancestor.

1 Creationists accept that organisms change and adapt. These changes can lead speciation.

2 Creationists reject the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor.

3 Creationists reject the idea that complex systems and organs came from simpler preexisting forms, for example we reject that the human eye “evolved” from a simpler organ.


Accepting point number 1 doesn´t automatically prove 2 and 3, you need to provide additional evidence for 2 and for 3.
I will ask a very simple yes or no question…..

Does accepting point 1 implies that 2 and 3 are also true? please answer with an unambiguous yes or no.

There is a semantic problem, even though 1,2 and 3 are completely independent from each other and are completely different ideas, we call them all “evolution” when creationists claim that evolution is wrong, they mean that 2 and 3 are wrong.


---------------------------
As for how did all variants of snakes could have come from a single pair of snakes, the answer is “I don´t know” and I would even admit that you are proposing a valid objection to the flood model, my guess would be that a few dozens of snakes boarded the ark (not just 2) and I would suggest that today genomes are too degraded and corrupted, but in the past there where many mechanism that could cause quick genetic changes in a small amount of time. But I don´t claim to be sure about this.

 

[leroy]

Well, after 100 years, the creationists are finally progressing foreword. I have been saying this for years; all modern creationists actually accept evolution, they simply want to call it something different like adaptation.

it is just a semantic problem.
The term evolution has many different meanings. In my last comment I provided examples of 3 definitions of evolution.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

Well, after 100 years, the creationists are finally progressing foreword. I have been saying this for years; all modern creationists actually accept evolution, they simply want to call it something different like adaptation.

it is just a semantic problem.
The term evolution has many different meanings. In my last comment I provided examples of 3 definitions of evolution.

Actually, in science, evolution has one definition (i.e. change in allilic frequencies in a population over time) and I would expect anyone who has researched this for at least a week to know that fact. Trying to turn this into semantics is exactly the only remaining argument creationists have to offered. Semantics is the last bastion if creationism.

 

[Laurens]

Again, the fact that organisms change doesn’t imply that changes are “unlimited” nor that everything is possible, the fact that variation occurs doesn’t automatically prove that we all have a common ancestor.

1 Creationists accept that organisms change and adapt. These changes can lead speciation.

2 Creationists reject the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor.

3 Creationists reject the idea that complex systems and organs came from simpler preexisting forms, for example we reject that the human eye “evolved” from a simpler organ.


Accepting point number 1 doesn´t automatically prove 2 and 3, you need to provide additional evidence for 2 and for 3.
I will ask a very simple yes or no question…..

Does accepting point 1 implies that 2 and 3 are also true? please answer with an unambiguous yes or no.

There is a semantic problem, even though 1,2 and 3 are completely independent from each other and are completely different ideas, we call them all “evolution” when creationists claim that evolution is wrong, they mean that 2 and 3 are wrong.


---------------------------
As for how did all variants of snakes could have come from a single pair of snakes, the answer is “I don´t know” and I would even admit that you are proposing a valid objection to the flood model, my guess would be that a few dozens of snakes boarded the ark (not just 2) and I would suggest that today genomes are too degraded and corrupted, but in the past there where many mechanism that could cause quick genetic changes in a small amount of time. But I don´t claim to be sure about this.

Basically you are saying that something stops variations from accumulating too much. The simplest assumption is that variations can accumulate in seperate lineages without limit on how different they become from each other (within certain parameters at least). There is no real reason why it wouldn't work like that. A creature does not posses an internal mechanism that goes "better not allow children any more variation because they will look too different from my distant cousins and that is not allowed by some arbitrary rule that means we can't change too much." Variation just adds up to present huge differences when you give it huge amounts of time.

My question to you is can you present or find someone who presents a scientific account for how species know when to stop producing genetic variation and put a halt to evolution so that you can't accumulate a difference like that between say a rat and a gerbil?

 

[leroy]

Again, the fact that organisms change doesn’t imply that changes are “unlimited” nor that everything is possible, the fact that variation occurs doesn’t automatically prove that we all have a common ancestor.

1 Creationists accept that organisms change and adapt. These changes can lead speciation.

2 Creationists reject the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor.

3 Creationists reject the idea that complex systems and organs came from simpler preexisting forms, for example we reject that the human eye “evolved” from a simpler organ.


Accepting point number 1 doesn´t automatically prove 2 and 3, you need to provide additional evidence for 2 and for 3.
I will ask a very simple yes or no question…..

Does accepting point 1 implies that 2 and 3 are also true? please answer with an unambiguous yes or no.

There is a semantic problem, even though 1,2 and 3 are completely independent from each other and are completely different ideas, we call them all “evolution” when creationists claim that evolution is wrong, they mean that 2 and 3 are wrong.


---------------------------
As for how did all variants of snakes could have come from a single pair of snakes, the answer is “I don´t know” and I would even admit that you are proposing a valid objection to the flood model, my guess would be that a few dozens of snakes boarded the ark (not just 2) and I would suggest that today genomes are too degraded and corrupted, but in the past there where many mechanism that could cause quick genetic changes in a small amount of time. But I don´t claim to be sure about this.

Basically you are saying that something stops variations from accumulating too much. The simplest assumption is that variations can accumulate in seperate lineages without limit on how different they become from each other (within certain parameters at least). There is no real reason why it wouldn't work like that. A creature does not posses an internal mechanism that goes "better not allow children any more variation because they will look too different from my distant cousins and that is not allowed by some arbitrary rule that means we can't change too much." Variation just adds up to present huge differences when you give it huge amounts of time.

My question to you is can you present or find someone who presents a scientific account for how species know when to stop producing genetic variation and put a halt to evolution so that you can't accumulate a difference like that between say a rat and a gerbil?

Organisms can only change within the genetic information that is available in their genome, new information can´t be added by random mutations and natural selection.

For example you can have variations of dogs, but you will never have a dog with feathers because dogs don´t have the genetic information needed for feathers.

This is not a new concept; this is what creationists have been saying for decades.

 

[DutchLiam84]

Ahh, the old "I'm using an argument against evolution that isn't actually an argument against evolution". Can I tell you a little fact? Actual scientists have been saying that dogs can't have feathers either. So what's your point?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Leroy, can you give a definition of "information" under which DNA qualifies yet that cannot increase naturally? Because no creationist has succeeded at doing so thus far.

One who tried (and failed) was named "dandan". I mention this for no particular reason.

 

[Laurens]

Organisms can only change within the genetic information that is available in their genome, new information can´t be added by random mutations and natural selection.

Can you explain what that actually means, and how it works?

 

[leroy]

Ahh, the old "I'm using an argument against evolution that isn't actually an argument against evolution". Can I tell you a little fact? Actual scientists have been saying that dogs can't have feathers either. So what's your point?

Ok, my point is that dogs will never descend in to flying creatures (naturally), not even if there is selective pressure for flight.

Do you agree with this statement yes or no.


*I mentioned “naturally” because maybe gods develop the ability of flight through artificial genetic engineering.

 

[leroy]

Organisms can only change within the genetic information that is available in their genome, new information can´t be added by random mutations and natural selection.

Can you explain what that actually means, and how it works?

Please explain, what part do you consider unclear?

 

[leroy]

Leroy, can you give a definition of "information" under which DNA qualifies yet that cannot increase naturally? Because no creationist has succeeded at doing so thus far.

One who tried (and failed) was named "dandan". I mention this for no particular reason.

Information: series of codes organized in a complex and specified way.

Complex = Unlikelly / many units / many possible combinations

Specified = with an objective meaning or function,

Something is specified and complex, when there are many possible combinations but only 1 or few combinations would produce something with an
objective function or meaning.

These has been explained to you multiple times and your still pretend not to understand

However these is out of topic, my main point is that accepting point 1 doesn’t imply that you necessarily have to accept 2 and 3…………agree?

1 Creationists accept that organisms change and adapt. These changes can lead speciation.

2 Creationists reject the idea that all organisms share a common ancestor.

3 Creationists reject the idea that complex systems and organs came from simpler preexisting forms, for example we reject that the human eye “evolved” from a simpler organ.

 

[Laurens]

Please explain, what part do you consider unclear?

Nothing was unclear. I'm asking you how it works.

What do you mean by information?

How is DNA 'information'?

How is it that new information cannot be added?

 

[SpecialFrog]

Leroy, can you give a definition of "information" under which DNA qualifies yet that cannot increase naturally? Because no creationist has succeeded at doing so thus far.

One who tried (and failed) was named "dandan". I mention this for no particular reason.

Information: series of codes organized in a complex and specified way.

Complex = Unlikelly / many units / many possible combinations

Specified = with an objective meaning or function,

Something is specified and complex, when there are many possible combinations but only 1 or few combinations would produce something with an
objective function or meaning.

These has been explained to you multiple times and your still pretend not to understand

It sounds like something "dandan" explained to me (in remarkably similar language). I don't recall having that conversation with you, unless you are actually "dandan".

I believe my conversation with "dandan" on this subject ended here if it is of interest.

Either way, you are pretending that the issue is my lack of understanding rather than your use of fuzzy definitions in which you are attempting to smuggle your desired conclusion.

How do you determine whether or not something has an "objective meaning or function"? A hole in the ground functions as a container for rain water. Is that its "objective function"?

What I think you mean by "specified" is that it arose out of intent, in which case you cannot say it is true of DNA without evidence of this intent (which requires an entity to have such an intent).

 

[leroy]

Either way, you are pretending that the issue is my lack of understanding rather than your use of fuzzy definitions in which you are attempting to smuggle your desired conclusion.
).

No, the definition is not fuzzy, they only reason you pretend no to understand is because you know that after understanding the definition you would have to prove that “information” can evolve and since you can´t prove it, you prefer to pretend that there is something fuzzy.

Well look for the word “objective” and for the terms “meaning” and “function” in any dictionary
Wings serve for flight; this is an objective function of wings.
A Hole might have an objective function, but it doesn’t have any of the attributes required to call it information, therefore holes are not information.

What I think you mean by "specified" is that it arose out of intent, in which case you cannot say it is true of DNA without evidence of this intent (which requires an entity to have such an intent).

[/quote]


No, with specified I don´t mean intent, I mean with an objective function or meaning,

With specified complexity I mean: something with many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with objective function or meaning.

There is nothing fuzzy about this definition and you know it, you pretend not to understand because you know that every known example of something specified and complex is a product of intelligent design.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

*I mentioned “naturally” because maybe gods develop the ability of flight through artificial genetic engineering.

Leroy brilliantly demonstrates how intelligent design creationism is not science, because its mechanism (a god(s)) can explain anything post hoc.

Wings serve for flight; this is an objective function of wings.

Above are all wings.

I guess in leroy's world, above are not wings. One wonders what leroy would call them? The problem leroy is having is thinking teleologically about certain body structures.

 

[SpecialFrog]

If you what to know what do I mean by “Objective Function” just look for the terms “objective” and “function” in any dictionary that you consider reliable

Well look for the word “objective” and for the terms “meaning” and “function” in any dictionary

Is there any part of your argument not previously used by "dandan"? Are you dandan's brother out to avenge him, or something?

Or if (as seems probable) you are dandan, why not just admit it? Is it just so you can re-use your old arguments while pretending they haven't been answered?

Wings serve for flight; this is an objective function of wings.

You realize that flightless birds still have wings, right? Can something have more than one objective function?

A Hole might have an objective function, but it doesn’t have any of the attributes required to call it information, therefore holes are not information.

Sorry, are you agreeing that the objective function of a hole is to hold rainwater?

Does a DNA molecule sitting on its own in a hole filled with rainwater have an objective function? Is is the same objective function as the same molecule sitting in the nucleus of a liver cell and the same function as the same module sitting in the nucleus of a brain cell?

What I think you mean by "specified" is that it arose out of intent, in which case you cannot say it is true of DNA without evidence of this intent (which requires an entity to have such an intent).

No, with specified I don´t mean intent, I mean with an objective function or meaning,

With specified complexity I mean: something with many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with objective function or meaning.

There is nothing fuzzy about this definition and you know it, you pretend not to understand because you know that every known example of something specified and complex is a product of intelligent design.

Ah yes, the old "pretend your opponent secretly agrees with you" gambit. Does that ever work?

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

What I think you mean by "specified" is that it arose out of intent, in which case you cannot say it is true of DNA without evidence of this intent (which requires an entity to have such an intent).

No, with specified I don´t mean intent, I mean with an objective function or meaning,

With specified complexity I mean: something with many possible combinations, where only 1 or few combinations would produce something with objective function or meaning.

There is nothing fuzzy about this definition and you know it, you pretend not to understand because you know that every known example of something specified and complex is a product of intelligent design.

Ah yes, the old "pretend your opponent secretly agrees with you" gambit. Does that ever work?

Presuppositional apologists would say it does.

 

[SpecialFrog]

Ah yes, the old "pretend your opponent secretly agrees with you" gambit. Does that ever work?

Presuppositional apologists would say it does.

But if they believe I agreed with them at the start then surely they couldn't claim to have convinced me.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

A Hole might have an objective function, but it doesn’t have any of the attributes required to call it information, therefore holes are not information.

Wrong. A hole is information à la Shannon.

You're recycling Dembski's non-sensical drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

 

[leroy]

Greetings,

A Hole might have an objective function, but it doesn’t have any of the attributes required to call it information, therefore holes are not information.

Wrong. A hole is information à la Shannon.

You're recycling Dembski's non-sensical drivel.

Kindest regards,

James

Ok, my mistake, ¿what term should I use instead of information in order to describe the concept that I personally called “information”?