DBowling wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:05 am
Nils wrote: ↑
Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:38 am
DBowling wrote: ↑
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm
Which tells me that you are not really interested in Meyer's position, especially the merits of Meyer's position
I know it before. Now I was interested in the first clip you referred to and the obvious falsehood of Meyers first arguement.
Repeating a fallacious assertion with zero evidence to support your assertion does nothing to support your argument.
You have yet to demonstrate anything inaccurate in what Meyer has said.
My first comment on Meyer was on his clip https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg
, which you referred to, #179. Between 4:33 and 6:08 he discusses the possibilities of proteins and says that the chance to find a new protein is one in 10^70 and the age of the earth isn’t long enough for generating a new protein. He concludes: “The bottom line is that the new Darwinian mechanism is not a plausible mechanism for generating new functional biological information”.
Is this reasoning correct? And this argument is one of only two argument for dismissing the evolution theory in this video clip. (The other is as wrong as this and goes that an intelligent designer is more probable).
And your primary point shows that you don't even understand Meyer's position. Which is why it might be beneficial for you to spend some time understanding Meyer's position before you make factually inaccurate assertions about his position.
Meyer actually understands and agrees with the stepwise nature of the Darwinian process in the clip you referenced.
The issue Meyer brings up involves the rarity and size of functional steps, which are important because Natural Selection requires functional steps in order to propagate a mutation.
As I don't trust Meyer as you notice, more of his books isn't valuable.
Just because Meyer's books challenge key presuppositions of your world view doesn't mean they are not valuable.
I think Meyer's books have been and continue to be extremely valuable to many in genuine pursuit of truth.
Observed random mutations in malaria have demonstrated that a step of up to 3 coordinated random mutations goes beyond the capability of all life that has ever existed on the planet.
As Meyer points out Natural Selection selects for functional advantage.
So any path guided by random mutation would require steps of less than 3 coordinated random mutations which have functional advantage in order for the mutation to be propagated.
But the evolution theory doesn't rely on several coordinated random mutations!! Is that so difficult to understand.
Are you claiming that there are no functional steps that are separated by three or more coordinated mutations at the molecular level?
You are either being deliberately obtuse, or you don't know what you are talking about.
This is what differs Meyer and you from the evolution theory. According to the evolution theory, generally, every step is beneficial (that’s what you call “functional” if I understand you correctly) and is generated by one mutation. I’m not an expert on evolution theory but this is what I learnt.
See for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation
“One study on genetic variations between different species of Drosophila suggests that, if a mutation changes a protein produced by a gene, the result is likely to be harmful, with an estimated 70 percent of amino acid polymorphisms that have damaging effects, and the remainder being either neutral or marginally beneficial”
They talk about a single mutation. No where in that article I find anything about coordinated mutations.
Another source of information is a current article: https://quillette.com/2019/09/09/david- ... ng-darwin/
by Jerry A. Coyne where he discusses https://www.claremont.org/crb/article/giving-up-darwin/
by David Gelernter. Coyne’s article is of special interest in our discussion because Gelernter has several claims that are similar to Meyer’s which I haven’t discussed here.
Random mutation together with natural selection is a magnificent tool for stepwise evolution. That has been shown both theoretically and practically.
As Meyer says, random mutation and natural selection do an excellent job of describing "survival of the fittest"
However, it totally breaks down when it attempts to explain the "arrival of the fittest"
Again Meyer points out that random mutation and natural selection "is not a plausible mechanism for generating new functional biological information".
All this depends on that he (and you) seem to assume several coordinated mutation that certainly may be very rare
Meyer is relying on empirical evidence
- Empirical evidence tells us the maximum step size of a mutation that random mutation is capable of producing within the time span of the existence of life on our planet.
I think this is a computation, “doing the math” Meyer says, not empiricism.
- Empirical evidence tells us that the distance between functional states in many biological organisms in existence today exceeds the maximum observed step size that random mutation is capable of.
I disagree completely, see above
- Empirical evidence tells us that random mutations primarily involve deletions not additions.
Yes, so what? There are some beneficial mutations, that’s enough.
- Empirical evidence tells us that there is extremely complex information encoded in the DNA of life on our planet.
Yes, so what?
- Empirical evidence tells us that the generation of information requires mind or intelligence.
Certainly not, I will discuss this later.
- There is zero empirical evidence to support the premise that unguided random processes are capable of generating the information that we observe in the DNA of life today.
You couldn’t be more wrong. You dismiss a clear majority of biologists worldwide and say that they have been working on a theory for over hundred years in spite of there is ZERO evidence!
And evolutionists (at least honest ones) will acknowledge that fact.
Example of evolutionists that deny evolution?
Quoting Matheson again
"It is surely an open question about whether that whole tree can be navigated through function all the way through.
I certainly can't prove it's the case."
I repeat my earlier comment (which you didn’t comment):
“What he and Meyer discussed was if it possible to come from one code to another useful code in one single step. This is what the evolution theory assumes and there is huge evidence that this is true. Matheson says that he can't prove it. Of course he can't, natural science isn't about proof, it is about evidence. Nobody can prove that there is gravity everywhere on the earth but still everyone assumes that the gravitation theory is correct. The evidence is total. The same with evolution.”
I think that what I said above covers my comments on your #184 also.