Atheist question

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#181

Post by Nils » Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:36 am

PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am
DBowling wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:58 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:21 am
I'm not familiar with the information in our cells so I don't know how to define them. How do you define them?
Here is a good discussion on the topic by Stephen Meyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg

It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
Meyer is a good speaker but thats all. His arguments are not only wrong, he must know that they are wrong because they have been rebutted so many times.

He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement. On the contrary, there is lot of evidence of cases where many small variations produce new features. One example is the development of the human eye. It has been shown how thousands of very small changes, where every change is slightly more useful, finally may result in an eye.

My question is why does Meyer as his main argument against evolution use an argument that isn’t valid, which he certainly knows? Random search from scratch is impossible but random search from scratch isn’t a method assumed by evolutionists and he knows that. My only explanation is that he doesn’t have any good argument so he has to use a bad one.

Evolution is one example of randomness combined with a selection function working in small steps can generate new information. The evolutionary algorithm can be implemented in software and then that software can produce new information, information that the programmers didn’t have any knowledge about beforehand, contrary to what Meyer says.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#182

Post by DBowling » Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am

Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am
DBowling wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:58 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:21 am
I'm not familiar with the information in our cells so I don't know how to define them. How do you define them?
Here is a good discussion on the topic by Stephen Meyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg

It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
Meyer is a good speaker but thats all. His arguments are not only wrong, he must know that they are wrong because they have been rebutted so many times.
Just because some people assert Meyer's arguments are wrong, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.

"We don't have an alternate explanation yet, but we are still working on it" is not a convincing rebuttal to Meyer's position.
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.

Despite the assertions of Meyer's critics, no one has even come close to proving Meyer wrong on that.

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#183

Post by Nils » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:08 pm

DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am
DBowling wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:58 am
Kenny wrote:
Wed Sep 18, 2019 11:21 am
I'm not familiar with the information in our cells so I don't know how to define them. How do you define them?
Here is a good discussion on the topic by Stephen Meyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg

It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
Meyer is a good speaker but thats all. His arguments are not only wrong, he must know that they are wrong because they have been rebutted so many times.
Just because some people assert Meyer's arguments are wrong, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.
Any reference?
"We don't have an alternate explanation yet, but we are still working on it" is not a convincing rebuttal to Meyer's position.
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.
Any reference?

Despite the assertions of Meyer's critics, no one has even come close to proving Meyer wrong on that.
You didn’t comment on my main critique (above) of his main argument in the video clip (between 4:28 and 6:10) about the impossibility of creating a functional DNA protein from scratch.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#184

Post by DBowling » Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:44 pm

Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:08 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am
DBowling wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 5:58 am

Here is a good discussion on the topic by Stephen Meyer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7c9PaZzsqEg

It's only 15 minutes long, and Meyer does a good job explaining the nature of the information that is found in every cell of life and the implications of that information regarding intelligent design.
Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
Meyer is a good speaker but thats all. His arguments are not only wrong, he must know that they are wrong because they have been rebutted so many times.
Just because some people assert Meyer's arguments are wrong, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.
Any reference?
Here's a good example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30
"We don't have an alternate explanation yet, but we are still working on it" is not a convincing rebuttal to Meyer's position.
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.
Any reference?
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-E ... 061472794/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Ex ... 062071483/
Despite the assertions of Meyer's critics, no one has even come close to proving Meyer wrong on that.
You didn’t comment on my main critique (above) of his main argument in the video clip (between 4:28 and 6:10) about the impossibility of creating a functional DNA protein from scratch.
First point...
Meyer is absolutely correct in the clip that you refer to, and evolutionary experiments on bacteria and studying the frequency and types of mutations associated with malaria provide empirical evidence that Meyer is correct.
Second point...
Meyer did not say that is is impossible to create a functional DNA protein from scratch.
Meyer correctly states that "random" mutation and natural selection are incapable of creating a functional protein from scratch.

The weak link in the Darwinian process is random mutation, and Meyer is factually accurate and relevant in pointing that out.

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#185

Post by Nils » Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm

DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:44 pm
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:08 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 1:36 am
PaulSacramento wrote:
Thu Sep 19, 2019 6:38 am


Regardless of your view on "intelligent design", Meyer is correct in his explanation.
Meyer is a good speaker but thats all. His arguments are not only wrong, he must know that they are wrong because they have been rebutted so many times.
Just because some people assert Meyer's arguments are wrong, doesn't mean they are wrong.

Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.
Any reference?
Here's a good example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30
These two clips are the continuation of the clip you referred to before. The first is a lecture by Meyer more than one hour. You may excuse me that I haven’t looked at it. The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below but Meyer didn’t answer. He only referred to another person that would have a lecture “next day”! Matheson’s comment was on the spot. And this is Meyers main argument!
"We don't have an alternate explanation yet, but we are still working on it" is not a convincing rebuttal to Meyer's position.
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.
Any reference?
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-E ... 061472794/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Ex ... 062071483/
As a support of Meyers ideas you only mention Meyers books!
Despite the assertions of Meyer's critics, no one has even come close to proving Meyer wrong on that.
You didn’t comment on my main critique (above) of his main argument in the video clip (between 4:28 and 6:10) about the impossibility of creating a functional DNA protein from scratch.
First point...
Meyer is absolutely correct in the clip that you refer to, and evolutionary experiments on bacteria and studying the frequency and types of mutations associated with malaria provide empirical evidence that Meyer is correct.
Any reference other than Meyer?

Second point...
Meyer did not say that is is impossible to create a functional DNA protein from scratch.
Meyer correctly states that "random" mutation and natural selection are incapable of creating a functional protein from scratch.
OK, that was what I meant. But the problem is that no evolutionist claims that! Evolution is development stepwise, its about evolution. Do you understand?
The weak link in the Darwinian process is random mutation, and Meyer is factually accurate and relevant in pointing that out.
Random mutation together with natural selection is a magnificent tool for stepwise evolution. That has been shown both theoretically and practically.
Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#186

Post by DBowling » Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm

Nils wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:44 pm
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:08 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am
Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.
Any reference?
Here's a good example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30
These two clips are the continuation of the clip you referred to before. The first is a lecture by Meyer more than one hour. You may excuse me that I haven’t looked at it.
Which tells me that you are not really interested in Meyer's position, especially the merits of Meyer's position
The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below
I'll take a look...
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.
Any reference?
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-E ... 061472794/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Ex ... 062071483/
As a support of Meyers ideas you only mention Meyers books!
Uh... yeah...
Can you think of a more accurate representation of Meyer's position than Meyer's published books?

But for this particular issue, a good place to start would be Darwin's Doubt, Chapter 12
Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math.
You didn’t comment on my main critique (above) of his main argument in the video clip (between 4:28 and 6:10) about the impossibility of creating a functional DNA protein from scratch.
First point...
Meyer is absolutely correct in the clip that you refer to, and evolutionary experiments on bacteria and studying the frequency and types of mutations associated with malaria provide empirical evidence that Meyer is correct.
Any reference other than Meyer?
Sure ...
https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-S ... 743296222/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves- ... 062842617/
Second point...
Meyer did not say that is is impossible to create a functional DNA protein from scratch.
Meyer correctly states that "random" mutation and natural selection are incapable of creating a functional protein from scratch.
OK, that was what I meant. But the problem is that no evolutionist claims that! Evolution is development stepwise, its about evolution. Do you understand?
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.
And when you look at complex structures like DNA, random mutation is simply incapable of creating functional DNA proteins from scratch.
The weak link in the Darwinian process is random mutation, and Meyer is factually accurate and relevant in pointing that out.
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".
Last edited by DBowling on Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#187

Post by DBowling » Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:31 pm

DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm
The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below
I'll take a look...
Well, I'm glad you found one of the videos interesting :)

The point being discussed in this section of the video is exactly what I've been discussing already, the rarity and functionality of intermediate
steps.

If a beneficial mutation is too rare then destructive mutations will outpace beneficial mutations and the destructive mutations will prevent a stepwise path of beneficial mutations from ever occurring.
And this is exactly what we see empirically in nature. The most frequent mutations that we observe in the laboratory and in nature are deletions.

If there is no functional intermediate step then Natural Selection will not have anything to propagate and the evolutionary stepwise path will again be interrupted.

A couple of statements from Matheson stood out to me from this section of the video.
He acknowledges that the rarity of functional sequences is an 'open question'.
"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."

In other words Matheson was unable to rebut Meyer's primary premise that
random mutation and natural selection "is not a plausible mechanism for generating new functional biological information".

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#188

Post by Nils » Mon Sep 23, 2019 12:38 am

DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:44 pm
Nils wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 2:08 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sat Sep 21, 2019 3:06 am
Meyer does not shy away from debate.
He has publicly debated people who disagree with him on many occasions, and no one has yet to demonstrate that his arguments are incorrect.
Any reference?
Here's a good example...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW6egHV6jAw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQf29Pden30
These two clips are the continuation of the clip you referred to before. The first is a lecture by Meyer more than one hour. You may excuse me that I haven’t looked at it.
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.
The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below
I'll take a look...
He says that the possible variations of a DNA string is huge and only a very small fraction of all possible combinations of the DNA code is functional, which is correct. He also says that it is virtually impossible to do a random search, varying all codes and trying to find a new functional DNA starting from scratch. That is also correct. But evolution doesn’t work that way. It works by making small changes in an already functional DNA. The individuals that get bad mutations and their offspring will be ousted but the individuals the get good mutations and their offspring will flourish. Even if the latter are rather few they will take over in the long run. Meyer concedes to this saying that mutations can produce slight variations. What he and others that claim is that small variations (micro evolution) can’t produce macroevolution (new functions etc). But they have not the slightest proof of that statement.
Sure they do!

Through laboratory experiments and research into malaria, scientists now understand how genetic mutations work at the molecular level.
And based on the behavior of "random" mutation as observed in the laboratory and nature, Meyer is absolutely correct. The observed behavior of random mutation at the molecular level is simply incapable of producing the information that we see in the genetic code of life today.
Any reference?
https://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-E ... 061472794/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwins-Doubt-Ex ... 062071483/
As a support of Meyers ideas you only mention Meyers books!
Uh... yeah...
Can you think of a more accurate representation of Meyer's position than Meyer's published books?

But for this particular issue, a good place to start would be Darwin's Doubt, Chapter 12
Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math.
As I don't trust Meyer as you notice, more of his books isn't valuable.
You didn’t comment on my main critique (above) of his main argument in the video clip (between 4:28 and 6:10) about the impossibility of creating a functional DNA protein from scratch.
First point...
Meyer is absolutely correct in the clip that you refer to, and evolutionary experiments on bacteria and studying the frequency and types of mutations associated with malaria provide empirical evidence that Meyer is correct.
Any reference other than Meyer?
Sure ...
https://www.amazon.com/Edge-Evolution-S ... 743296222/
https://www.amazon.com/Darwin-Devolves- ... 062842617/
Well, Behe and Dembski are in the same camp.
Second point...
Meyer did not say that is is impossible to create a functional DNA protein from scratch.
Meyer correctly states that "random" mutation and natural selection are incapable of creating a functional protein from scratch.
OK, that was what I meant. But the problem is that no evolutionist claims that! Evolution is development stepwise, its about evolution. Do you understand?
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.
And when you look at complex structures like DNA, random mutation is simply incapable of creating functional DNA proteins from scratch.
"... from scratch". Yes, of coarse not.
The weak link in the Darwinian process is random mutation, and Meyer is factually accurate and relevant in pointing that out.
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

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#189

Post by DBowling » 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.

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.
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.
- 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.
- Empirical evidence tells us that random mutations primarily involve deletions not additions.
- Empirical evidence tells us that there is extremely complex information encoded in the DNA of life on our planet.
- Empirical evidence tells us that the generation of information requires mind or intelligence.

- 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.
And evolutionists (at least honest ones) will acknowledge that fact.

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."
These users liked this post by DBowling (total 2):
PaulSacramento (Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:34 am) • Philip (Mon Sep 23, 2019 5:42 am)

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9228
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada
Has liked: 124 times
Been liked: 349 times

Re: Atheist question

#190

Post by PaulSacramento » Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:39 am

This is were some people starting calling into question evolution.
There is no evidence ( much less proof) that information can come from random mutation.
This has never been documented in any experiment and has never been repeated.
It is totally ok to simply say, "we don't know yet".
That is what a real scientist would say when confronted with a question to which they do NOT have an answer and, at best have only an hypothesis ( not even a theory).

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 8643
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains
Has liked: 413 times
Been liked: 649 times

Re: Atheist question

#191

Post by Philip » Mon Sep 23, 2019 6:00 am

DB: 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.
And the above underlined is another immense and insurmountable problem for those who believe in unguided / Godless naturalism being capable of producing life and the enormous numbers of species that have existed on earth. The Cambrian alone, with its exceptionally narrow window supposedly having produced, via evolution / beneficial mutations, from very simple forms of life to huge amount of species with established predator / prey relationships - because no evolutionary scenario could explain it. As there simply wasn't nearly the amount of time such an event would require.

But, of course, atheists love the go on and on about their pseudo facts of what they think was possible via mere chance, when they first have absolutely NO mechanism for producing the events of the Big Bang or, eventually, the first life that came into existence. Explain how a universe immediately began organizing itself with just the right elements, with things of incredible designs and functionalities, adhering immediately to sophisticated laws - and this is all WAY before even the first lifeforms even existed. So, explain that and THEN argue about an unproven mechanism that would have been entirely dependent upon what came many billions of years before there was anything alive to evolve. Atheists / agnostics passionate about evolutionary arguments are like the magician who tries to distract from what should really be focused on / explained!

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#192

Post by Nils » Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:53 am

DB, this is an answer to your #187
DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:31 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm
The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below
I'll take a look...
Well, I'm glad you found one of the videos interesting :)

The point being discussed in this section of the video is exactly what I've been discussing already, the rarity and functionality of intermediate
steps.

If a beneficial mutation is too rare then destructive mutations will outpace beneficial mutations and the destructive mutations will prevent a stepwise path of beneficial mutations from ever occurring.
And this is exactly what we see empirically in nature. The most frequent mutations that we observe in the laboratory and in nature are deletions.

If there is no functional intermediate step then Natural Selection will not have anything to propagate and the evolutionary stepwise path will again be interrupted.
The problem with your argument is your use of "intermediate step(s)". In evolution theory the standard evolution is without intermediate steps if you by intermediate steps mean a genetic code that is inferior than the code before a mutation. In the standard evolution e v e r y step is beneficial and Mayers (and yours) argument is besides the point.
A couple of statements from Matheson stood out to me from this section of the video.
He acknowledges that the rarity of functional sequences is an 'open question'.
"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."

In other words Matheson was unable to rebut Meyer's primary premise that
random mutation and natural selection "is not a plausible mechanism for generating new functional biological information".
What he and Meyer discussed 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 cource 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.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#193

Post by DBowling » Mon Sep 23, 2019 10:33 am

Nils wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 9:53 am
DB, this is an answer to your #187
DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 5:31 pm
DBowling wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 4:42 pm
Nils wrote:
Sun Sep 22, 2019 1:37 pm
The second is more interesting, between 7:45 and 17:40. Stephen Matheson tries to discuss exactly the question that I brought up below
I'll take a look...
Well, I'm glad you found one of the videos interesting :)

The point being discussed in this section of the video is exactly what I've been discussing already, the rarity and functionality of intermediate
steps.

If a beneficial mutation is too rare then destructive mutations will outpace beneficial mutations and the destructive mutations will prevent a stepwise path of beneficial mutations from ever occurring.
And this is exactly what we see empirically in nature. The most frequent mutations that we observe in the laboratory and in nature are deletions.

If there is no functional intermediate step then Natural Selection will not have anything to propagate and the evolutionary stepwise path will again be interrupted.
The problem with your argument is your use of "intermediate step(s)". In evolution theory the standard evolution is without intermediate steps if you by intermediate steps mean a genetic code that is inferior than the code before a mutation. In the standard evolution e v e r y step is beneficial and Mayers (and yours) argument is besides the point.
My argument focuses on the concept of "functional" steps.
The reason "functional" steps are so important is because Natural Selection will only propagate functional mutations.

So the question becomes, what is the complexity of the mutations that are required to get from one functional state that Natural Selection will propagate to another functional state that Natural Selection will propagate?
(ie the rarity and distance between functional states that Matheson and Meyer discuss in your clip.)

And if the complexity of the mutation required to get from one functional state to another functional state exceeds the observed complexity that random mutation is capable of, then we can empirically determine that random mutation is incapable of bridging the gap between those functional states.

Hence Matheson's admission...
"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."

Nils
Valued Member
Posts: 431
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 6 times

Re: Atheist question

#194

Post by Nils » Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:21 am

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.

Nils

DBowling
Prestigious Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2015 8:23 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Has liked: 29 times
Been liked: 183 times

Re: Atheist question

#195

Post by DBowling » Tue Sep 24, 2019 4:56 am

Nils wrote:
Tue Sep 24, 2019 1:21 am
DBowling wrote:
Mon Sep 23, 2019 4:05 am
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.
I have seen nothing to indicate that Meyer's statement is factually incorrect.
If you have data to prove your assertion, I'm all ears.
But you need to do better than fact free assertions.
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.
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?
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.
Ok... I think I finally see the problem.
You and I are referring to different things when we use the word 'mutation'.
I think by 'mutation' you are referring to the change of an organism from one functional state to another functional state.
When I (and Meyer) use 'mutation' I am referring to changes to amino acids in a protein at the molecular level that cause the change in functional state of the organism.

So the issue becomes how many coordinated amino acid changes in a protein are required to move a biological organism from one functional state to a new more beneficial functional state.

This may be where we were talking past each other.
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"
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.
One example of empirical evidence involves comparing the ability of malaria to develop resistance to atovaquone (which requires one amino acid change) and chloroquine (which requires 2 coordinated amino acid changes).
The observed rate of malaria to adapt to atovaquone (which requires 2 coordinated amino acid changes) is 1 in 10^20 cells.
- 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
Of course you disagree... but your disagreement is based on inaccurate assumptions.

I would recommend going to your local library and checking out Darwin's Doubt.
Chapter 12 Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math has a good discussion on this topic with specific examples (such as the bolyerine snake). The Chapter is only 25 pages long, so you should be able to survive. :)
- Empirical evidence tells us that random mutations primarily involve deletions not additions.
Yes, so what? There are some beneficial mutations, that’s enough.
No that's no where close to enough...
The vast majority of 'beneficial' mutations that we observe in the lab and in nature involve deleting information at the molecular level.
So the existence of beneficial mutations does not equate to adding information to the DNA.

We do not see any empirical evidence to support the premise that random mutation is able to infuse new information (which requires insertions not deletions) into the DNA that we see in life today.
- Empirical evidence tells us that there is extremely complex information encoded in the DNA of life on our planet.
Yes, so what?
That is the big question.
We know that information has been infused into the DNA of the biosphere of our planet.
Empirical observation demonstrates that random mutation is incapable of infusing information into the biosphere of our planet.

So...
What is responsible for infusing information into the biosphere of our planet?
- Empirical evidence tells us that the generation of information requires mind or intelligence.
Certainly not, I will discuss this later.
I can't wait to see your empirical evidence for that...
- 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!
Again... show me the empirical evidence...
"They're working on it" is not evidence and it is not a compelling argument either.

Post Reply