Animal DNA modifier captured from bacteria 60 million years ago

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 1, 2022

horizontal gene transfer, Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Epigenetic marks are modifications to DNA bases that don’t change the underlying genetic code, but “write” extra information on top of it that can be inherited along with your genome. Epigenetic marks usually regulate gene expression — turn genes on or off — particularly during early development or when your body is under stress. They can also suppress “jumping genes” — transposable elements that threaten the integrity of your genome.
In humans and other eukaryotes, two principal epigenetic marks are known. A team from the Marine Biological Laboratory (MBL) has discovered a third, novel epigenetic mark — one formerly known only in bacteria — in bdelloid rotifers, small freshwater animals. This fundamental and surprising discovery is reported this week in Nature Communications.
“We discovered back in 2008 that bdelloid rotifers are very good at capturing foreign genes,” said senior author Irina Arkhipova, senior scientist in the MBL’s Josephine Bay Paul Center. “What we’ve found here is that rotifers, about 60 million years ago, accidentally captured a bacterial gene that allowed them to introduce a new epigenetic mark that was not there before.” This is the first time that a horizontally transferred gene has been shown to reshape the gene regulatory system in a eukaryote.
“This is very unusual and has not been previously reported,” Arkhipova said. “Horizontally transferred genes are thought to preferentially be operational genes, not regulatory genes. It is hard to imagine how a single, horizontally transferred gene would form a new regulatory system, because the existing regulatory systems are already very complicated.”
“It’s almost unbelievable,” said co-first author Irina Yushenova, a research scientist in Arkhipova’s lab. “Just try to picture, somewhere back in time, a piece of bacterial DNA happened to be fused to a piece of eukaryotic DNA. Both of them became joined in the rotifer’s genome and they formed a functional enzyme. That’s not so easy to do, even in the lab, and it happened naturally. And then this composite enzyme created this amazing regulatory system, and bdelloid rotifers were able to start using it to control all these jumping transposons. It’s like magic.”
Marine Biological Laboratory, “New DNA modification system discovered in animals, captured from bacteria more than 60 MYA” at ScienceDaily (February 28, 2022)

The obvious question this raises is, what about all the detailed Darwinian narratives that a horizontal gene transfer could obviate?

The paper is open access.

You may also wish to read: Horizontal gene transfer: Sorry, Darwin, it’s not your evolution any more.

Comments

Silver Asiatic All of that is true but I think the point of the argument is that if “King Arthur stayed here” was created by an unintelligent, random cause – then it’s not information at all.
Yes except is not possible for an unintelligent random cause to "compile" a ghost information that would seem a real information except is not information :lol: Square circle or circle square? This is what darwinists try to do.Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 3, 2022
March
03
Mar
3
03
2022
09:19 AM
9
09
19
AM
PDT}

JVL
You’ve already said you haven’t got the later, why can’t you just simply and clearly addressed the former?
I notice that you switched that up a bit. First you asked if "ID" could show detailed modelling of the development of life on earth. I pointed out that ID doesn't claim to do that. But then in the above, you say that "you" (meaning me, personally) haven't got it. So, you shifted from "ID" which is a scientific project, to "me". Yes, I could give you my arguments and understanding about God and what He did and does on earth, but that is not the science of ID.Silver Asiatic_{March 3, 2022
March
03
Mar
3
03
2022
07:05 AM
7
07
05
AM
PDT}

LCD All of that is true but I think the point of the argument is that if "King Arthur stayed here" was created by an unintelligent, random cause - then it's not information at all. It's just random marks on the rock. There's no intention to communicate anything, even though it looks like English and it looks like it is saying something about King Arthur. The fact is, the scratches on the rock know nothing about King Arthur. It's the same as what a rabbit would see there - it looks like words, but it isn't. Of course, it's statistically impossible for those words to form by random cause, but they could in some remote way - and if so, they're meaningless, even if you speak English. There's no connection from the words to the person King Arthur or the place "here" - it's just random scratches.Silver Asiatic_{March 3, 2022
March
03
Mar
3
03
2022
07:02 AM
7
07
02
AM
PDT}

Seversky
It’s curious that, on the one hand, the theory of evolution is accused of being unscientific because it isn’t modeled mathematically while, on the other hand, string theory or multiverse theory are also accused of being unscientific because they exist only as mathematical models – and accused by the same people. So which is it?
I don't think the "is science/is not science" argument is that important overall and I don't get into it very often. If ID is true, then it doesn't matter what you call it. People call it "pseudo-science" so they can ignore it, supposedly. But the categorization doesn't eliminate the argument or the evidence. But in any case, answering your question - I think it's "both". You have to have the rigorous mathematics along with the empirical evidence. Evolution is lacking the one. String theory the other. Science should have both otherwise it's just observation (empiricism with no math models) or it's just abstraction (math with no observations).Silver Asiatic_{March 3, 2022
March
03
Mar
3
03
2022
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT}

Seversky at 82, "You appeal to the questionable principle of the conservation of information, which implies that information can be neither created nor destroyed, and in the next breath claim that intelligent, immaterial minds can create what you just said could not be created. I believe this is called a contradiction, Only one of those claims can be true, not both." Seversky, as if you have not noticed, the contradiction lies with your Darwinian materialism, not with my Christian Theism. Specifically, the reductive materialistic foundation of your atheistic Darwinian worldview denies the existence of immaterial minds, (as well as denying the existence of immaterial souls which are capable of living beyond the death of material bodies). Thus when the law of 'conservation of information' points out the obvious fact that material processes are incapable of creating functional and/or meaningful (immaterial) information, (and yet immaterial, intelligent, minds are capable of creating functional and/or meaningful (immaterial) information at will), the 'law of 'conservation of information' is merely pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that it is impossible for "stupid atoms (to) spontaneously write their own software,,, there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.”
“How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software … ? Nobody knows … … there is no known law of physics able to create information from nothing.” – Paul Davies, Life force, New Scientist 163(2204):27–30, 18 September 1999
Yet Darwinian materialists, in direct contradiction to this common sense fact that it is impossible for "stupid atoms (to) spontaneously write their own software”, hold that 'stupid atoms' somehow did write their own software, (and somehow write software that is far, far, more advanced than anything man has ever written in computer code thus far I might add) Hence the current 10 million dollar challenge to Darwinian materialists, (and via the law of 'conservation of information'), i.e. show just one example of coded information that comes from 'stupid atoms' and that does not come from an intelligent, immaterial, mind.
Evolution 2.0 Prize: Unprecedented $10 Million Offered To Replicate Cellular Evolution – Jan, 2020 An incentive prize ten times the size of the Nobel – believed to be the largest single award ever in basic science – is being offered to the person or team solving the largest mystery in history: how genetic code inside cells got there, and how cells intentionally self-organize, communicate, then purposely adapt. This $10 million challenge, the Evolution 2.0 Prize can be found at http://www.evo2.org. ,,, “A germ resisting antibiotics does more programming in 12 minutes than a team of Google engineers can do in 12 days,” said Marshall. “One blade of grass is 10,000 years ahead of any computer. If a single firm in Silicon Valley held a fraction of the secrets of this natural code inside a single cell, they’d set the NASDAQ on fire. Organisms self-edit and reprogram in real time in a way that dwarfs anything manmade. If we crack this, it will literally change the course of aging, disease, A.I. and humanity.” https://www.prnewswire.com/in/news-releases/evolution-2-0-prize-unprecedented-10-million-offered-to-replicate-cellular-evolution-875038146.html
Verse and Quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
Supplemental note:
Recognising Top-Down Causation - George Ellis Excerpt: Definition 2: Existence If Y is a physical entity made up of ordinary matter, and X is some kind of entity that has a demonstrable causal effect on Y as per Definition 1, then we must acknowledge that X also exists (even if it is not made up of such matter). This is clearly a sensible and testable criterion; in the example above, it leads to the conclusion that both the data and the relevant software exist. If we do not adopt this definition, we will have instances of uncaused changes in the world; I presume we wish to avoid that situation.,,, Excerpt: page 5: A: Both the program and the data are non-physical entities, indeed so is all software. A program is not a physical thing you can point to, but by Definition 2 it certainly exists. You can point to a CD or flashdrive where it is stored, but that is not the thing in itself: it is a medium in which it is stored. The program itself is an abstract entity, shaped by abstract logic. Is the software “nothing but” its realisation through a specific set of stored electronic states in the computer memory banks? No it is not because it is the precise pattern in those states that matters: a higher level relation that is not apparent at the scale of the electrons themselves. It’s a relational thing (and if you get the relations between the symbols wrong, so you have a syntax error, it will all come to a grinding halt). This abstract nature of software is realised in the concept of virtual machines, which occur at every level in the computer hierarchy except the bottom one [17]. But this tower of virtual machines causes physical effects in the real world, for example when a computer controls a robot in an assembly line to create physical artefacts. Excerpt page 7: The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.2275.pdf
bornagain77_{March 3, 2022
March
03
Mar
3
03
2022
03:21 AM
3
03
21
AM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic If you found a rock in a forest in Glastonbury England that was etched with the words “King Arthur stayed here”
There are few levels of perception that would help us to narrow down the concept of information. If a rock is found by a rabbit “King Arthur stayed here” is noise/gibberish/invisible. If a rock is found by a Chinese that doesn't know English “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information but doesn't know the code to decode the meaning of the information. If a rock is found by a Chinese that started to learn English “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information but let's say there is one word that the Chinese didn't learn about yet. We have incomplete information and even as incomplete information we have few levels depending of the importance of that specific word in sentence. If a rock is found by an Englishman “King Arthur stayed here” is recognized as information and is decoded corectly finding the meaning. If a rock is found by an Englishman “Ki g Arthu stay d here” is recognized as information and his intelligence would help him to repair the missing info. Therefore a living cell (that is the Englishman) will survive because knows how to decode the MEANING :the alphabet /letter meaning , the word meaning, the sentence meaning . If he doesn't have all these keys/rules for decoding can't decode the information.Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77/61
JVL, the entire “mathematical” point of ‘conservation of information’ is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so.
You appeal to the questionable principle of the conservation of information, which implies that information can be neither created nor destroyed, and in the next breath claim that intelligent, immaterial minds can create what you just said could not be created. I believe this is called a contradiction, Only one of those claims can be true, not both.Seversky_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT}

It's curious that, on the one hand, the theory of evolution is accused of being unscientific because it isn't modeled mathematically while, on the other hand, string theory or multiverse theory are also accused of being unscientific because they exist only as mathematical models - and accused by the same people. So which is it?Seversky_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
06:43 PM
6
06
43
PM
PDT}

LCD
you just need to prove that any form of life has a goal/purpose :TO SURVIVE and use very complex feedback loops/systems that are coordonated and comunicate
That is right because blind, mindless nature has no reason to survive. There would be no reason for the fight for survival or the competition for resources, or to have any meaning at all. Living or non-living they both come from the same blind, unintelligent, meaningless source. The fact that living things seek survival and even protect themselves against death and against harmful mutations (fixing their own cells) is all evidence of an intelligent source. I read an interesting argument. If you found a rock in a forest in Glastonbury England that was etched with the words "King Arthur stayed here", it could have been caused by accidental formation on the rock (virtually impossible but it could happen). If it did happen that way, there would not be any real semantic information on the rock - because there would be no intention to communicate. There were just scratches and bumps on the rock that spelled those words. But there would be no meaning contained. Nobody could think that the rock had anything to do with King Arthur. The rock would provide no evidence about the life of King Arthur or be any kind of memorial to him - it would be just meaningless scratches that happened to spell words. If, however, the words were purposely etched in the rock, there would be tremendous value and meaning to the same rock because it would contain an intelligently designed message and may be evidence of King Arthur's travels. The same is true of the human mind. If it was caused (like the rock was etched) by unintelligent, blind nature - then it could not contain meaning. It would just be like those scratch marks, accidentally looking like something meaningful but no more significant than any other set of scratches. The fact that the human mind does interpret semantic information means it must have been created by intelligence. This argument has nothing to do with the probability that the information was caused randomly but only that non-intelligent forces cannot confer purpose or meaning.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT}

JVL Going back to a previous question - let's just put this to rest:
[after one accepts the ID inference] And then what? What models do you have? What research agenda do you have? What science is there to do after that?
As with any syllogism, you have to accept the first premise before going farther. In this case, you have to sign-on to the ID inference. You can't say "I reject the idea that there is evidence of intelligence in nature" and then ask "but what comes after that"? You have to show good faith. ID is making a case for one thing, not for everything. Accept the ID inference and then we can talk about what comes after. The fact is, if we're talking about God or some demi-urge or a deist entity, or a pantheistic force - none of these are the subject of physical sciences since they're immaterial entities. The topic moves to philosophy at that point. ID is a physical science project - it's talking about observed, material evidence.
AND do you have a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth?
You understand that you cannot model an immaterial entity. ID shows that materialism is false in its claim for the origin of life and of the universe (and even the development of life). If God is the designer of the world, as evidence indicates and many accept, then you're not going to be successful with mathematical models about what God does or has done. That is the realm of philosophy and theology at that point. You cannot do empirical direct observations on immaterial essences.
Right, so narrow that down a bit: specifically, what kind of evidence regarding multiple mutations would you accept?
To start, I'd just look at the mathematics. How many mutations are required in the transition of bacteria to human? Of those, how many simultaneous mutations were required? Taking the ordinary calculations for average mutation rates and the length of time needed for the fixation of beneficial mutations I could evaluate if that proposal is reasonable or not. We'd need to determine first how long it will take for bacteria to evolve into eukaryotes.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic We’re trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth. We can model what an intelligent process produces and match it against what a blind, unintelligent process produces. Then we draw an inference from that.
:lol: Atheists ask to ID proponents to prove the technology used to create life othewise they don't believe that ID is scientific. You can't make this stuff up! You don't need to prove the technology (because is out of reach for human intelligence) you just need to prove that any form of life has a goal/purpose :TO SURVIVE and use very complex feedback loops/systems that are coordonated and comunicate so as the goal of survivability is accomplished. These evidences are already provided by ...the very darwinists . They already identified the purpose and the systems (functional information). Now after darwinists themselves proved ID as scientific it's time to invalidate ID by proving how functional information can emerge from random processes . Good luck! :lol:Lieutenant Commander Data_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

JVL
what mathematical model can you provide which shows how ID affected the development of life on Earth?
Can you accept the fact that ID does not propose a solution to that problem? It's like asking: "How does ID identify the nature of the designer of life?" That's not a part of the theory.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Behe’s proposal is that evolution cannot produce two mutations required to increase functional information. Sigh. I do not understand why you cannot answer my questions? What evidence would you accept? AND do you have a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth? You've already said you haven't got the later, why can't you just simply and clearly addressed the former? You can ask KF also about the limits on fCSI – he has the numbers on that. There is a threshold of increase of information that cannot be surpassed, but which is required for evolution. I'm asking you! Why is that so hard to understand? What evidence would you accept? Is there any evidence you would accept? Ok, but I don’t know what your best evidence is. Please share it and I’ll let you know – maybe it will change my mind. I want to know what you would accept first; that's not an unreasonable request. Why waste time? That sounds reasonable. One should know what would refute their theory. Exactly. This is taking a very long time. Is it reasonable to expect 3 simultaneous beneficial mutations? Behe is only looking for two. Keeping in mind, you’re trying to explain the development of all life forms on earth – from bacteria evolving to humans. The waiting time for 2 mutations is prohibitive. But that’s a very low expectation. I’d say there had to be situations where more than 3 beneficial mutations were required to develop certain features. If so, that can be projected mathematically. Is there enough time in the history of the universe for that many simultaneous mutations to occur? Right, so narrow that down a bit: specifically, what kind of evidence regarding multiple mutations would you accept? It's late where I live, I'll reply sometime tomorrow but I need to call it a night now. sorry.JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
02:02 PM
2
02
02
PM
PDT}

JVL
Because I already know the answer to that!
Ok, but I don't know what your best evidence is. Please share it and I'll let you know - maybe it will change my mind.
Either they don’t know or there isn’t any situation that would change their mind. In which case their position is not scientific.
That sounds reasonable. One should know what would refute their theory.
Is there a reasonable, achievable scenario that would change your mind?
Is it reasonable to expect 3 simultaneous beneficial mutations? Behe is only looking for two. Keeping in mind, you're trying to explain the development of all life forms on earth - from bacteria evolving to humans. The waiting time for 2 mutations is prohibitive. But that's a very low expectation. I'd say there had to be situations where more than 3 beneficial mutations were required to develop certain features. If so, that can be projected mathematically. Is there enough time in the history of the universe for that many simultaneous mutations to occur?Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: I answered the question and you have repeatedly, and unreasonably, refused to accept it. No, you did not answer the question: can you provide a mathematical model explaining how ID affected the development of life on Earth. The sad thing is you never even tried to answer that question. It's like you didn't actually even understand the question. You just keep grabbing bits from your database of responses but, sadly for you, I'm asking a question for which you do not have a slew of answers already. So you just grabbed stuff that you hoped was close and/or would put me off. That didn't work. Now you just look foolish and wrong. Would you like to try again: what mathematical model can you provide which shows how ID affected the development of life on Earth? If you have none then just say: I can't do that. Easy peasy. The mature and adult thing to do.JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:58 PM
1
01
58
PM
PDT}

JVL
Be explicit: what kind of counter-example would you accept as clear and unambiguous evidence?
Behe's proposal is that evolution cannot produce two mutations required to increase functional information.
In 2010, research published by molecular biologist Ann Gauger of the Biologic Institute, Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin-Superior, and two other biologists provided empirical backing to the claims of Axe and Behe. Their team started by breaking a gene in the bacterium E. coli required for synthesizing the amino acid tryptophan. When the bacteria’s genome was broken in just one place, random mutations were capable of “fixing” the gene. But when two mutations were required to restore function, Darwinian evolution could not do the job.
You can ask KF also about the limits on fCSI - he has the numbers on that. There is a threshold of increase of information that cannot be surpassed, but which is required for evolution.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:55 PM
1
01
55
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Materialists have to say that sort of thing happened at some point. Why don't ID proponents have to say the same thing? Time exists, life developed in a certain sequence. Why can't you address those questions? But if you want us to give you life forms already, self-replicating organisms, then you could take the simplest of them and show us, over 40,000 generations (a million human years) a significant increase in new functional complexity. Actually, there’s a lot you could show. What if it takes longer than that? Are you just going to call it a day after some arbitrary period? Again, what would you accept as evidence? Why not just give us your best evidence and ask why we don’t accept it? Because I already know the answer to that! I'm not a recent visitor you know. That's why I'm asking: what would you accept? You're trying to answer the question but most don't. Either they don't know or there isn't any situation that would change their mind. In which case their position is not scientific. Is your position scientific? Is there a reasonable, achievable scenario that would change your mind?JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT}

I 'explicitly' answered the question and you have repeatedly, and very unreasonably, refused to accept the answer
JVL “Is there any evidence that I could provide that would change your mind (about Darwinian evolution)?” Sure, and you can pocket 10 million dollars in the process, (not to mention a Nobel prize). Just prove that the unguided material processes can create coded information.,,, https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/animal-dna-modifier-captured-from-bacteria-60-million-years-ago/#comment-748377
Hence my statement, "Whatever, I’ve got better things to do." (than argue with an unreasonable troll)bornagain77_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:52 PM
1
01
52
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Whatever, I’ve got better things to do. I'm sure you can spend a lot of time not answering questions. As long as you admit you couldn't answer the question.JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: ID theory never proposed a solution for that problem. It’s like asking biology to explain how God created the cosmos. Biology doesn’t address that. Nor does ID. What is ID good for if it can't explain how life developed? We’re trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth. I know what you're trying to get me to accept. I'm trying to figure out if I accept that then where do you go from there? And no one can tell me what comes next. We’re only asking you to accept that much evidence and that much of a conclusion – not more. And then what? What models do you have? What research agenda do you have? What science is there to do after that?JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

JVL
Again, that sort of thing is NOT what unguided evolutionary theory is saying happened.
Materialists have to say that sort of thing happened at some point. But if you want us to give you life forms already, self-replicating organisms, then you could take the simplest of them and show us, over 40,000 generations (a million human years) a significant increase in new functional complexity. Actually, there's a lot you could show. Why not just give us your best evidence and ask why we don't accept it?Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:46 PM
1
01
46
PM
PDT}

Whatever, I've got better things to do.bornagain77_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: JVL, the entire “mathematical” point of ‘conservation of information’ is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so. Material processes cannot not do so. PERIOD. Even if given the entire 14 billion year history, and the entire probabilistic resources, of the entire universe. That is not answering the question of how ID affected the development of life on Earth. All it would take to falsify ID and establish Darwinian evolution as a legitimate science, (instead of the pseudoscience that it actually is) would be one counterexample. You don’t have any such counterexamples. Be explicit: what kind of counter-example would you accept as clear and unambiguous evidence?JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:44 PM
1
01
44
PM
PDT}

JVL
But you keep trying and trying to get me to accept something which you have not provided.
We're trying to get you to accept that there is evidence that intelligence was involved in the creation of life on earth. We can model what an intelligent process produces and match it against what a blind, unintelligent process produces. Then we draw an inference from that. We're only asking you to accept that much evidence and that much of a conclusion - not more.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: I gave you an example with the randomized text. If you could show that, I’d be convinced in the power of blind, unintelligent matter to produce complex, semantic meaning. Okay, but since no one is proposing that's the kind of thing that unguided evolution did then why would I work on that? That’s a very minor challenge to meet, given what is claimed for blind material processes. Again, that sort of thing is NOT what unguided evolutionary theory is saying happened.JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:41 PM
1
01
41
PM
PDT}

Silver Asiatic: Ok, fair enough. However, you’re asking for something that ID does not claim to show. FINALLY! WHY did that take so long? Why cannot ID provide such a thing? What ID is attempting is to show that it exists. So, the first part of your statement – yes. If ID exists, then the theory is validated. And, if ID is not a science stopper, then it's fair to ask how it played out in the development of life is it not? How life played out on earth is not something ID theory has proposed an answer for. So, it’s unreasonable to ask that. But surely that is the point of being a 'better' explanation is it not? That it can explain how life developed in a better way? You’re right, I was missing your question here. You’re looking for something that ID does not attempt to show. The theory does not propose a solution to that problem. It has a limited focus – only that certain aspects of nature are best described as the product of intelligent design. In other words, we have evidence that intelligence was involved. Again, you spent reply after reply after reply missing my point. Sigh. And, again, why is it not fair to ask of ID to explain how it affected the development of life especially if it purports to be a 'better' explanation for that? How, when, where and who was the intelligence – those are not part of the theory. Scientific theories work that way. They attempt to show one thing, not every possible thing. But, is ID a 'better' explanation if it cannot addressed how it was implemented and how it affected the development of life on Earth? What is it actually explaining then?JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:39 PM
1
01
39
PM
PDT}

JVL
I keep asking: do you have a mathematical model for how ID acts in the development of life on Earth.
ID theory never proposed a solution for that problem. It's like asking biology to explain how God created the cosmos. Biology doesn't address that. Nor does ID.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:38 PM
1
01
38
PM
PDT}

JVL, the entire "mathematical" point of 'conservation of information' is that immaterial, intelligent, minds, can create functional information at will, WHENEVER they so desire to do so. Material processes cannot not do so. PERIOD. Even if given the entire 14 billion year history, and the entire probabilistic resources, of the entire universe. If fact, every time you yourself, via your free will, choose to write a simple sentence you are providing direct evidence that ID is true since the probabilistic resources of the entire material universe are grossly inadequate to explain the simple sentence you yourself chose to write All it would take to falsify ID and establish Darwinian evolution as a legitimate science, (instead of the pseudoscience that it actually is) would be one counterexample of unguided material processes creating meaningful information. You don't have any such counterexamples.bornagain77_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

Please be clear: what kind of evidence would you accept? Not what don’t you accept, what kind of evidence would you accept?
I gave you an example with the randomized text. If you could show that, I'd be convinced in the power of blind, unintelligent matter to produce complex, semantic meaning. That's a very minor challenge to meet, given what is claimed for blind material processes.Silver Asiatic_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77: HUH? Do you, besides being desperately unreasonable, also have a reading comprehension issue? I keep asking: do you have a mathematical model for how ID acts in the development of life on Earth. You keep NOT answering that question and posting lots of stuff which has nothing to do with the question. Why not just be mature and honest and admit you haven't got such a model instead of dancing and dodging away?JVL_{March 2, 2022
March
03
Mar
2
02
2022
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply