"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
How is a "good" gene normal? What is determining that?touchingcloth wrote:As in zoegirls example the "good" gene could be normal, and the "bad" gene could be a sickle cell variation. Clearly this will alter the survival rates of individuals carrying the good vs the bad gene, and therefore the frequency of that gene in the population.
In this example, not a sickle cell gene.Gman wrote:How is a "good" gene normal? What is determining that?touchingcloth wrote:As in zoegirls example the "good" gene could be normal, and the "bad" gene could be a sickle cell variation. Clearly this will alter the survival rates of individuals carrying the good vs the bad gene, and therefore the frequency of that gene in the population.
In detail please...
Yes, because now we are dealing with information that has been altered by an intelligent designer..touchingcloth wrote: Let's say it was plonked there, fully formed. In fact, let's say that god - your god - plonked it there, fully formed. Does that alter what I said about different genotypes causing different survival rates?
Not good enough... More info needed.touchingcloth wrote: In this example, not a sickle cell gene.
All I'm saying is that God is the intelligence behind the information that is DNA. I think this is far more reasonable than saying this information arose naturally. The materialists have no explanation for the existence of information because all information we know the origin of comes from intelligent beings. How God did it is a mystery. I'm not positing God as a puppet master, Zoe, and I'm not trying to fill any gaps for the sake of filling them. Logic demands that this information could not have arisen by natural, material means.zoegirl wrote:Of course not....but whether God "poofs" DNA or RNA into existence or whether He worked through seemingly random processes does not negate the fact that HE WORKED. HE CAUSED them to happen.Ask yourself: is God unintelligent, then? Is he a bit of a thicky?
Right now, currently, we don't know how DNA or RNA was built. Perhaps God did "poof" them into existence. Perhaps He worked through the conditions of the early earth. Right now in the lab, we cannot recreate the conditions..
I see your point, but if this sequential steps scenario was discovered then I fail to see how that would negate God for the theist. I myself am hardly hanging my hat on this or staking any theological chips on this; I'm merely making a logical step in saying there is an infinite chasm that separates information from non-information, living things from non-living. It is not decrying the scientific process to state the obvious inference of information/code/intelligence. I fail to see how this impedes science.zoegirl wrote:Will we ever? (doubtful)....HOWEVER...our saying that He COULD NOT have worked through conditions in early earth has essentially declared the conditions to reject God. We are saying RIGHT NOW that if, tomorrow, they declared that they found an experiment in the lab that showed DNA or RNA being made in sequential steps, then they have fulfilled our conditions. They will have shown what we have declared to be impossible.
That, in essence, is God of the Gaps. We DON't know how DNA or RNA was created. That doesn't mean that a mechanism doesn't exist, NOR does that mechansim show in any way that God would not be involved...
yes, I agree.zoegirl wrote:absolutely they have stifled thinking out there. Their stubborness, however, shouldn't mean that we throw out the possibility that God worked through seemingly natural events.DannM wrote: I personally am not trying to fill any gaps; on the contrary, I'm following the rationality and the logic. Evolutionists who trot out the old "ongoing research" and "who knows what we might discover in ...years" are just stating the blindingly obvious and, in doing so, some are actually attempting to STIFLE all other ideas with this vagues appeal to the future...
True, as Gman said, there is evolution of the gaps as well.This is like throwing their white coats over the gaps so no one can posit any other ideas...
You're right. For the record, I think it is a rational argument that infromation begs some intelligent designer.dAnny wrote:I see your point, but if this sequential steps scenario was discovered then I fail to see how that would negate God for the theist. I myself am hardly hanging my hat on this or staking any theological chips on this; I'm merely making a logical step in saying there is an infinite chasm that separates information from non-information, living things from non-living. It is not decrying the scientific process to state the obvious inference of information/code/intelligence. I fail to see how this impedes science.
Well, thanks for the advice, TC, but I'm very comfy in my logic up to this point. I have twice defined 100% inference for you and can only ask that you look back at my specific responses to your asking me to do precisely that...I'm in no way crying "proof" or saying the inference is set in stone; I'm infering from everything we know of codes and information that DNA has come from an intelligence. Nobody in science has ever seen information spontaneously arise by chance. Now, if you're willing to remain agnostic and non-committal as to where DNA came from then fair enough. I at least respect you for not taking the oft-illogical leap that many atheists/scientists take by saying it "must have" arisen by chance. My position is highly logical as it is based on *everything* we know about the origin of information and codes. That you cannot see this is just baffling to me.touchingcloth wrote:No - I've accepted your broad definition of an intelligent mind. Then when I narrowed that down to man specifically (you've still not defined what you mean by 100% inference, so by what I've gleaned so far it should also hold for "man" as well as "intelligence") you cried unfair. Whether you say man or intelligence I'll still say your logic is invalid. I'd urge you to seek out a career logician to see what they say about the proposition "all codes we definitely know the origin of are created by intelligence, therefore all codes (whether we know the origin of them or not) are created by intelligence". If that isn't your proposition then please correct me.
Amen to that sister. I'm whacked! 5am in the morning here and I'm up a 7. Oh no...zoegirl wrote:You're right. For the record, I think it is a rational argument that infromation begs some intelligent designer.dAnny wrote:I see your point, but if this sequential steps scenario was discovered then I fail to see how that would negate God for the theist. I myself am hardly hanging my hat on this or staking any theological chips on this; I'm merely making a logical step in saying there is an infinite chasm that separates information from non-information, living things from non-living. It is not decrying the scientific process to state the obvious inference of information/code/intelligence. I fail to see how this impedes science.
I just think we need to be very careful in our language as Christians. What we see as impossible from a "natural" standpoint...could that simply be a refelction of our ignorance and limitations?
See, to me, it is a very beautiful idea that God is the conductor of the creation events. That He would, in seemingly chaotic events, draw order from chaos, information out of non-information, is stunning. Far, far more beautiful than simply "there".
Hey, you! Hope you enjoyed your lay in...zoegirl wrote:ditto, should be in bed...east coast it's midnight!! Only defense....I can sleep in tomorrow.
Hehe 
If you're not crying proof or saying that the inference is set in stone, then that points to the fact that your position isn't based purely on logic. If you said that all codes we know are made by intelligence, therefore all codes we encounter must also be, then I'd agree if you said this was a reasonable, or a likely assumption. The fact that we don't ultimately know the origins of organic codes, coupled with the fact that they are only really related to human codes via analogy, is why I'm deeply sceptical of you presenting this as a purely a logical position.DannyM wrote:Well, thanks for the advice, TC, but I'm very comfy in my logic up to this point. I have twice defined 100% inference for you and can only ask that you look back at my specific responses to your asking me to do precisely that...I'm in no way crying "proof" or saying the inference is set in stone; I'm infering from everything we know of codes and information that DNA has come from an intelligence. Nobody in science has ever seen information spontaneously arise by chance. Now, if you're willing to remain agnostic and non-committal as to where DNA came from then fair enough. I at least respect you for not taking the oft-illogical leap that many atheists/scientists take by saying it "must have" arisen by chance. My position is highly logical as it is based on *everything* we know about the origin of information and codes. That you cannot see this is just baffling to me.
To that list I'd add 0) that random mutations can give rise to new alleles. But you've got the essence of my argument...that natural selection isn't some learned being that is sifting and sorting individual phenotypes, it's just the plain (and observed and necessary) fact that some individuals and their associated genes survive more than others. It's about as intelligent as a sieve, but has the same ability to sort.zoegirl wrote:I think the idea that he was asking here is the following
1) do you not agree that different alleles can produce different phenotypes?
2) Can some of these phenotypes lend a better fit to the environment than others?
...plonked? is that a word?
Yeah, but who engineered the Natural Selection Sieve?touchingcloth wrote: natural selection isn't some learned being that is sifting and sorting individual phenotypes, it's just the plain (and observed and necessary) fact that some individuals and their associated genes survive more than others. It's about as intelligent as a sieve, but has the same ability to sort.