DannyM wrote:zoegirl wrote:Yes, amazingly enough, there were things to see there if you actually took the time to read and cared enough to ask more specific questions. But it seems that you are only interested in puffing up your own feathers. It's not hard to see why some scientists are frustrated in discussing this. I am a firm believer and I am frustrated by your schoolyard tactics.
Hmm, so I'll look below as you appear to make another attempt. Fingers crossed eh…Oh by the way, you do not know me and you know nothing of my motivations so be advised and refrain from personalising your posts; after all, you are in a position to know better, right?
I know your posts and they are simply rude. Whatever your motivations are, I don't know certainly. That would be why I included the "seems" in my post.
zoegirl wrote:There is no apology that I need to say to you.
To change someone's username (other than an abbreviation) from man to boy is an obvious slam on the person. Together with the fingers-in-the-ear strategy of just declaring the other person wrong and not saying anything, you have shown that you aren't really interested in the other person's thoughts.
Yes I was 'outing' the person; damn right! You accused me of name-calling, of which it was nothing of the sort. And if you'd paid attention you'd have noticed that TWICE I asked for the person's thoughts on TWO different issues: 1) Dawkins' Climbing Mount Improbable and 2) the person's astonishing LACK of actual thought in his posts. Called out twice + twice failing to respond + ignoring further repeated requests to respond = being VERY interested in the person's thoughts. Please re-read if you doubt me…
There are better and more mature ways to reveal the lack in someone's argument.
zoegirl wrote:The points that I am trying to make are the following:
1. Chance is a concept that we as Christians are quite comfortable with and we can reconcile with a Sovereign Creator in other parts of our life. For example, we play cards, roll the dice, flip coins, with the understanding that these events follow predictable patterns. We have no issue with the idea that with these events, God, while still a sovereign God, has established a set of rules for random events. In other words, we reconcile the idea of chance, of random events, with that of a Sovereign God.
2. And yet somehow, with the process of evolution, we get hung up over this concept of random events. Now it seems that if God were the God governing chance and random events, then we as Christians can't be that worried about a process requiring chance events.
3. The issue, then, is whether these events are sufficient to provide the variation, not with the philosophy. Certainly God can work through random events.
1.I totally agree and have never derided chance per se; classic case of not reading me.
I have not tried to "read" you. In my first post I said "here's some food for thought". Amazingly enough, that means that I was looking for thoughts from people.
So to cut to the chase: please explain how evolution is random…? Are you saying God put into place a whole process of random evolution…? I really would like clarity before I respond… please.
Would you agree that flipping a coin is random? Drawing a card from a deck is random? Did God not put into place a process and mechanism for random processes? Is He not sovereign over these random events?
If so, He can certainly work through a mechanism that includes random processes such as gene mutations, chromosomal mutations, and genetic drift.
The question is whether that process is sufficient. Now right now, I have not been persuaded by the evidence that it is, merely that to build the argument around chance and random events as being sufficient to reject evolution is not a plausible argument. There must be more evidence from long-term experiments that help show whether mutations and chromosomal mutations can accumulate enough. We certainly know that they can produce some speciation events, but whether they can produce long-term change is still speculative. (you will say, of course not, but it still remains speculative)
2.I'm not in the least worried; I'm just waiting for substance to your words. I see the words “random” and “chance” but I see NOTHING by way of substance. I'm not even saying I disagree with part of what you say; but please, provide more than just empty words…
They are not hard to understand, DannyM. I have explained twice. Why don't you, instead of simply saying that there is not substance, pose some more questions about them. There is obviously substance in them. Perhaps you disagree, in which case a good discussion can take place. But you simply saying there is nothing to them is not productive.
3.Ahh, bingo! This is indeed THE issue. I'd like to refer you to Perry Marshall's “Information Theory” to see that such events would not provide the variation required.
I agree. Again, my posts were to provide food fro discussion, "thus the food for thought". They were also meant to help clarify the issue. Evolution is such a broad-sweeping term, encompassing both philosophy and science that it is always good to elaborate on the issue.
“Random mutation is noise. Noise is information entropy which is the irreversible destruction of information. Therefore random mutations by definition cannot be the source of new information in evolution. There has to be a different explanation for evolution.
(People constantly say to me: “But once in awhile noise could introduce a beneficial mutation.” To that I say, “Try it. Prove it.” People who've actually done this with any real-life information system know better. Communication engineers definitely know better.)”
http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/blog/ ... de-simple/
So let us try to pick ourselves up, share a big kiss and cuddle and move on...
I am perfectly fine and have no need to make up, thank you, despite your condescending tone. It's you that needs to move on. Let's actually discuss this instead of repeating over and over that there is no substance.
Mutations bring about changes in the informational code. It is plausible that they can bring about either neutral or beneficial changes. Changing one nucleotide can certainly (and in most cases does) cause major damage. It can be a neutral mutation, whereby the amino acid doesn't change at all (there is wobble and redundancy in the genetic code, which allows for some mutations to remain silent in their affect).
Changes in the hemoglobin gene that causes sickle cell anemia, for instance, will be beneficial in the areas with malaria. It affects oxygen carrying ability but persons that are heterozygote for sickle cell anemia will actually survive better in areas in the world stricken with malaria than those without a sickle cell gene. In this case, a change in the protein (resulting from one single base-pair change) will cause the shape of the red blood cell to be different enough to thwart the malaria protozoan from transmitting the disease. In this case, in that environment, this is a beneficial change. Does it affect oxygen transport? Sure....does it mean that you will survive longer? yes.
Are mutations statistically more damaging...absolutely! But it doesn't rule out the possibility.
Read the thread again: it was DannyM who insulted me. Anyway, don't worry, there'll be no more from me. 
