The Primary Axiom or Evolution is just a lie and should be replaced by Intelligent Design

a reply to: neoholographic

Do you understand what is meant by the term mutation? Because based on this reply I do not think you do.

It is a mutation. It provides new function. You may choose to ignore it. You will be wrong.

a reply to: Noinden

Still no examples of any new information or functions from a random mutation. Why do you make this assumption? How can a random mutation give meaning to a sequence of DNA letters? Could you point me to the experiment that shows this.

Like I said with the alphabet. If I scramble and shakeup letters from the alphabet and I see thatway, it only has meaning because intelligence gave the sequence of letters meaning. What you're saying is that random mutations somehow bestow meaning on a sequence of DNA letters and that's absurd.

Look at the TATA box

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.

www.nature.com...

So how can a random mutation give meaning to the sequence TATAAA that defines the direction of transcription and Transcription factors can bind to this sequence and know what DNA strand should be read.

Again, it makes no sense especially because we know and are learning the regulatory functions of what Darwinist called Junk DNA.

How does a random mutation give a sequence of DNA letters that regulate gene expression any meaning? Show me the evidence that shows random mutations give new function and meaning to a DNA sequence.

a reply to: rnaa

Since you didn't answer anymore regarding the word "blueprint" also used as a synonym for "code" in the video I was talking about after your elaborate maneuvering around the word "code" and going through the usual routine of denial of realities/facts and ending your comment with repeating your views regarding metaphors. Let's stick to the same dictionary...

merriam-webster: blueprint

...something resembling a blueprint (as in serving as a model or providing guidance); especially : a detailed plan or program of action

So what's next, another capitalization on the ambiguity of language trying to find a definition more to your liking and then confusing the point or even suggesting that a plan doesn't require the process of planning and a program doesn't require the process of programming? Or are we gonna allow that logical step but then deny that a planner(s) or programmer(s) was involved? Or is that logical step also still allowed but then we're gonna deny that intelligence was involved? Because Mother Nature has such wonderful planning, programming and designing capabilities? 'By necessity', as they say? Or nitpick about me including the word designing now all of a sudden as if that doesn't follow logically and I'm not justifying my use of certain words like you said in your comment?

Or are we gonna go back to trying to dissasociate from the topic of abiogenesis (by natural causes) and the origin of life by pretending nobody in this thread has ever repeated multiple times that the very founders of all current abiogenesis and primordial soup myths, famous evolutionary philosophers Haldane & Oparin, referred to their abiogenesis myth as "the chemical evolution theory of life", as wikipedia still does, and many others.

But now some people suddenly want to pretend that others in this thread are only allowed to talk about biological evolution when they mention the word "evolution" or "evolve" because that's what they use to define "evolution" and "evolve"? What's up with so many constantly repeating that argument regarding biological evolution as opposed to abiogenesis (without mentioning it's also called "chemical evolution" and "the chemical evolution theory of life")? How many times is that card going to be played before some of you acknowledge the existence and relevance of both the subjects chemical evolution as well as biological evolution to this thread seeing that both (see my previous quotations from wikipedia) are based on the same core philosophy from (Pantheism and) philosophical naturalism:

'(Mother) Nature did it' ('Gaia did it')

Which neoholographic gave some more details about by quoting Dr. Sanford in the OP about what he refers to as "the Primary Axiom":

The Primary Axiom is that man is merely the product of random mutations plus natural selection.

(chemical evolution followed by biological evolution)

Which you can also see on the wikipedia page for abiogenesis being discussed (which I quoted in one of the comments on the previous page, at the top perhaps, but you can also search that wikipage for "mutation" and "natural selection"). I prefer to phrase it as 'mutations acted upon by natural selection'.

And that the definition "change over time" is just used to give the other evolutionary philosophies more credibility and to confuse the matter, bring up red herrings and present a whole lot of nonsensical arguments about how things change over time, therefore, 'evolution is a fact'. Nice game of distraction from the actual facts.

Fact: DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code/blueprint.

You already agreed to this before I added the synonym.

Fact: a blueprint as the word is used above is a detailed plan or program of action.
(Linguistic) Fact: a plan or program initially requires the process of planning or programming
(Linguistic) Fact: planning and programming requires a planner(s) or a programmer(s)
(Logical correct conclusion and) Fact: the process of planning and programming requires a specific type of intelligence related to the plan or program in question

End of program. (oh and THAT was a metaphor in case you didn't notice)

Ok, maybe one last recommendation for everyone, try the word "plan" in the merriam-webster dictionary, search the page for "design". Then again, to some people, these words are all so vague they've lost all logical meaning to them.

Similar logical pathways follow from the other keywords I mentioned in that video. Should I repeat the video? It's so many pages ago (actually there were 2, I'll put 1 below):



keywords (maybe a few from the other video in here): code, encoded, programs, programmed, coordinated, blueprint, machine(s), information (oh boy is that last word a triggerword for those whose thoughts regarding that word have been warped, go ahead, open up the can of worms if you want)

a reply to: neoholographic

So again you will cite partial information, and not actually your own understanding of the matter? Well, that explains why you do not know what Mutations are. You also need to cite where you take your claims from, as you clearly cut and paste from a source, probably tthis.

I am also going to point out "Darwinists" will never talk about anything to do with DNA. As they are either social Darwinists, or they existed before DNA was identified as the carrier of genetic information.

I am sorry that you can not understand that mutation DOES lead to new function. Or that the example I provided does. THat is however not my problem. It is yours.

a reply to: PhotonEffect

It's understandable that biology would only concern itself with life once it's emerged.

But Biology DOESN'T 'only concern itself with life once it's emerged'. Biology has an active subdiscipline that concerns itself with the question of how life emerged from the pre-biotic envirenment. Its called Abiogenesis.

But with evolution, which is modelled on ancestors and lineages and phylogenetic trees and such, you can't ignore what the very first instance of life was.

Yes, you can. Because life exists. It can be looked at. It can be studied. You can ask questions about it that can be answered and the answers can be verified. You don't need to know whether life was created by a supernatural being or a lightning strike in a mud puddle or a chemical soup near a thermal sea vent to ask questions about how a wing developed.

And naturally one might then wonder what the previous ancestor to that was, and so on.

Sure, and biologists have that same wonder too. They are humans just like you and me.

Why do we consider life to be nothing but chemistry, but then ignore that same chemistry when it comes to how life came to be?

Who is ignoring it? Your question honestly makes no sense to me.

I share this video again for your listening and viewing pleasure one person's thoughts on how life could have started. Dr. Szostak is a Nobel Laureate in this field, so he is not just some snake-oil salesman. Notice that this is NOT the only thoughts on the matter, and the video is now several years old. Just Chemistry - from the beginning.

a reply to: cooperton

If evolution simply means change over time, then that means I evolve when I go up to higher altitudes, from the biochemical alterations that occur to adjust to the varying oxygen levels. Surely that is not evolution.

Your concern here is genuine. I tried to explain that the word 'evolution' is a very generic term, but that it has a very precise meaning when applied to biology.

PhotonEffect gave a more precise definition that I did: "the biological definition of evolution is more technically known as a shift in allele distribution/frequencies within a population."

A key word there is population. In Biology, evolution refers to the changes over time in POPULATIONS, not individuals. So you going up a mountain and experiencing temporary changes to your body chemistry is NOT biological evolution, because you are an individual, not a population.

a reply to: cooperton

So yes, it is theorized that RNA organisms came first

No it isn't.

It is HYPOTHESIZED that RNA organisms came first.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, and there may never be one.

originally posted by: rnaa
a reply to: cooperton

So yes, it is theorized that RNA organisms came first

No it isn't.

It is HYPOTHESIZED that RNA organisms came first.

There is no theory of abiogenesis, and there may never be one.

No it isn't.

It is FANTASIZED that mythological logically impossible* RNA organisms came first. (* = well proven by research, but conveniently denied as so many facts that have been discovered in the last century)

And what Huxley (a.k.a. Darwin's Bulldog) referred to as the "hypothesis of abiogenesis" was referred to as "the chemical evolution theory of life" by Haldane & Oparin. Go ahead, you can deny and talk past the facts again and distract with your red herrings and make it a debate about the definition of "evolution". I'll be quiet now (after these 2 videos).

I encourage everyone who reads the comments on this thread including the names I will mention now to try the following (used as an analogy regarding your mind) with all of the arguments, teachings and philosophies presented by Krazysh0t, Barcs, rnaa, Phantom423, Noinden, TzarChazm, Cypress, etc. (you'll probably need to increase the volume):



And please don't be like this:

originally posted by: rnaa

A key word there is population. In Biology, evolution refers to the changes over time in POPULATIONS, not individuals. So you going up a mountain and experiencing temporary changes to your body chemistry is NOT biological evolution, because you are an individual, not a population.

Yeah this is why I also gave an example of how a population changing is also not evolution:

when Japheth migrated north through the Caucus mountains giving rise to the Caucasian skin tone because less skin pigment is more relevant to higher lattitudes (where there is less annual sun). Surely this also is not evolution, but is pre-existent alleles shifting within the population. The same could be said if short people began to selectively mate with eachother, it would result in a shorter population - this is not evolution though. Unless a shorter or lighter average population would be considered evolved?

originally posted by: Barcs

You are confusing 2 different hypotheses here. Abiogenesis and RNA World hypothesis are not the same thing, plus both are unverified and unproven in science. It could only be considered evolution if RNA already had most of those features, and then life slowly evolved so that the earlier simpler RNA eventually became the complex DNA we see today.

I tend to agree with that version, but the OP is talking about the emergence of certain features necessary for replication and evolution. This falls into the abiogenesis category.

He is not asking how RNA evolved into DNA, he's specifically referring to how certain features and functionality of RNA/DNA first emerged. Without the functions he refers to, evolution could not occur, so they couldn't be the results of evolution. Natural selection and environment pressure, sure. Evolution... no.

I can score on a stationary goal post, but if the theoretical framework is shifted away every time I present a logical impossibility, there is nothing I can do. One of the problems with evolution is that it leaves a very HUGE leap for abiogenesis to manifest the first viable cell. Do you really think no intelligent faculty was involved in the generation of the simplest possible bacteria: Machinery Involved in the Simplest Microbe

[back to discussing evolution]: Even once this is accomplished, evolution is constantly presented with the chicken-or-the-egg paradox... How can a gene and the necessary regulators for said gene evolve simultaneously? One is rare enough, let alone two or more at the same time. Let alone the probability that this doesn't completely disrupt equilibrium of the organisms... and don't forget, the template gene which was mutated is now no longer working normally.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
But Biology DOESN'T 'only concern itself with life once it's emerged'. Biology has an active subdiscipline that concerns itself with the question of how life emerged from the pre-biotic envirenment. Its called Abiogenesis.

I'm sorry, I just consider Abiogenesis to be more a matter of organic chemistry, or in other words a subdiscipline of chemistry.

originally posted by: rnaa
You can ask questions about it that can be answered and the answers can be verified. You don't need to know whether life was created by a supernatural being or a lightning strike in a mud puddle or a chemical soup near a thermal sea vent to ask questions about how a wing developed.

You seem to act as if all questions that we have about how life works and how it evolves have been/can be answered and verified. I think we can all reasonably agree, that's not true at all. There's much more that we don't have a clue about then we actually think we do know about. And I think it is only your opinion when you state we don't need to know about how it all got started to perhaps better understand how morphological forms develop.

Do you have any idea how a wing developed? Or better yet, where the specifications for its aerodynamics properties came from? The materials to use? The structure? And how it evolved not just once, but multiple times in all sorts of different classes of organisms (convergent evolution is not an answer btw, it only classifies the phenomenon). And it's not just the wing, but then it has to obey the laws of physics too. And how about the behavior needed to operate a set of wings? To fly? The information has to come from somewhere. If it's embedded in these molecules or proteins then how is this information encoded and where did it come from?

Wait now here's where you say mutation and natural selection. Am I right?

originally posted by: rnaa
Who is ignoring it? Your question honestly makes no sense to me.

Really? Makes no sense?

I said " But with evolution, which is modelled on ancestors and lineages and phylogenetic trees and such, you can't ignore what the very first instance of life was. "

You said: "Yes, you can. Because life exists. It can be looked at. It can be studied. You can ask questions about it that can be answered and the answers can be verified. You don't need to know whether life was created by a supernatural being or a lightning strike in a mud puddle or a chemical soup near a thermal sea vent to ask questions about how a wing developed."

And you conveniently, ahem, ignored my questions about LUCA.

a reply to: rnaa

originally posted by: rnaa
PhotonEffect gave a more precise definition that I did: "the biological definition of evolution is more technically known as a shift in allele distribution/frequencies within a population."

A key word there is population. In Biology, evolution refers to the changes over time in POPULATIONS, not individuals. So you going up a mountain and experiencing temporary changes to your body chemistry is NOT biological evolution, because you are an individual, not a population.

It should be noted that Darwin's initial formulation of NS focused more on the individual organism, not populations. That's correct, the original Theory of Evolution was all about the organism. It wasn't until the boys who came up with the MES in the 40's decided to switch things around to better suit their interests, which was to marry population dynamics with Mendelian genetics, essentially putting all the onus of evolutionary change on the population and turning it into one big math equation.

So now we hear all the time that evolution is change, and that adaptation is evolution etc etc. yet when these things happen to individual organisms ( think phenotypic plasticity, polymorphism, etc) then it's not evolution. Even though evolution "acts on" individual phenotypes. Well, adaptation happens to individual organisms within a single lifetime. And when we throw in epigenetic factors that can be passed down to subsequent generations things become a bit more complicated/contradictory for the good ole MES. The theory is just all discombobulated

a reply to: whereislogic

You said:

Fact: DNA as it is found in the genomes of living organisms IS a code/blueprint.

I'm sorry but blue print is not the correct metaphor for DNA. It's actually a terrible way to describe DNA. Yes, it's been the prevailing view for the longest time, but it's wrong and leads people to look at DNA the wrong way.

You may know by now that only a small fraction of DNA actually codes for anything. The rest is thought to be for regulatory purposes or some other unknown function. Blue prints are less ambiguous. Also, blueprints lay out a very direct framework for how to build something. DNA does not. Often multiple genes are needed to construct things. In fact the same genes can lead to different traits in different organisms. Have you ever heard of the same blueprint resulting in completely different buildings?

There are so many more reasons why it's just an awfula nd misleading metaphor. Do yourself a favor if you really care about this stuff. Don't use it:

www.newscientist.com...
rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com...
www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: cooperton
I can score on a stationary goal post, but if the theoretical framework is shifted away every time I present a logical impossibility, there is nothing I can do.

There is no framework shifting. You are talking about evolution and abiogenesis as if they are the same theory. They are not. Plus you have not presented any impossibility.

One of the problems with evolution is that it leaves a very HUGE leap for abiogenesis to manifest the first viable cell.

Holy #, dude. How is it you STILL don't understand that evolution is NOT abiogenesis. Stop the dishonesty already. That isn't a problem of evolution, it's a problem of abiogenesis. Why is that SO difficult for you to comprehend???????

Do you really think no intelligent faculty was involved in the generation of the simplest possible bacteria: Machinery Involved in the Simplest Microbe

Do you really think it was? Who cares what I think? It's a guess and you will deny it regardless. You guess that intelligence is involved, I guess that it's not. Neither guess is more valid than the other (except there is no evidence for god and there is evidence for abiogenesis of course).

Even once this is accomplished, evolution is constantly presented with the chicken-or-the-egg paradox...

False. Evolution is about populations. No chicken/egg scenario, sorry. The first single celled organisms did not lay eggs. They replicated asexually.

How can a gene and the necessary regulators for said gene evolve simultaneously?

THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION. You even prefaced this paragraph saying, "back to discussing evolution", and yet you are not. Why is this so confusing for you? Why do the same things have to be repeated constantly to you? Do you have a learning disability? If so, I apologize, but your ignorance seems intentional.

Leave science to the scientists if you don't have the patience to learn about it.

It seems many folks in this thread need to be doing this.

I said

How can a gene and the necessary regulators for said gene evolve simultaneously?

you said

originally posted by: Barcs
THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION.

Genetic alteration is the basis for the theory of evolution. You smashing caps lock on your key board does not make the truth incorrect. Stop the charades... All I am asking you: "How can a gene, which will not work without its specific regulators/promoters, simultaneously evolve at the same time as its regulatory mechanisms?" As if one beneficial mutation wasn't unlikely enough, you'd need a whole host of them to synchronize a functioning effect.

a reply to: cooperton

One of the problems with evolution is that it leaves a very HUGE leap for abiogenesis to manifest the first viable cell.

Man, you are hopeless. That's all I can say.

The key question that destroys the house of cards that is evolution is this:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

What we know now is that what Darwinist labeled junk DNA isn't junk but these non coding regions of DNA have regulatory functions. Here's the thing, these regulatory functions come in the form of a sequence of DNA letters that have function and meaning when read or when they're switched on.

When they're swithed on, the switching or insertion/deletion doesn't create any new information or new function it just turns on an existing sequence that was turned off or wasn't being expressed. So again:

THERE'S ZERO EVIDENCE THAT RANDOM MUTATIONS OR NATURAL SELECTION CAN GIVE A SEQUENCE OF DNA LETTERS FUNCTION AND MEANING.

This is just an absurd notion and it destroys evolution. Evolution is based on assumptions from those who think it validates their atheism or materialism.

The thing is, Intelligent Design is not about God, it's about intelligence. We know intelligence exists and we know what intelligence can do. Intelligence can give meaning and function to a sequence of letters.

Let me repeat:

Intelligence can give meaning and function to a sequence of letters.

I return to the TATA box and the Lac Operon.

A TATA box is a DNA sequence that indicates where a genetic sequence can be read and decoded. It is a type of promoter sequence, which specifies to other molecules where transcription begins. Transcription is a process that produces an RNA molecule from a DNA sequence. The TATA box is named for its conserved DNA sequence, which is most commonly TATAAA. Many eukaryotic genes have a conserved TATA box located 25-35 base pairs before the transcription start site of a gene. The TATA box is able to define the direction of transcription and also indicates the DNA strand to be read. Proteins called transcription factors can bind to the TATA box and recruit an enzyme called RNA polymerase, which synthesizes RNA from DNA.

www.nature.com...

This is something a 8th grade student can understand. There's not a SHRED OF EVIDENCE that a random mutation can give meaning and function to the sequence of letters TATAAA that give direction to transcription factors and also indicate what strand is to be read.

Again, intelligence can do this. Now, whether this intelligence comes from God, an advanced civilization or quantum computer equipped with artificial intelligence that's simulating universes is another debate. This debate is a simple one. It comes down to this. There's no evidence that random mutations or natural selection can give meaning or function to a sequence of DNA letters but we know intelligence can.

If I shake up and scramble a box full of letters from the alphabet and I look into the box and I see thatway. Thatway means something to me not because the shaking of the box or the scrambling of the letters created any new information. It's because an intelligent mind gave meaning to the sequence of letters that spell thatway.

Look at the lac operon.

The way you control the expression of a gene is through regulating the rate of transcription. This has NOTHING TO DO with random mutations or natural selection but a sequence of DNA letters that have meaning and function.

The Promoter of the lac operon is denoted by a sequence of DNA letters which allows the RNA Polymerse to transcribe the sequence of genes. This can't occur unless the lac repressor, which is also denoted by a sequence of DNA letters is switched on which allows the Promotor to begin transcription. If the lac repressor is turned off then the Promotor can't begin transcription.

This is all governed by sequences of DNA letters that have function and meaning.

So that brings us back the the central observation that destroys any notion of evolution:

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

You said

originally posted by: cooperton
[back to discussing evolution]

Then you said

How can a gene and the necessary regulators for said gene evolve simultaneously?

Genes by themselves don't evolve and neither do the regulators. In evolution, genes mutate and the code changes. End of story. You are talking about how the gene and regulators first emerged, which is abiogenesis. You are REALLY struggling at understanding that. Maybe do some research beyond creationist websites?

Genetic alteration is the basis for the theory of evolution.

Nope. Let's say it again together. Maybe we need Bart to write it on the chalkboard for you.

Evolution = genetic mutations sorted by natural selection.

If you aren't talking about that, you aren't talking about evolution. It's really that simple. You are talking about the emergence of cells, the emergence of RNA, the emergence of the first genes, the emergence of DNA features, etc. For evolution, you need all that stuff there already. I know it's hard to swallow considering the harsh indoctrination you have gone through, but at least make an attempt.

All I am asking you: "How can a gene, which will not work without its specific regulators/promoters, simultaneously evolve at the same time as its regulatory mechanisms?" As if one beneficial mutation wasn't unlikely enough, you'd need a whole host of them to synchronize a functioning effect.

That makes no sense, sorry. The regulators are already there, the code sequence itself is what changes via evolution. You are pretending all mutations are added code, or complete new genes getting added. That's not how it works, the code changes, sometimes it's insertion, sometimes is a mistake from bad copying, sometimes it's a deletion. You don't just have a brand new gene suddenly appear out of nothing, they are already there and are MODIFIED.

a reply to: neoholographic

You have been shown the evidence repeatedly. But it appears you refuse to read it. Rather you google for creationist and ID responses. That is intellectually dishonest. As is selectively citing parts of papers.

a reply to: neoholographic

Saying that there is no evidence that genetic mutations can give a sequence meaning is beyond silly. Do some research into genetics and how they are reverse engineering DNA from chickens into dinosaurs. They recently grew the first dino leg on a chicken.

Genes are basically pairs of atoms on a double helix. We assign the atoms letters. DNA treats these letters as code. The codes already have meaning, just like computer commands. If you scramble computer code, you could definitely cause new functions of a software program, even if they have never been in the software previously. It's the same concept. Your tirade about meaning is unnecessary and evolution is not about meaning. We see the genes mutating in front of our eyes and see how it controls the functionality of organisms.

This isn't anything new or riveting. Genetic engineering proves it. No need to repeat your same argument over and over again, while ignoring all counterpoints. Evolution has been witnessed in a lab. Speciation has happened in a lab. Sorry this irks you, but that's just how it is.

Where's the evidence that random mutations and natural selection can give a DNA sequence meaning and function that regulates gene expression?

This is not part of evolution, as much as you claim it is and keep repeating it. The meaning is already there. The only thing that changes in evolution is the code, not the "meaning". DNA is basically a blueprint. Alter the blueprint, and it affects the final design and structure.