Mathematical challenges to Darwin's Theory of evolution

I think maybe it's time to come clean? As a creationist you are not here to discuss the merits of evolutionary theory, even less to make yourself better informed on the subject, you're here to trash it by any means you can.

Is this not true?

I have been making the same claim since I got here. Informational instructions got into life, how? I've given examples of why I believe what I do as it relates to instructions and DNA. I have been asking since day one for someone to provide me with some other reason outside of a mind or agency for it being there. If you are going to dismiss Meyer's claim for cause, is this cause one that is used across the board, or just Meyer? I claim that informational instructions are caused by intent due to agency, not processes I've given several examples why. We find informational instructions in notes, letters, books, code, and so on. You have some other place where this type of thing is found for another reason?

If you want to concern yourself with my motivations have at it, I don't care. If your arguments are sound, that will be enough, if they are not, that should be of concern. I believe that truth, not illusions, is what each one of us wants. Truth isn't going to change on a whim, while an illusion will always be in a state of flux to suit the eyes of the one who wants it. That said, if abiogenesis and evolution have issues, it is better to hash them out, if creation has issues that too should be questioned until the one that fits reality stands out.

I have not read all your posts.  Let's focus on one thing at a time and the specific topic currently at issue is the one YOU brought up regarding the Cambrian explosion.  So let's stick with the Cambrian explosion right now.  I am trying my best to have an honest, open dialogue with you but quite frankly am starting to lose patience (and interest).

YOU made a claim regarding the Cambrian explosion and right now I am simply asking you to elaborate on the specifics of YOUR OWN claim.  But your continued evasiveness suggests that you don't know the specific details of the argument/claim you are espousing. 

If you can't elaborate on the specifics of what you are claiming, then don't complain about people's lack of ability to address it!

This is basically something I have posted here earlier when looking at only a material world and how instructions transcend the material world alone. Informational instructions rise above just matter only. Think about stop signs and stoplights, they cause us as we drive to stop and go. They would be useless unless they convey instructions in the system they were built for, with recognition for their meaning and purpose, along with obedience to their meaning. Looking at them purely for their material makeup, they are just painted metal, reactions to the arrangement of metal and paint matter, it is not just the material make up of the stop signs or lights.

We have blood clotting in our bodies, among other automatic processes with stop and starts. These internal operating instructions are required, or the body dies, the signals for stop and start occur as needed, or bleed out, or blood clotting without cause, and we die. All life has a building plan that is being followed before birth, so we have a consistent formational structure on life's formation. Bones are formed in precise manners per-species, not in any random way each time!

Each life form's specification for the body type, all the internal organs, the placement of said organs remain consistent per lifeform. This is done through genetic instruction or not. If instructions, then the informational code for these instructions is the very thing under discussion. With the Cambrian explosion what was new totally dwarfed what was, so a lot of new instructions were now in play.

Now, can a mindless process put together all the required informational instructions within life for its formation, and once formed for all the processes to keep it alive? What is the most reasonable explanation? If it looks designed, and yet people claim the design appearance is illusionary, how do we know? What if the reason it looks design is that it is, and the illusion is the denial of design, for the reason that would mean there is a designer?

The question remains too, do you treat every theory the way you did Meyers?

I'm not "treating" Meyer's "theory" any particular way but simply asking for elaboration and yes, I do that with any argument or claim that is vague and unclear.  And you still have yet to provide number specifics with regard to the Cambrian explosion.  You again speak in generalities like when you write:

"With the Cambrian explosion what was new totally dwarfed what was, so a lot of new instructions were now in play."

But you are unable to quantify or even validate your claim.  How many new genes are we talking about in what period of time and in order to produce what specific body forms/types?  You are unable to answer.  The fact that you can't elaborate on what you mean by "a lot of new instructions" nor can you even substantiate your claim in general (you simply assume it!) makes for a vague and lousy "argument."  

*And all the more so, given the fact, that we know from genetics that major changes in physical morphology can occur as a result of MINOR changes to regulatory genes (such as what we observe with mutations in homeotic genes that control serial metamerism during development in Drosophila fruit flies).  Experiments like this should alone give us pause before making claims like "a lot of new information" would be required.  Your claim is not necessarily true, so you need to back it up with actual data from genetics.

*I have already agreed with you that the origin of prescriptive genetic information is a real problem when it comes to the origin of life

*However, the same arguments do not apply once those genetic and epigenetic systems are in place and we have in fact an immense amount of evidence (from direct and indirect observations) for the evolutionary origin of NEW functional genes that arise de novo or via the modification and tinkering with existing genes.  These new gene originations can not only be inferred, some have been observed in real time in the lab, and the intricacies of many of the genetic, epigenetic and regulatory mechanisms underlying such new gene originations have been worked out.  There is a ton of documentation on this (*and even some ID proponents like Behe have been honest enough to admit this).

See, for example "The Origin of New Genes" (as the article says, the origin of new genes is not as rare as we once thought and this article is from 2003; there have been a ton more peer reviewed published research articles since then)

"*And all the more so, given the fact, that we know from genetics that major changes in physical morphology can occur as a result of MINOR changes to regulatory genes (such as what we observe with mutations in homeotic genes that control serial metamerism during development in Drosophila fruit flies). "

You have seen a major alteration in physical form due to small changes, so that the body that was has now taken on a different shape and size with new organs that were not there before?

You don't listen very well do you

Guess not

My thoughts are that God created evolution and with His finger in the equation mathematical challenges become meaningless. Of course that is just my opinion, I could be wrong!

Perhaps some of us have evolved beyond the need for ancient superstition & folklore?

Thanks for the complement? LOL

There isn't an evolving past seeking the truth. If you have that view of yourself than I submit, you cannot be shown your errors because you think you have arrived and will not even acknowledge the possibility of your misjudgments and mistakes.

Yes, but that goes both ways 

I absolutely without reservation agree with you here.

Provided we're guided by the best available evidence, we won't go too far wrong in establishing what is most probably the fact of the matter.

I can't at the moment think of any propositional belief I hold that isn't supported by some form of evidence. Can you?

Who is claiming anything unsupported by evidence?

Are you forgetting this already?

https://www.chess.com/clubs/forum/view/mathematical-challenges-to-darwins-theory-of-evolution?page=3&newCommentCount=1#comment-48489726

"With the Cambrian explosion what was new totally dwarfed what was, so a lot of new instructions were now in play."

But you are unable to quantify or even validate your claim.  How many new genes are we talking about in what period of time and in order to produce what specific body forms/types?  You are unable to answer.  The fact that you can't elaborate on what you mean by "a lot of new instructions" nor can you even substantiate your claim in general (you simply assume it!) makes for a vague and lousy "argument."  

*And all the more so, given the fact, that we know from genetics that major changes in physical morphology can occur as a result of MINOR changes to regulatory genes (such as what we observe with mutations in homeotic genes that control serial metamerism during development in Drosophila fruit flies).  Experiments like this should alone give us pause before making claims like "a lot of new information" would be required.  Your claim is not necessarily true, so you need to back it up with actual data from genetics.

.
You fail to support your challenges to evolution & abiogenesis with any proper evidence & argument. You don't have a command of the subject to any degree which is why your challenges fail.

You are funny, your greatest argument I have seen from you so far is other people believe this or that, and what you think occurred millions or billions of years ago. You have your own thoughts on all of the whys and how things are the way they are.

I'm funny? It's clear that you have little regard for the considerable academic ability of professionals who devote their working lives to such scientific enquiry.

Aftr all, you dismiss them as nothing more than "other people [who] believe this or that", as if they know nothing more than any person you might bump into on the street.

I've long known that creationists have contempt for science, especially those who work in fields such as Biology because it's built upon evolutionary theory but at least most of them try to disguise it.

I'll say this for you, you don't even thinly disguise your contempt because it's right out there for all to see.