Why do you debate about evolution?

Even if evolution is true there is still no proof that God does not exist or that evolution is not his design. Have you noticed that the constitution you speak of has been outlawed? Nothing in the constitution means anything anymore so quit bringing it up as if it did.

Hey Argee what say you this?

Why debate? Because it's an open issue, yet evolution is taught as dogma in government schools.

I also find the rhetoric of most evolutionists with a microphone to be both dogmatic and patronizing. Rather than analyze the impressive arguments of leading Design theorists like William Dembski, Philip Johnson and Michael Behe, the vox evoutioni prefer to knock down straw men.

Could you tell me to what research you are referring?

You might take a look at these. I haven't had the time yet to put together an "abiogenesis" page.

I have been laboring under the impression that even if given high levels of investigator interference to simulate 'the right conditions', and even given somehow, presently unknown, a prebiotic synthesis of cytosine, and even if building blocks could have formed polymers, there would have been no tendency to form the high-information polymers required for life as opposed to random ones, and any polymers would have readily hydrolysed. As late as 1999 Shapiro stated that ‘The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."

In "origin of life" research, the major "interference" that's going on is aimed at replicating conditions that could have existed on a prebiotic Earth. Research into the catalytic properties of clays and minerals is one approach. Research into the catalytic properties of refined metals and rare earths is not an approach, because no one expects any to have been present. (Although the notion that early life was catalyzed on the surface of a wrecked space craft might figure in a science-fiction story.)

You seem to be hung up on special information, even though the articles you have cited fail to make the case that "CSI" is qualitatively any different from simple unspecified information.

In some of the research on ribozymes, RNA fragments are being allowed to "evolve" in test tubes, with the fragments that most closely approach the target reaction being allowed to replicate. Since the copies these fragments make of themselves are not exact -- indeed, because they are not exact -- variations creep in, some of which are closer to the target than the parent copies.

This is an example of a system which meets all the definitions of CSI arising from random variations and a selection process acting as a filter.

Come to think of it, it's kind of ironic. Dembski argues that the information content of any signal essentially winds up including the entire rest of the universe. The example of "b36" as a chess move winds up incorporating all the rules of chess, the current position of the game, and to some extent the skill levels and personalities of the players.

This is not information, it is "meaning".

In terms of RNA fragments, the nucleic acid sequences are the information. The effect these sequences have in the world are the meaning. Ribozymes undergoing evolution in a test tube are allowed to mutate, which increases the information content of the test tube. The ribozymes are then tested against the selection criteria, and this filters out the information that is meaningless.

Dembski and Truman would argue that this is not information -- that it is a "fabrication", since it is the result of a random process. Since they propose no way of distinguishing between, for example, a ribozyme that evolved in a test tube and one which was engineered to do some specific task, I propose that their distinction is itself a "fabrication".

And come to think of it, a lot of scientific progress is the result of accidental discoveries. Someone makes a random mistake, or happens to put two things together in a way no one else has before, and it turns out to be useful.

Now lots of people are having accidents, and putting things together in new ways, and those turn out to be useless. Those accidents are forgotten. The ones that are useful are retained.

The scientific method is based on observation, hypothesis formation, experimentation, further observation, and ultimately the organization of facts into theoretical structures. Many theories wind up being refined as new data come available. Others are rejected as they fail the test of congruence with the real world.

It can be argued that this process is a form of evolution. New theories are proposed, some of them almost at random, since there's really no limit on what sort of process someone can imagine. Then they are subjected to a form of selection. The ones that explain the real world are retained, and the rest are rejected.

I suspect that if we take Dembski and Truman at their words, not only is variation-and-selection incapable of producing new information, so is science.

This seems a little counter-intuitive.

.............Karl