Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

Watch Forrest Valkai on his Video from 17:00 to 18:00 · Debate with Shane Wilson and ReiperX

Repeating relevant comment for context, but watch ReiperX and Shane Wilson glide away from the topic:

17:15 Have you heard any Creationist dispute the existence of natural selection? (Except me, I think we deal with providential selection)

And unsuited traits disappearing don't mean suited traits appearing. They have to exist in the first place for natural selection not to kill a whole population off instead of improving it.

17:24 "is exactly what Darwin wrote about"

You mean in the chapters where he described his observations, instead of philosophising about common origin of all living species?

And philosophising badly at that ...

17:40 Yes, precisely. Poorly suited characters disappearing is a loss of information.

Can actually happen in living beings that have information in the first place and most importantly alternative and suited information in the first place.

A yeast cell can't develop an eye by just losing information, OK ... that's the whole point.

17:48 Thank you!
Loss of information doesn't tell us anything about where that information came from in the first place. (Attributed : Forrest Valkai said so 23.XI.2021)

And one other thing that doesn't tell us anything about it is : observing mutations. At work. Even at work in speciation events.

17:54 Yeah, Forrest, did you think about your answer before you spoke it?

Shane Wilson

you get new traits via mutations.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson you get different traits, and less traits - if you pretend you get "new traits" you are confusing trait in the sense we talk of with trait as applies to human characters : with us, losing one moral trait always means gaining a different one, but when it comes to genes and functions, no, losing such a trait doesn't mean gaining a different one.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ummm, losing one trait doesn't mean you gain another, but this doesn't mean we can't gain other traits. Traits do evolve.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Would you mind telling me from what?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You see, there is this thing we have called DNA. In this DNA, there are copy errors that we call mutations. Some of these mutations are new to the genome and express themselves.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Take a poem, even a haiku.

Make every a a b, every b a c and so on.

How much legible information do you think you will get?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl And this isn't remotely the same. There is a single point mutation which allows for lactose tolerance. Not only that, but there is plenty of noncoding segments of our DNA. This allows for changes to happen without affecting our fitness and for the most part it doesn't matter, until it becomes coding.

Hell, this is why we have ERVs, which are viruses embedded into our DNA. It doesn't affect us really in most insertion points. But ERVs are something that we can use to show that evolution happens.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "And this isn't remotely the same."

I tried the initial amino acid sequence for human keratin 16. I deducted one possible code for it. I made a deletion of 4 base pairs. This obviously disrupted all the following triplets. I then deduced the nine (sorry eight) amino acids that would result as:

methionine histidine valine leucine leucine asparagine leucine leucine

Keratin is for nails and hair, I don't think the resulting new sequence would fit anywhere in a human body.

"There is a single point mutation which allows for lactose tolerance."

Which is loss of information. All babies are lactose tolerant, the mutation shuts off the function of shutting this off at puberty.

"Not only that, but there is plenty of noncoding segments of our DNA. This allows for changes to happen without affecting our fitness and for the most part it doesn't matter, until it becomes coding."

Would you mind giving an example of documented non-coding DNA that became coding with resulting documented gain of function?

"Hell, this is why we have ERVs, which are viruses embedded into our DNA. It doesn't affect us really in most insertion points. But ERVs are something that we can use to show that evolution happens."

Or the ERV parts had a real function and viruses are a result of such breaking off.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't know of any off the top of my hand, guess what, not a geneticist. But this is what you call a mutation. Duplication mutations can copy an entire gene, and then that can be altered down the line, again, not an issue. I'm sorry you have done all of two seconds of actual research on genetics.

And lactose tolerance isn't a "loss of information" its a change in it.

And on the ERVs, you really don't grasp why they are important do you?

ERVs are viruses embedded in our DNA, we all have them. But in order to be passed down to the next generation. The fact that not only do we share the same ERV markers, but they are in the same place across multiple species shows common decent. But you don't seem to be able to grasp that very basic concept, which is why I know you've done jack all research.

Yet you, a layman with no education in the field, someone who is arguing a slightly above Ken Ham level, thinks he's even remotely challenging one of the most robust scientific theories there are. That's funny.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "I don't know of any off the top of my hand, guess what, not a geneticist."

Neither am I, except an amateur. I was taught the laws of Mendel as a child, and am for instance not impressed when Jacques Monod claimed a gene could gain information from combining mutations from ma and pa.

"But this is what you call a mutation. Duplication mutations can copy an entire gene, and then that can be altered down the line, again, not an issue."

The issue is, when and how will that altered down the line duplicate contribute to anything new?

"I'm sorry you have done all of two seconds of actual research on genetics."

I think it is a bit more than just two seconds, actually.

"And lactose tolerance isn't a "loss of information" its a change in it."

False. The original information stated "Children shall from week so and so of pregnancy produce lactase, and this shall end at puberty" while the mutation has deleted the part stating "and this shall end at puberty" which phenotypically means a net gain after puberty. The mutation of one base pair is definitely not what made it possible to produce lactase in the first place, all mammal newborns produce lactase and all, except a certain subset of men, lose the capacity at puberty.

"And on the ERVs, you really don't grasp why they are important do you?"

You really didn't grasp my answer dealt with it, did you?

"ERVs are viruses embedded in our DNA, we all have them. But in order to be passed down to the next generation. The fact that not only do we share the same ERV markers, but they are in the same place across multiple species shows common decent."

Common descent, if they really originated as virus infections. But common descent OR common designer if the virus infections came from them. See the difference this time?

"But you don't seem to be able to grasp that very basic concept, which is why I know you've done jack all research."

The concept is not basic. It is also not "one concept" but two opposed ones. Concept A (as defined by evolutionists who found the phenomenon) : "virus infections became embedded and are now ERVs" vs concept B (as defined by creationists who took up the challenge) : "ERV's are misnomers and this original part of our genome (given by a common designer) has sometimes led to virus infections by splitting off."

"Yet you, a layman with no education in the field, someone who is arguing a slightly above Ken Ham level, thinks he's even remotely challenging one of the most robust scientific theories there are. That's funny."

If the theory is so robust, how about asking a real scientist (you aren't one, at least not in evolutionary biology, as your blunder about lactase persistence shows and you admitted yourself) to do the arguing with me, with arguments, I'll publish them as I already publish yours, instead of hacks like you doing it with ad hominems?

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl I don't care what you are impressed with or not. That doesn't change the fact that you, someone ignorant of the subject, that doesn't even know what an ERV is, thinks he knows more about the theory of evolution than the experts. And you can't even bring up a good argument against it.

And no, we know what an ERV is. Sorry, you just saying "but designer could put them in the same exact spot" is just stupid. Its the same stupid argument with the GULO gene you guys do. I'm sorry, your argument has zero actual credibility in the real world.

I'm not the moron who is trying to tell all of the scientists they are wrong, that's you. So why don't you get your stuff published.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "I don't care ... [a]nd you can't even bring up a good argument against it."

I showed twice over that I know what the ERV argument is.

I also do not think I know more about the theory of evolution than experts on both sides : I think the creationist side knows more because it is right, and as an amateur, I share some small part of that superiority.

"And no, we know what an ERV is."

From what observations, exactly? ERV genome parts in mammals look like viral genomes? Fine, but both explanations take that into account. What exact observation excludes the creationist approach?

"Sorry, you just saying "but designer could put them in the same exact spot" is just stupid."

Now, "sorry ... is just stupid" is not exactly an articulate argument on why the creationist approach on ERVs would be wrong.

"Its the same stupid argument with the GULO gene you guys do."

I don't know what the GULO gene is, and if there is one or you just pulled that out of a certain place - and as long as you don't present an actual argument, I don't feel like overworking myself by looking it up immediately.

"I'm sorry, your argument has zero actual credibility in the real world."

I suppose that you use "the real world" as "among my set of people" [yours, that is] and I also suppose "in your fantasy world" would roughly translate as "among your set of people" (meaning mine, this time).

"I'm not the moron"

Nice objective approach to an argument, isn't it?

"who is trying to tell all of the scientists they are wrong, that's you."

No, I am not. First, I am not even telling all the evolution believing scientists they are wrong on other things than evolution belief, and second, I am most definitely not telling creation scientists they are wrong about mutations meaning loss of information. You are nearly, except you prefer to tell me over telling them, because I don't have a science degree. But my amateur view of genetics is sufficient to know that lactase persistance is a loss of the information that turns off lactase production, not a gain of information on how to produce it in small childhood. You seem to have missed that "little detail" which is not so small.

"So why don't you get your stuff published."

• 1) I do, I re-publish our (already public) debate on my blog Assorted retorts;
• 2) I give general permission to republish my blog posts, when it comes to debates, I advise to take the other's intellectual rights into account too;
• 3) and if you meant in papers like Nature Genetics, I already tried to get a smallish thing of twenty lines published, and I didn't get any response at all - not a publication, not a "yeah, guess you're right" but also (I think this is significant) not any "sorry, you are wrong because you missed this detail" and then an explanation of what I missed.

I begin to suspect you are a Commie and a shrink and a kind of guy the people like Forrest Valkai love to get involved over pretending to give me some "therapy" so they don't have to take an actual debate.

[I therefore blocked him, and if anyone wants to republish this commercially, and take his rights into account, you'll have to contact him. Oh, wait, I undid that, because I posed him a question he should be able to answer.]

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You either don't know what an ERV is or you don't know the argument, and I still think its the latter. You've continually shown you're clueless.

And you can pretend creationists are correct, but they have nothing supporting their side, as opposed to the theory of evolution which is supported by thousands of experiments and pretty much all of the data. You don't even have a valid hypothesis.

ERVs are an actual prediction in evolution, not so in creationism. With your side its all post hoc rationalization.

The GULO gene is the gene responsible for Vitamin C synthesis. We have it, but it is a pseudogene. It doesn't function. Not only in humans, but all haplorhines. Not only is the gene non functional, but its non functional for the same reason as opposed to other animals with a broken GULO gene. Do you know why this is? Common decent.

And yes, your "group" is not living in reality, they have to literally throw in magic to make their crap work. Sorry, magic isn't an actual answer until you can show it is possible.

Creation scientists is an oxymoron

So you can't get your crap published in a real peer review journal. Perhaps you should put actual effort into it.

No, not a commie. Hell, 90% of the idiots who use that term to call someone one, don't even know what that is or means. But no, the reason I reply to you is because you say stupid stuff and should be corrected. Because letting bad information stand unopposed is how we get anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, which are basically on the same level of "science" as you guys.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "You either don't know what an ERV is or you don't know the argument, and I still think its the latter."

I know both. Evolutionists claim that one of the ERV phenomona common to human and some ape genomes came from a virus infection incrusting itself in a particular place in the genome of a common ancestor. Creationists disagree on the origin story for at least this ERV. Hence we disagree on what you think ERVs ultimately are. We agree they are spots in the genomes, we agree they look like virus genomes. We believe they have some function in the genome, at that spot, and was put there by a common designer, and that the reason for similar look with viral genomes is, viruses started off as ERVs. Other option : the ERV codes for a virus vital to both human and ape viromes.

"You've continually shown you're clueless."

Has no bearing whatsoever on what ERVs ultimately are.

"And you can pretend creationists are correct, but they have nothing supporting their side, as opposed to the theory of evolution which is supported by thousands of experiments and pretty much all of the data."

All and nothing are very non-specific. You are not supported by the question where information came from. That is a specific question.

[He also ceased adressing it, did you note?]

"You don't even have a valid hypothesis. ERVs are an actual prediction in evolution, not so in creationism."

I'm not sure either side made its predictions before seeing the observational data.

"With your side its all post hoc rationalization."

Oh ... so? Since when are reasons only valid if given before seeing the outcome?

"The GULO gene is the gene responsible for Vitamin C synthesis. We have it, but it is a pseudogene. It doesn't function."

Ah, that one. I just didn't know the term GULO.

"Not only in humans, but all haplorhines. Not only is the gene non functional, but its non functional for the same reason as opposed to other animals with a broken GULO gene."

My position : Adam and Eve had it unbroken, as punishment for original sin (or possibly during deterioration of lifespans), God took this asset away. And as extra punishment, the mutation matches ... I suppose haplorhines means "half nosed apes/monkeys"?*

"Do you know why this is? Common decent."

You mean common decency by God to give us some kind of company? If you mean commonly descending from common ancestry, the spelling is with sc, not c. Adjective decent, noun decency is from Latin verb "decere" and verb to descend, noun descent is from Latin verb "de-scendere" which is composite from simple "scandere" ... I know common descent is one option, to explain this, but it's the wrong one.

"And yes, your "group" is not living in reality, they have to literally throw in magic to make their crap work. Sorry, magic isn't an actual answer until you can show it is possible."

Did your fingers type letters as prompted by inertia and gravitation, or did your mind chose which letters? In the latter case, you have mind dominating matter, at some point directly, which is the most basic definition of what you term "magic".

"Creation scientists is an oxymoron So you can't get your crap published in a real peer review journal. Perhaps you should put actual effort into it. No, not a commie. Hell, 90% of the idiots who use that term to call someone one, don't even know what that is or means. But no, the reason I reply to you is because you say stupid stuff and should be corrected. Because letting bad information stand unopposed is how we get anti-vaxxers and flat earthers, which are basically on the same level of "science" as you guys."

Well, if not Commie in Economic theory, you are very close to historic Commies in your outlook on religion and science. You can be Manchester Liberal in Economic theory (it seems Red China is, or close to) but your general world view would have found total approval on several party meetings in Moscow. With that outlook, you would be basically still a Commie, even if you politically supported (in name only) a Restoration of the Czars.

* (footnote)

It actually means "simian primates" (both all apes and all monkeys), and CMI has a good treatment of the question here:

Potentially decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared mistakes’
by John Woodmorappe | his article is from
Journal of Creation 18(3):63–69, December 2004
https://creation.com/potentially-decisive-evidence-against-pseudogene-shared-mistakes

Citing :

Figure 3. Evolutionary nested hierarchy, expressed as a cladogram, with the widely accepted human–chimp clade as the crown group. Guinea pig and human GULO pseudogenes show an astonishing 36% identical nucleotide substitutions (relative to the intact rat GULO gene), despite the fact that the two pseudogenes could not possibly have arisen from a common ancestral pseudogene. The exact sequences of monkey and ape GULO pseudogenes are not yet available, so are shown as question marks.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX Btw, I think you gave up, wisely enough, to argue that lactase persistence is gain of information.

So, another piece of "magic" as you put it is, information has somehow come into being, and we don't see that process now. We see losses, we also see minor modifications (like in melanine mutations leading to white skin and similar phenomena). Nothing like assembling the first melanine gene, the first gulo gene, the first gene for lactase production.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so you've shifted the goal post.

Thank you Hans, thank you for showing you are dishonest.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl "you get different traits, and less traits - if you pretend you get "new traits" you are confusing trait in the sense we talk of with trait as applies to human characters : with us, losing one moral trait always means gaining a different one, but when it comes to genes and functions, no, losing such a trait doesn't mean gaining a different one."

Its weird, because my mutation gave me a "new trait." I could hear above the normal hearing range for humans. It used to cause all kinds of fun stuff with hearing tests when I took them. Whether or not I still can, or have lost this ability due to more natural hearing loss, I don't know. But its a really cool mutation, although it is a bit annoying at times.

Then you have the coolest mutation in humans, tetrachromancy.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl so when it comes to ERVs, everything is "god did it" and you make no predictions. This is why ID isn't an actual theory or even hypothesis. It has zero explanatory power because "god did it" is the answer to it all.

Its why your entire position is a joke.

And no, consciousness, the mind, that's not magic in any sense of the word no matter how much dishonest people like yourself want it to be.

And no, I'm not a commie, not even in that sense. Sorry, you don't know what a Communist is to begin with. Even from a religion perspective, I wouldn't align with them. But now you're just trying to deflect because you know you can't hold an actual honest discussion.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX No, you shifted the goal post : from proving a documented case of gain of function to proving (except it doesn't) just common descent.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Would you point to research showing your condition and tetrachromancy are mutated rather than the original form for the human genome?

Either way, it is just a variation on something already there, namely hearing sounds and seeing colours.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Sorry, you don't know what a Communist is to begin with. .... But now you're just trying to deflect because you know you can't hold an actual honest discussion."

I grew up during the cold war, and was born some months after the end of the Prague Spring.

I know they liked to politicise psychiatry and therefore also psychiatric terminology, like "not living in the real world" among other issues precisely against Christianity or what they would have considered "over-the-top" Christianity. There were Baptists in Russia who got to mental hospitals for being precisely Baptists and there were others who lost custody of children for the exact same reason.

If you don't like being taken for a Commie, start respecting the mental sanity of your opponents in discussions and debates, for a start!

"Even from a religion perspective, I wouldn't align with them."

I definitely know they are dialectic materialists, and that is at least not far from your position.

"so when it comes to ERVs, everything is "god did it" and you make no predictions. This is why ID isn't an actual theory or even hypothesis. It has zero explanatory power because "god did it" is the answer to it all."

Not exactly no. Putting original information into a genome is something God does, but losing information by mutations is more like something God allows to happen.

I could make two predictions off hand from the theory as I stated it : 1) one will find functions to the human and ape places in genomes where Evolutionists speak of ERV, 2) some occasions, a virus infection will be shown to have started in an ERV, human or non-human.

But God put information in place is a valid answer, because "something else did" never answers what something else it is that does so. Including here.

"And no, consciousness, the mind, that's not magic in any sense of the word no matter how much dishonest people like yourself want it to be."

Both its existence and its power over matter in the human body are impossible to account for on materialistic terms.

Sure, when I exercise power over a keyboard with my fingers, you can state that touching such and such a key with approrpriate strength of touch will produce a letter, space or other visible character everything in that line happens because of purely materialistic connexions between vectors in fingers and vectors in keys, electricity in keyboard and electricity behind the screen. But when my mind exercises power over my fingers like that, it is different. It is mind exercising direct control over matter, which is precisely what you meant by magic. And pretending that "no it isn't, mind itself is matter" is as unsubstantiated as mutations producing new genes.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl You grew up during the cold war, that explains a lot on why you don't know what Communism is.

If you don't want someone calling out your crap beliefs, have a better epistemology. You are entitled to whatever beliefs you are, but don't whine when you get called out it when your answer to question is "magic did it." That's delusional thinking. Get over yourself, you're not that special.

And those aren't real predictions Hans. This is post hoc rationalization, and that's it. And this a problem. And when your answer is literally "magic did it," you've completely removed yourself from science and the real world. You've thrown all rationality out the window. Why is the Earth where its at? Magic. Why is the sky blue? Magic. Why do cats purr? Magic. Why does it rain? Magic.

And the evidence points to the mind being a by product of the brain, IE, not magic. The mind isn't immaterial, it is a brain state.

+ @Hans-Georg Lundahl I told you that if that wasn't one, I don't have one off hand. And I pointed towards common decent which was already being discussed, you know, the whole evolution thing.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl the reason we know it is a mutation is because its not found in any of the other great apes.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Is it? Well, that means we don't know it, since we don't know common ancestry with great apes in the first place.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "You grew up during the cold war, that explains a lot on why you don't know what Communism is."

Right. (that was irony, if you didn't get it)

"If you don't want someone calling out your crap beliefs,"

You were not "calling out" my beliefs, you were attacking my person as per my sanity, that is something different, and it's arguably from Commies of the East Block that your confusion on that issue comes.

"have a better epistemology."

You never called out my epistemology, you called out my ontology.

"You are entitled to whatever beliefs you are, but don't whine when you get called out it when your answer to question is "magic did it.""

Complaining about an insult and an attack is not whining, and attacking someone's sanity is not "calling someone out".

"... when your answer to question is "magic did it." That's delusional thinking. Get over yourself, you're not that special."

Did it again. You used the word "delusional". P L U S you used the collectivist injunction of Communism, asking someone disagreeing with YOUR collective to get over himself, because he is not that special. My person has nothing or very little to do with it.

"And those aren't real predictions Hans. This is post hoc rationalization, and that's it."

Not in the least. I haven't seen the results on those two yet.

"And this a problem. And when your answer is literally "magic did it," you've completely removed yourself from science and the real world."

You have confused "the real world" with materialism and "science" with materialism and on top of that "science" and the "real world" with each other.

"You've thrown all rationality out the window. Why is the Earth where its at? Magic. Why is the sky blue? Magic. Why do cats purr? Magic. Why does it rain? Magic."

Nice deviation attempt from what I was actually saying.

"And the evidence points to the mind being a by product of the brain, IE, not magic. The mind isn't immaterial, it is a brain state."

On the contrary. It is accompanied by brain states, in man, in this life, but there is no reason why brain states could produce mind. But again, you have bowed down to the magisterium of Moscow from 1920 to 1990 or so.

+ @ReiperX "I told you that if that wasn't one, I don't have one off hand."

Neither has Forrest Valkai, apparently.

"And I pointed towards common decent"

An argument for your being Russian - you can't spell "descent".

"which was already being discussed, you know, the whole evolution thing."

Arguments for common descent only work if there is a mechanism for new information. As shown, there isn't.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl your answer is "god did it" that is no different than magic did it. I know you don't like it, but that's the facts Hans. That's why your crap isn't even remotely science. Its magical thinking. Your methodology of thinking is delusional here. I'm stating facts.

Why can't the mind come from a brain state? Because that's what the evidence suggests. The fact that we can change someone's personality, we can affect who they are by messing with the brain suggests this. Split brain personalities show this too.

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl Sorry for the additional response. You want gain of information mutation?
Salmonella typhimurium gained a mutation which allowed it to eat d-arabinose, which Salmonella can't generally detect as food.

And even Michael Behe, yes, the pseudoscientist pushing for ID agrees that it was not only gain of function, but a gain of information.

So not even the poster boy for the ID movement denies this.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl all of the evidence points to common ancestry Hans, not away from it.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson The evidence for common ancestry is often enough evidence for a common designer.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Sorry for the additional response."

No problem, we came into a groove, I'm reuniting the response.

"your answer is "god did it" that is no different than magic did it."

There is a problem with your epistemology - you presume without evidence that "magic did it" is an always invalid response.

"I know you don't like it,"

The above comment was not objectionable on a personal level, the following is after the middle.

"but that's the facts Hans. That's why your crap isn't even remotely science. Its magical thinking. Your methodology of thinking is delusional here. I'm stating facts."

First, your beginning and your end pretend you "state facts" - what kind of facts? Certainly not facts directly observed. It's with unobserved causes only that we have alternatives like "magic did it" and "mechanic blind causality did it."

Hence, I'll answer my question for you: the kind of "facts" you state are credal facts within your worldview.

Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview.

It's magical thinking starts to get ... ambiguous. Some use the word to mean things like spirits being real substances and that independently of matter (though in man not independently of a connexion to matter), some use it to mean things like "I don't get what he did, therefore he's a sorcerer" and there is a very wide range of other statements between the two.

Now, you did it again, though thanks for limiting with "your methodology" and "here" ... calling out "delusion" or any other type of mental symptom is not debating, it's an ad hominem. And "magic thinking" doesn't objectively warrant delusional.

"Why can't the mind come from a brain state?"

Like colour can't come from a geometric shape. And before you mention geometric shapes that give colour impressions, they only do so when there is light on or through them, and colour is inherently in the light, only that colour (for instance blue) is a modification of the light due to geometrical shapes (for instance in a butterfly wing).

"Because that's what the evidence suggests. The fact that we can change someone's personality, we can affect who they are by messing with the brain suggests this. Split brain personalities show this too."

I already mentioned, in man the spirit is not independent of a connexion to matter - it's created as soul of a body that's material as well as biological, not ceasing therefore to be a spirit. And I think "colour blue from geometric shapes in butterfly wings" is a fair parallel to modified mind due to modified brain. The light is light independently of the shapes in a butterfly wing, even if it is filtered as blue by them, and the modifications modify a mind that cannot be explained by either brain nor modification.

"You want gain of information mutation?"

I actually want new function, new types of information, not just a new range of the information there is.

"Salmonella typhimurium gained a mutation which allowed it to eat d-arabinose, which Salmonella can't generally detect as food."

I looked it up. Arabinose is a complex sugar and eating simple sugars is already part of the bacterial make-up. Hence, this is an extension of range. And I suspect this might be by deleting actual information, like specifications on what the edible sugar needs to look like.

"And even Michael Behe, yes, the pseudoscientist pushing for ID agrees that it was not only gain of function, but a gain of information."

Would you like to give me a link to his statement?

"So not even the poster boy for the ID movement denies this."

I don't do "the poster boy of my movement states X, therefore I must state X" (papal definitions excepted).

ReiperX

@Hans-Georg Lundahl
"There is a problem with your epistemology - you presume without evidence that "magic did it" is an always invalid response."
Thank you for showing that your entire position, your entire epistemology , is irrational. You literally believe in magic.

And yeah, I reject magic did it until have good evidence that magic is even possible.

You might as well be saying invisible pixies did it. But, at least you show why nobody should take you seriously there magic man.

"Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview."

Can't actually form a coherent argument, so you have to pretend I'm a commie, your slipping Hans. You went from someone who actually tried to "oh you're a commie." Really, grow up dude.

And science has again and again been shown to be the best method to learn about the world around us. It is what got us to the moon, its what created vaccines, its the reason we can communicate across the globe nearly instantly. It produces real results. What do you have that magic has done that you can demonstrate? If you can show magic is even possible, then perhaps I'll take claims of magic did it seriously.

"I already mentioned, in man the spirit is not independent of a connexion to matter - it's created as soul of a body that's material as well as biological, not ceasing therefore to be a spirit. And I think "colour blue from geometric shapes in butterfly wings" is a fair parallel to modified mind due to modified brain. The light is light independently of the shapes in a butterfly wing, even if it is filtered as blue by them, and the modifications modify a mind that cannot be explained by either brain nor modification."

No, you made a bold assed assertion contrary to all of the evidence. BTW, don't pretend to critique my spelling if you are going to put up typos. It makes you look bad.

"I looked it up. Arabinose is a complex sugar and eating simple sugars is already part of the bacterial make-up. Hence, this is an extension of range. And I suspect this might be by deleting actual information, like specifications on what the edible sugar needs to look like."

How dishonest can you get Hans. I'm done with you. I give you exactly what you asked for, and now you move the goal posts. You're entirely too dishonest to have a conversation with.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@ReiperX "Thank you for showing that your entire position, your entire epistemology , is irrational. You literally believe in magic."

You have not shown that what you call magic is irrational.

"And yeah, I reject magic did it until have good evidence that magic is even possible."

Most basic definition of it is: mind directly controls matter. Happens when your mind choses the letters you use on the keyboard.

"You might as well be saying invisible pixies did it."

On some items, perhaps they did.

"But, at least you show why nobody should take you seriously there magic man."

Meaning "nobody" in your circles.

// "Not remotely science isn't all that bad, just thank you for showing that you are once again confusing (Commie style!) reality with science and materialism with both. And again, you are stating a credal fact within your worldview." //

"Can't actually form a coherent argument,"

Let me break the coherence down for you.

The supposed insult "not remotely science" isn't all that bad as a comment.

It shows that you are confusing reality with science and materialism with both. And this is very typical for the Commie worldview.

"so you have to pretend I'm a commie,"

You are possibly an Anti-Communist in "politics" (except education) and in economic theory. Confusing science, reality and materialism is the exact thing that Commies put to perfection when it comes to worldview issues. I didn't say "you are a Commie" but I said what you were doing is Commie style.

"your slipping Hans."

Not the least.

"You went from someone who actually tried to "oh you're a commie." Really, grow up dude."

Using politicised psychiatry to combat actual Christianity is in fact a Commie invention. It is typical for the KGB boss who acceeded or ceased to head KGB (I forget which) in 1974. And since you used psychiatric language, very inapprorpiately for what was supposed to be a debate, you showed your family resemblance with Communism. I never said it was more than hat.

"And science has again and again been shown to be the best method to learn about the world around us."

You are using science in a very broad sense of "the world around us" in a very narrow one.

"It is what got us to the moon,"

As if that did us any good ...

"its what created vaccines,"

And abused fetal tissue for some of them, taken from aborted babies.

And a pro-vaxxer just admitted the Pfizer deaths in France are 380 sth and the Astra-Zeneca deaths are 44.

"its the reason we can communicate across the globe nearly instantly."

Two edged. I get to deal with people like you ...

"It produces real results. What do you have that magic has done that you can demonstrate? If you can show magic is even possible, then perhaps I'll take claims of magic did it seriously."

Now you are shifting the question from "magic" as in magical thinking to "magic" as in "magic as a technique" ... two different issues.

"No, you made a bold assed assertion contrary to all of the evidence."

You presented no evidence contrary to the "bold assertion".

"BTW, don't pretend to critique my spelling if you are going to put up typos. It makes you look bad."

What "typo" are you talking about? Btw, your bad spelling of descent was a repeat offense.

"How dishonest can you get Hans. I'm done with you. I give you exactly what you asked for, and now you move the goal posts. You're entirely too dishonest to have a conversation with."

Is that a promise?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson Would you like to tell ReiperX, I blocked him?

Shane Wilson

@ReiperX apparently you hurt Hans's feelings by evicerating him in the comments and he has run home to cry, and blocked you.

So no idea if you'll see his reply or not. But he's also an antivaxxer too. So you aren't going to be missing out on any remotely intellectual conversations.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl ID has no predictive power. It isn't science. Its why it is laughed at by real scientists.

But since you already apparently outed yourself as someone who literally believes in magic, and is an anti-vaxxer, you've shown your cards on why you, just like Ken Ham, are a joke.

ReiperX

@Shane Wilson I have to say, I am surprised he's an antivaxer. He started off sounding like he might know what he's talking about, but man did he go straight into looney-ville fast.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson And being compared to Ken Ham is such a horror ... ;) or not.

Predictive power doesn't equal science, and "real scientists" who laugh are not doing either real science or real debate.

Besides, ID may be philosophy rather than strictly science, it is either way a very good such, and the alternative, "common descent from beings with no organs or cognitive capacities" doesn't explain better, but much worse, and would predict things that haven't been found, such as arising of new functions observable in real time.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson I'm sorry the blocking did not stop ReiperX from continuing a conversation with you. AND to do so visibly to me.

ReiperX didn't remotely eviscerate me, it's sc, not c, and I didn't run home to cry.

Shane Wilson

@Hans-Georg Lundahl No, ID isn't philosophy. But if you want to call it a philosophy, cool I guess. But it isn't even a sound philosophy because the arguments don't follow.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

@Shane Wilson You have failed to show a gap between my arguments and my conclusion so far.