The biggest proof for creation is the complexity of life and the lack of evidence for evolution. It is very improbable and basically impossible for life to happen by chance. For example:

"There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 minutes in 2 billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.. In order to evolve that many connections, evolution must produce by sheer accident approximately one organized, perfected, in place and fully functional connections every minute for 2 billion years* (the amount of time that evolutionary science claims for the existence of life)."

There is no proof for evolution beyond micro evolution which creationists don't have a problem with. Ex. dogs come from dogs, cats from cats, etc...
Evolution takes a religious leap of faith from saying micro evolution proves: macro evolution, organic evolution, stellar evolution, chemical evolution, and cosmic evolution, none of which have been proved or even observed.
Creation has never been disproven and for starters, just observing the complexity of life proves it.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by ppkjjkpp
"There are 1,051,200,000,000,000 minutes in 2 billion years and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000 connections in the brain.. In order to evolve that many connections, evolution must produce by sheer accident approximately one organized, perfected, in place and fully functional connections every minute for 2 billion years*

What if we had 100,000 individuals all producing multiple connections in the brain at the same time with each generation? Creationists tend to have a very poor grasp of probability and statistics, along with evolutionary biology.

You are really talking about a single organism picking up a new connection each generation. Not at all like the real-world situation which has large populations evolving, swapping genes over time. Why would it only be one connection per generation? Why wouldn't a mutation occur that results in 1000 new neurons each producing 1000 new connections? Why not 1 billion new neurons each with 1000 new connections? What would stop this?

Indeed, it is estimated that other great apes have about about 7 billion neurons, humans have about 30 billion neurons. Thus we have almost a quadrupling in a few million years. We are already finding the genes underpinning this development.

Evolution of primary microcephaly genes and the enlargement of primate brains.
Curr Opin Genet Dev, 15(3):241-8.

Abstract
Brain size, in relation to body size, has varied markedly during the evolution of mammals. In particular, a large cerebral cortex is a feature that distinguishes humans from our fellow primates. Such anatomical changes must have a basis in genetic alterations, but the molecular processes involved have yet to be defined. However, recent advances from the cloning of two human disease genes promise to make inroads in this important area. Microcephalin (MCPH1) and Abnormal spindle-like microcephaly associated (ASPM) are genes mutated in primary microcephaly, a human neurodevelopmental disorder. In this 'atavistic' condition, brain size is reduced in volume to a size comparable with that of early hominids. Hence, it has been proposed that these genes evolved adaptively with increasing primate brain size. Subsequent studies have lent weight to this hypothesis by showing that both genes have undergone positive selection during great ape evolution. Further functional characterisation of their proteins will contribute to an understanding of the molecular and evolutionary processes that have determined human brain size.

Moroever, evolution is not 'sheer accident'. It wouldn't be an accident that a small nematode-like worm with 100 neurons might well be more successful than another individual with 50 neurons.

We can see the evolutionary progression of the brain just by comparing species, with phylogentically old regions being 'built' upon over time.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

You don't see the evidence eh? have you looked around? you should go see the show where they show the human body, it's a tour-museum type called bodies. the human body alone is all you need to know that there was a creator. it's like making a car, do you need to see someone build the car to know it was created? the same with the human body, it's perfect, it has organs that do different things, brain funtions. nerves. muscles. and it's all organic. Now please do you think that evolution can do that? no way..evolution can only change what has already been there..

Originally posted by Heronumber0
I take your assertion and agree with it to a point. However, the paper you cited is about the rate of mutation in pseudogenes and I would criticise that study because much of the change in pseudogene sequences may be neutral anyway.

I think this is just a method of assessing mutation rate. These areas are unconstrained, so are the best method of giving an estimate of the true rate of mutation in the genome. The 3 deleterious mutations is actually a bit higher than previous estimations.

In fact one of the diseases - beta thalassaemia, is caused by a single base pair substitution:

Aye, and being a mere carrier of these genes may actually be beneficial in particular environments. I don't doubt that people suffer from negative mutations, I actually stated this earlier. But the chances are very high that we all have numerous mutations in our genome, most being pretty innocuous - well I hope mine are...

1. Is there an obvious link between cholesterol levels and heart disease. Some investigators disagree with this simple association, certainly in middle-aged men in London, if not elewhere:

OK, I know some people question this, but are you saying that clogged arteries are nothing to worry about, and that protection against this is not beneficial? This is what this mutation appears to be protecting against. Moroever, I pointed out more than one mutation earlier, so I don't see what the point of this is, unless it's an obscuration. One study using an APO-milano derived therapy appeared to have positive effects.

The requirement was to point out beneficial mutations, I did so. even if you want to doubt the protection provided by APO-milano, others are still outstanding. Moreover, I can find more if need be.

2. To successfully spread this gene, the carriers of Apo AI Milano would have to be sexually active up to middle age and have a significant number of progeny. Europeans do not seem to fall into this categorisation.
Also, I think, from the paper, that this is a rare variant found in one family, so it is not widespread at the moment anyway.

Heh, if we have more males producing babies at age 40-60 (which they can) in one group of people, then over time, this would have an effect. And there are many men producing babies at this age, indeed, many people are holding off having sprogs until later in their lives (given mostly educated middle-class - you'd have to watch the film 'Idiocracy' to see how these genes may help - j/k). Moroever, the point earlier was to show a beneficial mutation, and this is generally accepted as being one, despite possible obscuration.

I had to be exposed to the TV Hogmanay celebrations with kilted men full of whiskey throwing themselves around a room shouting Wheeuch! and Och Aye! at each other to the accompaniment of the bagpipes - still, we can't all have everything can we?

Heh, sounds painful. If I'm at home, I tend to watch Jools Holland new year, but a nice surprise from RH this year.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by melatonin

Aye, and being a mere carrier of these genes may actually be beneficial in particular environments. I don't doubt that people suffer from negative mutations, I actually stated this earlier. But the chances are very high that we all have numerous mutations in our genome, most being pretty innocuous - well I hope mine are...

As I mentioned earlier, I am willing to agree that there are many neutral mutations in the genome (up to over a hundred mentioned by the paper) which may be neutral. However, we disagree at the point where a disease exerts an effect on the phenotype of the individual. That individual can be at a survival disadvantage, for example in cystic fibrosis or Huntington's disease. The important effect of mutations would be on their environment in terms of the spread of their genes to confer slective advantages on people. This is the purpose of mutation in a Darwinian sense surely?

OK, I know some people question this, but are you saying that clogged arteries are nothing to worry about, and that protection against this is not beneficial? This is what this mutation appears to be protecting against. Moroever, I pointed out more than one mutation earlier, so I don't see what the point of this is, unless it's an obscuration. One study using an APO-milano derived therapy appeared to have positive effects.

I am not trying to obscure or obfuscate. I am trying to make the point that sometimes a single base change in the DNA can lead to debilitating disease. Look, I cannot see the possible advantages of the vast number of genetic diseases to survival. My other main point which I would stress is that there are many more genetic diseases in humans with negative effects than those variations with positive effects.

As regards the cholesterol controversy - people with low cholesterol have shown to have relatively high rates of ischaemic heart disease. However, I believe that the ratio of HDL to LDL is much more important to survival, is it not? I did not get a chance to read the whole paper on APO milano so you can inform me if HDL and LDL ratios were taken into account.

The requirement was to point out beneficial mutations, I did so. even if you want to doubt the protection provided by APO-milano, others are still outstanding. Moreover, I can find more if need be.

I have found about 7 beneficial mutations but many more non-beneficial mutations as stated above.

I think, let's return to the OP at this point because DNA is so important. I think that Creationists looking at an empirically examinable molecule can point to DNA as a computer of information that can generate all living organisms due to its information carrying capacity. I would foresee future debates around this ubiquitous macromolecule.

So good, posted twice.

Forum's been a bit iffy for a day or so, sooooooo slow.

[edit on 1-1-2008 by melatonin]

[edit on 1-1-2008 by ppkjjkpp]

Originally posted by jedimiller
You don't see the evidence eh? have you looked around? you should go see the show where they show the human body, it's a tour-museum type called bodies. the human body alone is all you need to know that there was a creator. it's like making a car, do you need to see someone build the car to know it was created? the same with the human body, it's perfect, it has organs that do different things, brain funtions. nerves. muscles. and it's all organic. Now please do you think that evolution can do that? no way..evolution can only change what has already been there..

I think our genetic code has the ability to "adapt" to changes/triggers from the environment, but to "evolve" from a single cell into a full blown human is insane, in my opinion. The changes or evolution we see is nothing more than the learning process of the Elohim, as they began with creating simple things (single cell organisms), learning, tweaking, creating something a bit more complex, learning, tweaking, creating something a bit more complex, etc.